# Why won't TubaDiva or Czarscasm address these 2 questions? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 8, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964 "2011-08-08T17:21:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/41 "2011-08-12T11:06:04Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > And you all totally need to drop the Or the or the shit. The administration is under exactly ZERO obligation to explain why the warning stands. And they have no obligation to withdraw a warning simply because you keep bitching about it[sup]\*[/sup]. _And_ they shouldn’t have to “man up and admit it” solely because it’s what you think should happen. > > … > > The fucking horse is dead. Stop beating it. Got it, amdins don’t need to respond to posters, but posters need to follow your demands. That makes sense. Thanks for the junior modding. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/42 "2011-08-12T11:33:13Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#): > > Reposting TubaDiva’s last post in my original ATMB thread, since it’s still locked and I only just noticed the update. It’s relevant (bolding mine). > The warnings will stand? Why? Again, I didn’t break moderator instructions with [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14097195&postcount=68) in the avatars thread in IMHO. > > What part of my post is debate? Please speak in words of fewer than one syllable. Pretend I’m a retard, if it helps. > > I want Czar to man the hell up and admit that he had a shitty day and made a shitty decision. Or I want one of the other mods to do the right fucking thing and rescind my warning. This isn’t going to go away if you ignore us hard enough. You were warned for refusing to keep the debate in the ATMB thread, where **Czarcasm** had instructed you it belonged. I’ll try it in words of one syllable. You put a post in the first thread. Your post in new thread said the same as your post in the first thread. **Czar** had told you, and all, to keep it in the first thread. You did not do this. Mod slap. Clear? ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/43 "2011-08-12T11:49:00Z")
What would we do without **Superdude** who’s taken it upon himself to ride in, save the day, helping guide us on how to keep things in a proper perspective. :rolleyes: Superdude, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/44 "2011-08-12T11:51:43Z")
Oh, and now we have another one. But you’re not going to become famous, mr. so and so! And besides, we only need one Superdude. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/45 "2011-08-12T14:38:10Z")
Wow…lame insults. What would we do without **the lone cashew** , whose sole _raison d’etre_ seems to be arbiter of what opinions others are supposed to have, and whether they can articulate those opinions? Seems you’re all for opinions, but only when they agree with your position. Oh, and **Darth Panda**? It wasn’t a demand. it was a suggestion, albeit one that I can see you have zero interest in following. I was merely pointing out that TPTB has explained themselves (as have several posters), and don’t have to explain themselves any further. The admins DID respond to you. It’s not their fault that you didn’t like the answers. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/46 "2011-08-12T14:39:01Z")
What we clearly need is a thread demanding to know why **Superdude** is entitled to junior-mod with impunity, and then three subsequent threads demanding to know why the question remains unanswered. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/47 "2011-08-12T14:44:08Z")
**Tuba** and **Czar** pretty clearly aren’t going to come back and answer those questions. Some mods tend to just ignore these types of threads when they are tired of dealing with a subject. It would probably be better if they’d say, “I’m not interested in discussing this anymore,” but effectively that’s what they’ve done. Eventually this thread will drop into oblivion or another Mod will use an excuse like “this thread is now just a bunch of hijacks” to lock it. ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/48 "2011-08-12T14:45:37Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > What we clearly need is a thread demanding to know why **Superdude** is entitled to junior-mod with impunity, and then three subsequent threads demanding to know why the question remains unanswered. And now I cannot stop laughing at this post… ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/49 "2011-08-12T15:35:54Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Oh, and **Darth Panda**? It wasn’t a demand. it was a suggestion, albeit one that I can see you have zero interest in following. I was merely pointing out that TPTB has explained themselves (as have several posters), and don’t have to explain themselves any further. The admins DID respond to you. It’s not their fault that you didn’t like the answers. It was stated like a demand. I’m glad to know it was only a suggestion. I think I’ll ignore it. As to the moderators respodning to me - I’d like to see where you think they did that. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/50 "2011-08-12T16:40:16Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Although I don’t _always_ agree with him, **Irishman** strikes me as being someone who would make an excellent moderator. You’re not the first one to say that. Fortunately, so far they’re only making requests - nobody has showed up with leg irons yet. With regards to the OP, here are what I think the answers seem to be 1. The intent of the moderator instruction was to cease all debate/discussion in the poll thread, because the point of the thread was to create a poll, and continue the debate discussion in the ATMB thread. By people continuing to post rationale/discussion/comments in the thread, they were violating the intent of the instruction. Now I understand that is logic not everyone agrees with. I also understand that limiting the thread to just a poll without discussion is being objected to. And I understand that the instruction as given doesn’t necessarily state as clearly as it could what would and would not be allowed. I even understand that various posters did not see the moderator instruction because they post to polls without reading the thread. Those are all points of contention about this moderation event. But the above is my summary of how the mods seem to be interpreting the mod event. 1. Some warnings were given because _any_ comments were taken as violation of the mod instruction. Then the hue and cry went up, the mods started discussing in the mod loop, and so the mods stopped enforcing violations of that injunction while the topic was debated. When the resolution was reached in the mod loop, it was decided to close the thread rather than leave it open because the instruction was so far from standard practice and essentially unenforceable. However, the warnings that had already been given for violating the mod instruction were let stand, largely on the justification that any individual Warning is not a huge thing. They evaluate a string of Warnings to look for repeated bad behavior - whether the same thing over and over, or a pattern of causing trouble in general. But having 1 Warning on your record isn’t significant of anything. Again, that’s my personal guess as to the explanations at play. That is the way I read the post by **TubaDiva**. I don’t think you’re going to get additional clarification. My question for everyone - has any of these warnings led to further moderator review of these posters? None of the four has been banned. Have any of them received comments that their posting privileges are under review? Any reason to think this has had a significant effect on any of them? Or is the protest all about the impression of fairness, without respect to actual consequences of the “punishment”? ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/51 "2011-08-12T16:46:20Z")
What I’m confused about - and what no-one has, as far as I can tell, - responded to, is: has the rule about not commenting/debating/ interacting/whatever in poll threads in IMHO been established? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/52 "2011-08-12T16:51:00Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > My question for everyone - has any of these warnings led to further moderator review of these posters? None of the four has been banned. Have any of them received comments that their posting privileges are under review? Any reason to think this has had a significant effect on any of them? Or is the protest all about the impression of fairness, without respect to actual consequences of the “punishment”? Well, at some point these posters may have their posting privileges reviewed. And these warnings would either affect that decision or not. If they did affect it, then these warnings have meaning and should be treated as such. If they would not affect the decision - then what would be the reason for that? Why would these particular warnings have no weight? The only logical reason for giving them no weight would be that they shouldn’t have been issued. If that were the case and they shouldn’t have been issued, then they should be rescinded. Which of course, makes intuitive sense - either they have weight and could impact someone, or they don’t and should be rescinded. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/53 "2011-08-12T17:17:33Z")
One warning is the difference between a ban and a not-ban later on. If they’re insignificant, then they wouldn’t be issued in the first place. Either the modding in that thread was unreasonable, and all the warnings should be rescinded. Or, the modding in that thread was reasonable, and all the violators after the first 4 should also get warnings. You can’t have it both ways without broadcasting hypocrisy, and I have no faith in hypocritical mod decisions. I mean, you guys may not care about losing one pain-in-the-ass poster, but this whole stupid fucking debacle is driving me to other forums more and more over yours. Make the right decision. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/54 "2011-08-12T17:18:04Z")
Generally, you have to have a few warnings in a relatively short amount of time in order to be suspended or banned. These particular warnings are so far out in left field that those who got them probably won’t be getting any more so it is, in effect, a non-issue. Furthermore, if one of them did get a few more, I doubt that those particular ones would be used against them given the controversial nature of them. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/55 "2011-08-12T17:43:14Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Furthermore, if one of them did get a few more, I doubt that those particular ones would be used against them given the controversial nature of them. Why not? From the mod point of view, they seem to be completely legit. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/56 "2011-08-12T17:47:01Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Why not? From the mod point of view, they seem to be completely legit. Not unanimously. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/57 "2011-08-12T17:48:44Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > It was stated like a demand. I’m glad to know it was only a suggestion. I think I’ll ignore it. > > As to the moderators respodning to me - I’d like to see where you think they did that. **Dex** addressed the issue in post #6. It was not addressed to you _specifically_, but it was meant for everyone. Why isn’t that good enough for you? And, as **Steophan** pointed out in post #31, > [@](#): > > You are aware that the questions have, in fact, been answered, right? The fact that you dislike the answers doesn’t compel the mods to come back with new and different ones. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/58 "2011-08-12T18:14:53Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Those are all points of contention about this moderation event. But the above is my summary of how the mods seem to be interpreting the mod event. For me, **Czarscasm’s** intent was never in question, as his actions after the Mod Note revealed. What is in question is the violation of the mod note pertaining to how he wrote it, which I did not violate. But since \*\*Czarscasm \*\*was enforcing something he didn’t say, I got warned. > [@Irishman](#): > > 1. Some warnings were given because _any_ comments were taken as violation of the mod instruction. Then the hue and cry went up, the mods started discussing in the mod loop, and so the mods stopped enforcing violations of that injunction while the topic was debated. When the resolution was reached in the mod loop, it was decided to close the thread rather than leave it open because the instruction was so far from standard practice and essentially unenforceable. However, the warnings that had already been given for violating the mod instruction were let stand, largely on the justification that any individual Warning is not a huge thing. They evaluate a string of Warnings to look for repeated bad behavior - whether the same thing over and over, or a pattern of causing trouble in general. But having 1 Warning on your record isn’t significant of anything. That’s a nice and plausible theory. Why can’t the mods be transparent about this? It’s not the warning I particularly care about anymore (and hasn’t been for a while). It’s the principal of how the mods are able to enforce rules they didn’t clearly state (and weren’t even meant to be enforced) and let them stand in light of blatant selectivism, without accountability. It’s fine if the warnings stands–I want to know mine was in violation and why they were only selectively enforced, **from their own mouths/fingers.** ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/59 "2011-08-12T18:32:49Z")
Minor point, but just to ensure that he’s not missing the thread due to a failed vanity search: the mod’s name is **Czarcasm**. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964/60 "2011-08-12T18:33:36Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > It’s fine if the warnings stands–I want to know mine was in violation and why they were only selectively enforced, **from their own mouths/fingers.** And it’s not going to happen. They’re both posting elsewhere and are aware of this thread. They don’t choose to participate anymore. Get ready for a “This thread has run its course. Closed.” In the near future. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-tubadiva-or-czarscasm-address-these-2-questions/591964.md?page=4)