Thanks for the comment Marley, but could you please comment on this:
Because that’s the basis of all the recent commentary here and you seem to be, as always, ignoring it completely.
No. The 13 posts I made in that thread are all the explanation I’m giving. I think that’s plenty. And that is not “the basis of all the recent commentary here.” Maybe it’s one of the suspensions ivn1188 has in mind, but he also asks about some issues that don’t have anything to do with Sleeps With Butterflies.
Fine. Thanks for the usual non-answer.
For the record, I couldn’t give a shit less if Sleeps was suspended, banned or what. I just want to know if there was a real thinking process going on behind the scenes or not, because from here, and from what I read, it sure doesn’t seem like it in the least little bit.
Truth be told…OK, it does seem that they have been a lot more vigilant on the rules about asking for legal and medical advice. But everyone has to admit that’s been a well known and clearly defined rule for ages.
I think a positive change, although not particularly recent, is that the moderators have a wider range of options when it comes to enforcing the rules. I don’t think they had the option to suspend a poster until a couple of years ago, or at least they didn’t seem to use it. Before then there were only warnings, followed in time by bannings.
As I see it, the SDMB tries to observe a few fundamental principles which occasionally come into conflict with each other.
[ul]
[li]Maintain a forum for discussion that is as free as possible, however,[/li][li]Professional liability issues compel limitations in discussions about medicine and law, and[/li][li]Possible liability with regard to furthering unlawful behavior must be avoided[/li][li]Encourage reasoned debate, but also (presumably) encourage a “salable” character with regard to the message board. These conflict with each other, because most of us seem to be the sort of people who would gladly watch a talking-head show on TV if it’s about our own special subjects, but the masses want action and entertainment.[/li][/ul]
That’s just my take on it, but it sounds like a pretty tough job to manage this place.
Yes.
I think you’re spot-on.
There is, yes. And I think I explained it at enough length in the other thread. Like I said in my first post in this topic, though, I’m not going to reargue that suspension or any of the other ones, since most of them were already discussed in their own threads.
All the more so since it was bought out by the Sheinhardt Wig Company.
But you haven’t explained sufficiently. Lots of people since then have made other points that you have not addressed. There may be vitriol, but that’s the price you pay for not allowing people to get their anger at you out in the Pit.
If you won’t comment here, at least go back and say something in the appropriate thread.
Well at least I’m not showing any vitriol. Hell, I’m trying to be nice and semi-reasonable.
I realize people still have questions, but it’s the Straight Dope. People almost always have questions. I explained my side and our side of things and I’m not interested in spending any more time on it.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the Pit.
I haven’t posted in that thread in almost a week. I think the message was already clear. Now, like I said in my first post in this thread, I’m not rearguing this in here.
Yes you are.
So do you have a question about the topic of this thread?
Right, I forgot Lynn. But I do remember when Dexter was just a mod.
Carry on. 
For the life of me I don’t understand this point. Sure, I see what TPTB are getting at, but there are a zillion Q&A’s for medical issues on the web and obviously they’re not being sued. If all those sites have escaped such a fate (and their quality is often highly suspect), how can anyone seriously believe there’s potential liability for the Dope? It just makes no sense. And, this would seem to be especially true given the excellence of the medical help around here anyway. 
Yes. When are you going to address the last paragraph in that OP? Because sanctimonious pronouncements that you’ve ‘discussed that topic enough’ doesn’t address the fact that while you discussed it plenty, you didn’t actually answer any questions. Nor did you acknowledge that you may have misinterpreted, or that there is a possibility no matter how remote that you may have made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, even in committee. Your inability to acknowledge that, or even that an alternative opinion may be valid, most assuredly smacks of egotism bordering on narcissism.
To be honest I thought it was venting and didn’t see a real issue to address. But if you insist:
‘Don’t be a jerk’ has been the primary rule here for a long time. It’s a vague principle, but the main idea is well understood: don’t insult other posters and don’t troll. Beyond that, yes, we ask that people treat the moderators in the same half-decent way they are supposed to treat everyone else. In the case of moderating that means you can dispute any decision you want, but don’t be abusive about it. And if you think a ruling is completely moronic, go to ATMB or private messages and say so instead of ignoring it. I don’t think that’s asking very much.
I don’t consider it a thankless job. I don’t even think it’s very hard, to tell you the truth. Disputes like these are a small part of moderating, from where I sit.
It isn’t.
The board isn’t about the mods in the first place. Our job, generally, is to keep conversations moving and maintain what people like about the board. Sometimes that causes a little too much intertia and institutional conservatism for my tastes, but there you go.
Which decisions, and what harm? What is it that made you decide any particular decision came from “mod ego and adminstrator fears” rather than just a different view of a situation or the rules? I recognize that people find it frustrating when they think we’ve made a stupid decision, but that’s always been the case. I don’t think that’s changed and I don’t think there’s anything up with the staff lately.