I’d have posted this in the original thread but didn’t want to risk a warning.
Shhhhhhhhhhhh…They are watching.
Always has been. We just didn’t talk about it.
This is not something new.
From the front page
I’ve issued warnings for complaints about moderation in GQ.
I note that you didn’t link to the actual post that received the warning:
This was not just casually mentioning ATMB issues in the Pit, this was a blatant complaint about moderation there. PlainJain is well aware of the rules. Regardless of the complaint, it clearly belonged in ATMB and not the Pit.
Moderator Instructions
This is not a thread to re-argue the original issues, or to further debate the policy of confining discussion of moderation to ATMB (of which we have several recent threads). If it veers too far in that direction it may be closed.
Discussion of moderator actions in the Pit have not been allowed for as long as I’ve been a moderator there. PlainJain continued to discuss a moderator action, despite having just been warned about doing it, so I gave her a further mod note making it clear that she needed to drop the subject entirely.
What part of this is confusing you, Skywatcher?
That’s because I’m not questioning the warning. I’m questioning that specific response to an ATMB link.
All I saw after the warning was contrition and a link to ATMB in response to someone’s question, not any attempt to continue discussing something where it didn’t belong. It’s like this Czarcasm business has spread the “assume the worst” mentality that has been increasing in the general population to the staff. That is not a good direction to be heading, unless you guys are trying to encourage activity on snarkboards.
Miller gave PlainJain a note, that is, a reminder, not to continue to talk about ATMB issues in the Pit. He didn’t give her an additional warning. The warning was for the post I quoted, which was clearly a complaint about moderation.
I seriously fail to see why you think a reminder (not a warning) not to talk about ATMB in the Pit was out of place as a response to a link to an ATMB thread, especially after the poster in question had knowingly violated the rules in a previous post.
[QUOTE=Skywatcher]
It’s like this Czarcasm business has spread the “assume the worst” mentality that has been increasing in the general population to the staff.
[/QUOTE]
I could equally well say that your complaint appears to be assuming the worst about the moderation staff.
You don’t see what’s confusing? Colibri says “This was not just casually mentioning ATMB issues in the Pit, this was a blatant complaint about moderation there.”
Comes now Miller saying “Discussion of moderator actions in the Pit have not been allowed for as long as I’ve been a moderator there. PlainJain continued to discuss a moderator action, . . .” Her second post about that made her displeasure clear, but didn’t actually state a complaint, other than to link to a recent past thread in ATMB.
So we’re not even allowed to do that any more? Casual mention of moderation issues? Okay or not okay?
Are we no longer even allowed to mention the existence of a problem with moderation in ATMB, even if it involves little more than a link to an ATMB thread?
Where’s my warning for Post #104? I mentioned something about moderation (and Czarcasm too). I’m feeling neglected.
Yeah, me am confuzd.
Yes, and the link was only posted to further explain the nature of her complaint. I wanted to make sure that her original complaint did not become a topic of conversation in that thread, so I told her to drop the subject. This is not a blanket ban on any mention of ATMB in the Pit.
Does that clear things up at all?