Tequila Party - To be outraged at a (questionably funny) sophomoric comment by a poster in a thread about a completely immature sorority ‘leader’ spewing a massive load of utterly sexist vile crap and then tattling to the teacher is not an example of maturity.
A mature person would simply roll their eyes and move on.
To base a rule change/new method of rule enforcement on said tattle-taleing is even sillier.
I answered this already. I understand you don’t agree, but I don’t see what you’re hoping to accomplish by asking me to explain it again.
None of this appears to be what they are doing. Instead, their actions seem to be in response to an underlying culture of misogyny that the female participants of this board have already been rolling their eyes at for some time.
Is it possible this specific incident didn’t completely accomplish the stated recent goals as intended? Perhaps, but I did notice that what took place was nothing more than a moderator “note.” As I understand, that’s pretty minor in the pantheon of punishments in their arsenal. I can’t imagine anyone getting upset at such a slight admonishment.
Hmm, yeah… yeah. I guess that’s a dilly of a pickle.
I’m glad that we’re striving to no longer deal with dating threads being hijacked by the same chorus angry misogynists, as if on cue, crying that women are irrational, and that bra threads will no longer be interrupted by boobs requests, but I read the posts in that thread and thought of the mod note, “Oh, come on.” I thought the jokes were funny and harmless. But I guess you’re right – attempts to curb misogynistic hijacks will have some misfires, and we all know by now what happens when there’s a misfire. So while I don’t think there was a need for the note, I understand the point of view, and appreciate that there was no warning issued and the desire to nip threadshittery in the bud. But yeah, this a pretty shitty position to be in. Attempts to moderate useless misogyny are A-OK with me but may lead to some overcautious notes, which will lead to some hurt butts, which will lead to endless teeth-grinding about the “new rules,” and if you don’t moderate it, blah blah blah.
Sucks. But I dunno, if it were up to me (and it isn’t, thank God), I pretty much wouldn’t moderate anything unless it was just pointlessly misogynistic. “Okay, so what does that mean, exactly?” you may ask. Hmm, I’ll get back to you on that. So this post offers no real advice or insight. I’ll be here all week.
Deleted - Sorry, meant for this to be a new thread.
How does this post figure into the “paradigm shift”? Or this one from the sorority girl thread?
Yeah I figured this would turn into “let’s find anything we can possibly bring up that is sexual in any way towards men”. Way to miss the fucking point, guys.
Are either of those posts directed toward a poster here? That might answer your question, Oak.
Nope…but neither was the post that prompted this thread.
And I don’t think the post should have been moderated. That’s no excuse for your game.
I make it a general practice not to questions the Mods. After all, you can’t have a moderated board without modding. However, having read the OP and the comments that followed, I agree with others that Ellen Cherry was wrong, and Marley’s defense is even more wrong.
The entire thread was “jokey by nature.” The entire thread had “sexual commentary.” And frankly, I found the whole thing quite funny.
I’m looking forward to the day, which I feel will come quite soon, where “Obama (or Bush, Cheney, Christians, atheists, or whatever) is a dick” will be an unacceptable political comment because of its clearly phallic nature.
No you didn’t. You gave a condescending non-answer, and are continuing to do so.
What if those ideas and beliefs and prejudices and beliefs include demeaning women, as they do for many people? You’re left with an unenforceable set of guidelines where telling a woman to “Shut up and make me a sandwich” is out, whereas citing, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . .” (Ephesians 5:22–23) is apparently OK. You’ve opened a Pandora’s Box with this one, and no mistake.
Damn. The mods make a good decision to crack down more on misogyny, and one of the first posts they choose is a clear joke that I took to be a comment on the misogyny in the sorority girl’s rant. Where’s that facepalm smiley gone?
And Happy Lendevedder is right - it gives no clue as to what acceptable behaviour is here now.
Is there a difference between giving someone a warning and saying “I’m giving you a warning?” Because that’s what you said.
That’s a genuine question. You highlight stuff and put it in a separate line, or something, if it’s an official warning, right? Something like that? But I can see how your phrasing could look like it was a warning.
This post was supposed to be in a different forum. Sorry.
Re-calibrating moderation is tricky, so I’m glad it was just a mod note that was laid down. That’s the proper way to phase things in.
That said, since neither** ladyfoxfyre** nor MeanOldLady agree with the moderating decision, I think it’s fair to say that it was misguided. My opinion? My opinion is that I don’t care: calibrate the board as you wish: as long as you’re not handing out surprise bannings, I’m ok. I can adapt.
Anyway, what I gather is that you can use coarse language- up to a point - but coarse language directed at the genitalia or secondary sex characteristics of existing posters will be held to additional forum-appropriate scrutiny. (Jeez, were these members raised in barns?)
Well I’m glad to see we’re getting consistent. Saying, tongue-in-cheek, that you find something the opposite sex does turns you on=bad. Embracing the term “cunt punt” and implying sorority girls are prostitutes=ok.
Do I have this straight? Is this the consistency we’re hoping to embrace?
And can someone please clarify which scenarios I put forth in post 13 would pass without moderation.
I wrote in the other thread: The mods walked right into this one, and now they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Here’s something they can do now, which they haven’t done (unless I missed it among all the flak), that might bring some clarity:
Tell us how you would have reacted (or not) to these two threads, one of which was dredged up from antiquity, had your new-found modding sensibilities been in effect at the time:
(1)
[ul]
[li] OP laments stained shirt, which previously was a good shirt because it went well with her “amazing boobs” (OP’s actual words).[/li][li] Cue the “Boob pix!” right on schedule![/li][li] OP responds with expressions of much annoyance at that.[/li][li] Shit-storm ensues.[/li][li] Most posters pile on the OP for saying “amazing boobs” then getting pissy.[/li][/ul]
How sayeth the mods of that, in retrospect, knowing what you do now?
(2)
[ul]
[li] Recent thread: OP asks medical advice about her swollen boobs. (Yes, OP used the word “boobs”.)[/li][li] Cue the “Boob pix!” right on schedule![/li][li] Most subsequent posts, being from mature female posters, ignore that and discuss the OP’s actual request.[/li][li] Shit-storm ensues elsewhere, in ATMB and Pit. This thread gets mentioned, of course.[/li][/ul]
How sayeth the mods of that, in retrospect, knowing what you do now?
Would you mod that now? (In fact, did you mod that? I don’t know, as I didn’t follow that thread.)
As others have opined, the cases are very different. (Well, some seem to think so.) Where are the mods on this now?
This is the most troubling proposal yet. I wasn’t aware that ladyfoxfyre and MOL have been given veto power over moderator action. I don’t know why you would, ahem, privilege them by name over all the many other posters in this thread who also registered their disagreement. “That’s great, folks, but you know we need to wait to hear from ladyfoxfyre and MeanOldLady before deciding what to do.”
Are you suggesting that moderator decisions are now being issued in an effort to propitiate popular posters, rather than being based on established rules or new rules implemented in the best interests of the board and applied using independent judgment (not subject to consultation with non-moderator posters)? Not that I think this is necessarily incorrect, but it is startling to see it advanced so openly.
I think all most of them are saying is “seriously, even Ted Bundy thinks this murder is fucked up.” Not to imply MOL, ladyfoxfire, or colander are bad people of course. People are just saying that if the posters who led the crusade to get misogyny moderated think you’re going too far, you’ve probably miscalibrated your radar. Mods make mistakes, that’s part of why we have this forum.