I’ve asked two questions of both Czarscasm and TubaDivato absolutely no avail. Yet a single poster asks to be bannedonce and gets his wish damn near instantly.
I’m guessing TPTB wished that this whole issue would blow over. Well no, I said before I was going to start a thread on it, and here I am.
Posted nearly verbatim from at least two related threads:
1) Why was I warned when I didn’t violate the “debate” rule? 2) Why were others not warning who continued to “debate” in a very similar manner after the initial four warnings?
I would like an answer to number 1 for my own interests, but I’m sure the board at large would love to know why the rule was only selectively enforced. This isn’t just about the answers though, it’s also about making a point: hiding your dirty laundry under the bed isn’t going to make it go away.
I’m also curious as to what does this ruling means future threads, a question which has been asked by several other posters, but remains unanswered (as far as I can tell). Though I really hope I get some answers this time, it’s ridiculous that it came to this point in either case.
The answer to (1) is that you were warned for failure to heed moderator instructions.
The answer to (2) is that life is unfair. It’s probably the same reason that I got a speeding ticket when others who had been passing me, didn’t.
The answer to your unasked question: It’s only a warning. It’s not a whipping, or a fine, or being put in the public stocks. It’s the moderator saying, “Stop it!” in a voice intended to attract attention (as opposed to a mere mod note.) It’s a reminder to stop a behavior. In short: it’s NOT a big hairy deal.
He saw the instructions and didn’t and still doesn’t think that his post was in violation of those instructions. The question is: How was that post a violation of those instructions?
I was going to ask the same thing about rachelellogram’s post that got a warning.
Let’s say I wander in to a poll. I note it’s gotten a bit heated and see a mod note saying “Don’t debate it or I’ll kick y’alls in the asses”
I want to answer the poll, and want to elaborate my answer a wee bit because I want to put some qualifiers on the answer. I do not post in response to any other poster, I simply put “I voted x because y z”
Is that still worthy of a warning for disregarding moderator instructions? Does “no debate in this thread” mean you can no longer post any elaboration on the options in the original poll?
Wrong on all counts. For starters, he didn’t ask you. The point of this thread is for the offending parties to answer for their actions in person, not via proxy. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, they do not deserve to remain moderators.
And yes, it IS a BIG HAIRY DEAL when some posters get warned for conduct that other posters get away with…that’s biased moderating. Also probably an admission that Czarcasm’s invented rule and the rash of warnings irrationally derived therefrom were bullshit from the start. Same for Tuba’s kneejerk banning.
Oakminster, Red Barchetta, who the fuck cares? I mean really?
You all seem to be accusing the mods (and Dex, since he’s posted in the thread) of issuing a warning for something you don’t believe was severe enough to warrant the consequence.
In short, you’re saying that the mods in question are making mountains out of molehills. You don’t seem to realize that, by you beating this dead, dead fucking horse, you’re doing the same thing you’re getting pissed at them for doing.
Were they in the wrong? Perhaps. But, as my late father used to say, “two stupids don’t make a smart.”
I appreciate that **Marley23 **and C K Dexter Haven have been the two mod/admin’s spokespeople, but I think this problem would be sorted out rather more quickly if the two people in question spoke for themselves.
For example **TubaDiva **said that they would be looking into whether vBulletin allowed polls without posts. Does this, and Czarcasm’s rulings, actually mean that commenting isn’t allowed in polls?
Not quite. I think they’re saying the mods made an error, or were being inconsistent – this is not quite the same thing as making a mountain out of a molehill.
And even if it were, I’m sure the feeling is that now it’s becoming a mountain because it’s a matter of principle which may affect how future warnings are issued.
(I’ll admit this whole thing did sound quite whiny to me, but somehow it’s starting to get interesting as it continues…)
Except he doesn’t think he failed to heed moderator instructions. He thinks he clarified some point that was made previously, but didn’t continue debating the topic. It boils down to lack of clarity what it means to “debate” something, an unclear moderator instruction, and frankly what seems like a bad call that should have been admitted rather than defended.
That’s a really piss-poor “answer”. Sure, life is unfair, but the answer to the speeding question is that cops aren’t everywhere all the time, can’t see everyone speeding. But everyone’s post in that thread is still visible, and still a violation of the moderator instruction. So, if the first few warranted a Warning, then the others also warrant a Warning. If the later posters don’t warrant a Warning, then why do the first set? The answer seems to be that after a few Warnings dropped and it kept happening, the decision was made to just close the thread rather than warn everyone who kept violating the instruction. The warnings that had already been given were let stand because they were deemed to be violations of the mod instructions, but rather than dropping a bunch more warnings, it was decided to just let the others go.
And that’s where the unfairness arises. Plus, the disagreement over what constitutes “debating the issue” in a poll thread.
I agree that one Warning on a person’s record is not that big a deal. The big deal seems to be
a) the moderator’s decisions in that thread shut down not only argument, but all discussion, even stating opinions in more than just a poll vote. That seems incongruent with the intent of the message board to have discussions. You know how we won’t allow polls in GD specifically because we want people to “use their words”? Well, now we’re telling people not to use their words. Seems messed up.
b) uneven moderation seems to imply there was recognition that the moderation was a bad decision, and shouldn’t have been made in the first place. And if it shouldn’t have been made in the first place, then it seems rather tacky to let warnings stand that shouldn’t have been given in the first place.
Look, I think people are way overreacting to the issues, and creating way too much drama. I don’t think the temper tantrums some of these posters are throwing are helpful at all. But I do think there are some legitimate questions about the moderation of that thread and the warnings given. I think we have some real issues to work out, including
[ul]
[li]Do we want commentless polls?[/li][li]How should we handle IMHO threads/polls where debates break out? (I’m not talking GD territory, I’m talking debates about the topic in question, even if it is repeating content in another discussion elsewhere.)[/li][li]If the method of responding to polls includes a considerable number of people who don’t read before posting, how do we address moderation that is given in the thread to at least give them an indication?[/li][/ul]We’ve started threads on a couple of those issues, but some people are more wrapped up in their anger than in trying to actually answer those questions. It’s getting in the way.
NineToTheSkyMember, Mijin, Shodan ** and ** Irishman all clarified my post better than I could have.
C K Dexter Haven gave a response without actually addressing the questions. And those non-answers didn’t even come from the requested addressed parties, of whom I would expect would be most capable of explaining the actions in question.
