I don’t think you’re qualified to decide that for yourself. That’s why we have mods.
Christ, don’t you realize that they’re saving you from yourself? I mean, how do you think you’d feel if you read an entire thread only to find out that the OP NEVER RETURNED?! I know I couldn’t deal with that sort of letdown.
A little mod appreciation is in order, for Christ’s sakes.
Padabe nailed this on the head. When whoever it was was pitting **Scrambledeggs ** for starting threads and not returning, I didn’t see what the big deal was. I have started threads and like to see how they roll. I’ve had ideas for great debate but I don’t have a position either way and would like to see what others though and how they came to that conclusion. It seems to be going hand-in-hand with fighting ignorance.
The idea that we have to babysit the threads we start and make sure that the posters get TLC in return seems a bit unsavory. Also, I hate bumping a thread back up to the top just to get a “Thank you” with no real thread need to elaborate.
This whole thing smacks of capriciousness and no me likey as it seems that fighting ignorance has to be done with only asking X amount of questions a month and replying X amount of times to said question. I know that those Xs aren’t going to be replaced with real or tangible numbers and that’s what makes these banning shenanigans too loosey goosey.
Marley and Czarcasm, I am disgusted by the closure of scrambledeggs’ threads and his suspension for the lame and capricious reasons you gave. This board keeps getting worse and worse with these trigger-happy and power-abusing moderators. Your treatment of scrambled is extremely unfair. Since we’ve gone pay-to-post, we lost so many members and this place has slowed down dramatically, which was a big disappointment, and now you’re suspending people and closing threads for no rational reason?!? We need all the contributors we can get, even if they’re a bit strange. This sucks and YOU SUCK!!!
So you’re telling me you’d find it less stupid if we made up a rule that said “the OP must post in his own thread at least four times?” I don’t believe that for a second.
No, I’d find it less capricious. Either way, I find the whole thing stupid.
That’s the thing, though - the guy never contributed anything. He just pumped out questions so dumb that even he usually didn’t care about the answer.
If the mods came to me and, in a relatively collective voice, and told me I must post een a reedeeculouz Fraunch aquseent, I would comply at the risk of suspension/banning. Jackboots aside, there is substantial evidence that such decisions go through discussion and are generally not taken lightly.
The key thing here is the in-thread, IM, and email correspondence that went ignored. He wasn’t suspended out of nowhere. He wasn’t suspended on a whim from some personal vendetta or personal annoyance. Starting unusual topics and not returning to them is outside the community mores that create this board. His prolific posting belies the notion that he’s just a lurker raising his head every once in a while (I’m one of those post-in-bunches lurkers who is otherwise relatively anonymous), his actions ran contrary to the general participatory nature of this particular board.
I realize this is nebulous, but I hope you get the general gist of what I’m saying – consider some of the discussions about adding avatars or animated smileys. As with here, there is certainly room and rational to say that animated, flashing pink and yellow avatars would be a benefit, not a nuisance, and hideable if someone didn’t want to see them. But while debatable, my point is that this board *with *drive-by posting and flashing avatars and *without *is a different experience. That his actions were in contravention of the relatively high standards we have (debatable too, but visit other boards for comprehension of the point I’m not-so-eloquently trying to make), and that he was asked, warned, and directed to reign in his habits, could only have gone one of two ways: his suspension and the preservation of the status quo, or his continuing the trend and altering the character of the boards.
No one here seems confused about what he was doing; there is only the disagreement of whether or not his actions were jerk-like behavior. I think that the former is not in question suggests an answer to the latter. This board is a haven in the Internet, and I daresay keeping the status quo entails preventing relatively new posters from changing it.
Finally, remember that there were both public and non-public attempts to do so, this wasn’t just a I-don’t-like-you suspension.
Eye am not zee moderrrratour, zees hass onlink beeen my oupeenioun.
Be that as it may, he did start to enter into other people’s threads and contribute. Maybe he was just taking baby steps?
Consistently starting threads in the wrong fora, however, might be considered the bigger deal. That creates busywork for the mods. I can understand suspending his/her account until such time as scrambled answered a “Hey there - explain yourself!” e-mail from the mods.
He did that a handful of times. We would have accepted just about any reasonable explanation, I think, but none was ever offered.
And moving threads is easy. But so is learning where they belong - or at least, everybody else here has managed to figure it out.
The guy was given many chances to explain himself. I wrote him about this stuff weeks ago. I think I was the only one he actually replied to, and it wasn’t exactly cooperative. So those answers and non-answers followed by the lack of change spoke volumes.
I think the mods are 0 for 2 this month in their suspension decisions. You’ve gotta love this “Don’t be a jerk” rule. When you can’t find a single thing a poster has done in violation of the rules you just slap a “jerk” tag on him and be done with him.
Just eliminate all board rules and classify any action that the mods disapprove of as being a jerk. Since they will go to that step anyways, lets just cut out the need for rules and any sort of due process…
I used to admin for an online game. After a certain period of inactivity, we’d email the player asking what was up. If we didn’t hear back from them for like a week, we dropped their account. If we got a bounced email, we dropped their account immediately. (The game dealt with finite resources, so we wanted to avoid letting people just sit inactive.)
