I don’t think he was basing it solely on the Doper reaction to that point. I’m just saying that Doper reaction to that point would not give pause to someone whose natural reaction was that the assertion was obviously nuts.
YMMV, we’ll have to agree to disagree, and all that jazz. I don’t argue with people that say “IMO the moderators should be nicer”. I argue with the people that say “the moderators say stuff to us that they wouldn’t allow us to say to them.”
And I think the point is that it’s inappropriate for a mod to classify a theory as such when they’re simultaneously making it clear that anybody who responds to such a dismissal in the same thread will be going against moderator instructions, which is a rules infraction that can garner anything from a note to a warning to a ban.
Speaking personally, I think things would be a lot more comfortable all around here if:
a) Mods could snark at us in an official capacity when they think we’re being fucking retarded; and
b) We could Pit them when we think they’re being fucking retarded.
Win/win.
Do you think there is a difference between “snark” and “pit”?
If so, what is it?
The one that gets to say “this thread is obscenely dumb” when they’re locking it is locking the thread. The one that gets to say “you were obscenely dumb for locking the thread” has no power but the ability to walk away from the forum.
I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of mods being able to Pit members, either, FWIW.
Fair’s fair, SFG. Mods are mods because they never make inappropriate remarks, and when they do, they need love, not criticism–their jobs are SOOOO demanding, if were allowed to criticize their mistakes, they would just melt away.
Also, the majority is, by definition, always right. Quitcher bitchin’, awready, wouldja? Get in line–that’s what a messageboard is all about.
Yes. I will pay anyone who emails me, $.10 on demand. You don’t even need a reason. Just ask, then stand by your mailbox, and wait for the dimes to roll in.
Unfortunately it will cost you 54¢, plus an envelope, to meet each individual request. It’s clearly in your interest to combine transactions. For your convenience, you may send me $50 all at once, thereby saving about $220!
Not gonna happen. They won’t make me a mod because they are afraid I will be mean to people, and I’m a helluva lot nicer than you…or several current and former mods. 
The question is whether mods have license to be obnoxious or personal or gratuitously snarky while performing their official duties. Obviously, you think it’s just fine–another small perk of a thankless task-- while I see it as creating more problems while gaining no real advantage over civility and a pleasant atmosphere. And since TPTB agree with you, Arnold, your side wins. I just think it stinks on ice.
Why does a mod need to tell people to knock it off, as opposed to ASKING people to open a new thread, or take this discussion to the Pit? Twickster and Tom seem to get some special charge out of being snarky and bossy and dismissive and superior and officious and smug and nasty while Modding, and they certainly get people more riled up while being no more effective (and I would argue less so) than, say, G-factor, whose trademark neutral tone (accompanied by “No warning issued”) usually gets the effect he wants, no muss, no fuss, no 5-page ATMB threads asking WTF is going on here.
If you really, really need that extra-snarkiness, though, it seems you need to allow a place for Mods to get pitted, which as **SFG **suggests, is preferable to this present rancorous atmosphere of resentment against the Mods for their official actions with no place to put the rancor.
I’ve got a lot of reporting to do.
And the posters have license to be obnoxious or personal or gratuitously snarky in ATMB while disputing the way the moderators perform their duties. See your post 24 in this thread.
What I think is that it would be better off if everyone refrained from that behaviour, but I also notice that the posters complaining the most about the moderators being gratuitously insulting and/or thin-skinned are almost always the posters that suffer from those same defects of character, so the irony amuses me.
I was here back when you were allowed to pit moderators. Some of our moderators would be insulting in their thread closures, and we had complaints to the tune of “why is it that mod X can insult me when closing a thread in GQ, isn’t that against the rules?” and “that’s not professional”. The fact that you could yell at a moderator in another forum was not seen as being fair, because you could not reply in kind in the same forum where the moderator had been mean to you. There was plenty of resentment against the moderators back in those days too.
I haven’t noticed any difference between the days when mods could get Pitted (only about two years ago) and today. Except for less cursing. As I have personally shown within the last few days, it is possible to strongly critizise a moderator in this forum without getting warned.
Your complaint, in this thread, is failing to gain traction, and I can’t imagine why you think that it would do any better in the Pit.
Sez you.
I would enjoy it more.
But that’s just me. What I’m really talking about here is the snarkiness Mods enjoy WHEN ACTING AS MODS. If they want to express their personal opinions as posters, they may do so any time, subject to the same protections, rules, restrictions, etc. as anyone else but NOOOO, they have to hide behind the skirts of their Modhood and confuse their personal opinions with their official ones (deliberately, I think) and claim that people who differ with their personal positions are violating the rules.
Again, had **Tom **expressed his opinion of my poll about McCain in the poll, as a poster, I wouldn’t have said a word, and I can’t see a reason he needed to label it “truly dumb” while he was supposedly moderating the original forum.
I tried the idea that snark is funny (at least in the original poster’s mind), while pitting is not, but I was told that snark can be not funny. But, seeing as throwing in a personal insult is not required from a pitting–as you so graciously punished me for–the difference seems to be completely gone.
But, honestly, most of the snarkiness/insults have fallen off since we’ve gotten this current batch of moderators. Heck, most of them work almost entirely in the backgrounds, and are true professionals. We do have to watch for one who will mod based on whether they agree with the comment, and will get upset if you point out that it was unfair, but, other than that, we’re doing great.
And I’m sure it will stay that way as long as mods continue to get feedback every time they cross the line.
Most places, mods indicate when they are modding, as in ‘Moderating Mode’, unless that is obviously redundant. Even if they don’t most people can tell which is which.
At a place I mod, we have virtually no censorship of thought; yet we don’t bother with warnings much: the first anyone knows he has caused annoyance is when he sees the Ban Screen. Warnings are for wimps.
Added to which madmins have free discretion to ban anyone they want without explanation. The only rule being that all madmins must back up other madmin’s decisions whether or not they agree with them.
Does that mean madmins are sacrosanct and form a clique ? Not really: because being a mod or admin is not a privilege or award, but a dispassionately performed job.
Would that work here ? Not at all. I really feel the SDMB modding seems generally fair and efficient. What people forget is that continued modding can get tiresome.
In that place members are encouraged to think of mods as their friends.
To hurt a friend is worse than hurting an enemy: and not good for your health.
Or, you know, people who can appreciate ambiguity, honest mistakes, and the occasional slip-up.