Any sort of indication of good faith would have been accepted, and there were times where we let accounts sit inactive for a long time because the player kept assuring us they would return. But a complete lack of communication or indication that the player is acting in good faith, including not keeping an accurate contact address, meant we didn’t want to keep them around.
It’s the same here. eggs didn’t cooperate in any way or even acknowledge the admin, except for maybe one PM, so he got nailed. I’m willing to wager that any sort of explanation, any, or even a half-assed apology would have gotten cooperation from the mods. But there was nothing, so they had to assume he wasn’t acting in good faith.
Y’see, that is a major part of this situation-he wouldn’t respond. Not to requests in his own threads for the most part, not to emails, not to IMs-he wouldn’t even respond when his threads were closed. He clearly didn’t give a shit about who responded or how they responded, he didn’t give a shit about this community, and he didn’t even give a shit about his own questions. He just plowed right along, posting random questions, sometimes in the wrong forum.
Now, I could have given a comprehensive explanation for closing the thread, but at the time I just felt that he wouldn’t have read it anyway(and I still feel this way), but I accept that I should have posted something more for everyone else here.
Sorry.
He did make a comment in a thread I started which I felt was snarky and uncalled for. I reported it but I got no reply from a mod. I assume they felt that perhaps I was too sensitive. Who knows, I can’t read peoples minds. No harm, no foul.
Even after that I did ask why one of his threads were closed. He did not come back to that thread but the other posters seemed to respond and were having a good time with their comments. In that instance I do not agree it should have been closed.
I did not hunt down every one of his threads and I am not doubting the mods actions, to a certain degree, but I think people are upset because most of the warnings have been made via email and PM and not made for public view. It looks like a mod head hunt to other posters.
I know there have been some examples of on board warnings but maybe not enough for the general population to have witnessed.
It looks like he started around 100 threads, of which 9 are locked. Those who were enjoying those threads have around 91 that remain open to choose from. Go to.
His suspension not a big deal at the end of it all, after reading the explanations. Scrambledeggs isn’t responding to direct queries from the mods (Marley excepted) … that’s a problem.
I for one love the arbitrary and capricious “don’t be a jerk” rule. We’re all educated adults here, and can get along without a 25-page code of conduct. As someone stated above, it’s not that fucking hard to figure out how things work around here and stay within the very broad bounds of reasonable and intelligent discourse that is the expected norm. Anyone who thinks the mods have the time or energy to single out some putz who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and hound them until they are banned is a drama queen.
I see eggs’ behavior as from that of a completely moronic, deliberately obtuse fuckhead which, yeah, is jerkish to me. When mods repeatedly email, request, warn, drop hints, dance around, close threads, and otherwise give you one hundred fucking chances to act like a fucking grown up, and are ignored, then good fucking riddance.
Is being mischievous and being trollish, looked upon as one and the same, or is there a fine line here too? Anyone got any examples to define the difference, or is it just blatantly obvious when it happens?
We need a new term to describe the phenomenon that no matter how richly a poster deserves banning or suspension, no matter how often and obviously that poster has trolled, no matter how plain offensive or mindless their posts happen to be, no matter how strong the universal sense of exasperation and annoyance that the poster engenders, there will always be someone willing, nay, anxious, to question the moderators’ long-overdue decision to kick them to the curb. It’s as if the ACLU has a special branch devoted specifically to the SDMB.
I’m the third mod that was involved (although most of the mods and two of the admins were involved in the decision to suspend scrambledeggs). Let me see if I can answer a few things and explain what happened.
The SDMB has a warning system to prevent the kind of “out-of-control modding” that some of you feel might be happening. It was absolutely used with scrambledeggs.
First, he received moderator suggestions (not formal warnings) asking him to please pay attention to where he started his threads so he wasn’t making busy work for us. It was also noted if would be good for him to check back in on threads he started from time to time.
He ignored the suggestions. He began receiving formal warnings. Most of the time, the board membership sees warnings and gets an indication that a suspension might be in the offing. Since scrambledeggs never reads his posts, much of our communication with him was in email and private messages, which may be why this came as a surprise to some of you.
At this point, people started reporting his posts. I received one PM saying “anyone else would have been warned or banned for his trolling - why hasn’t he been?” (since it was, after all, a private message, I leave it up to the person who sent it to choose whether to identify him/herself).
Scrambledeggs ignored the warnings (for the most part - he responded to Marley’s and got very nasty about it) and continued his behavior.
The final warning was for an “OP bomb,” where he dropped a controversial and ill-stated OP and refused to come back and explain what he meant. I told him that when people start responding to his OPs by asking him questions, he needs to stay in the thread and respond, and told him at that point that he needed to play nice and stop being a jerk, or we would have to suspend him.
He chose to open yet another new thread and ignore the warning. At that point, I really don’t think we had much choice. Four warnings, reported posts, complaints from board members, and nothing had changed. It was neither random nor capricious behavior on the mods’ part. It’s what we needed to do.
He now has a month to think about it.
I’m guessing that might have been mine. I have seen people who have been warned for this kind of thing in the past.
I also pitted him-mildly, btw-not too long ago, and got chewed out for it. Hmmm…