The Site > Site Suggestions & Support
Policy Changes: How do you feel?
Shecky:
--- Quote from: Starbeam on June 22, 2010, 12:05:33 AM ---For this particular instance, it could possibly be that one thread was reported while others were not. There are so many quick moving threads in the spoilers section, that it's likely very difficult to keep track of what's being said and done where. Which is why the mods say to report any problems. They likely won't know about it until it's reported.
--- End quote ---
And even more to the point, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that simply don't get seen. Mods try to take the long view, and that includes trying to keep up on posters' behavior over time and through multiple sets of stimuli. We ain't perfect. Also, when we see someone who damn well should know better, especially after having gotten a number of friendly reminders or introductory warnings, both public and private, we do tend to get a mite tetchy. Downright rude, even. Or when one mod's tried a non-nuclear public statement and gotten flamingly ignored, the others will pile on.
Combine all the above with, for example, a bunch of off-stage arguing against a request to tone things down, and you've gotten someone who needs to have their attention thoroughly gotten. Does that attention-getting venture over the line itself sometimes? Yup. Consider it similar to "Dammit, son, what the HELL is WRONG with you? You KNOW better."
In short, one poster may see what seems to be a bolt from the blue or a merciless piling-on. Just try to keep in mind that more times than you might think, it's simply the tip of the iceberg, the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sometimes, this stuff's enough to drive me to quit drinkin'. :D
Paynesgrey:
Fear the Sober Dwarf.
Niccos Shadow:
--- Quote from: Shecky on June 22, 2010, 01:25:50 AM ---And even more to the point, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that simply don't get seen. Mods try to take the long view, and that includes trying to keep up on posters' behavior over time and through multiple sets of stimuli. We ain't perfect. Also, when we see someone who damn well should know better, especially after having gotten a number of friendly reminders or introductory warnings, both public and private, we do tend to get a mite tetchy. Downright rude, even. Or when one mod's tried a non-nuclear public statement and gotten flamingly ignored, the others will pile on.
Combine all the above with, for example, a bunch of off-stage arguing against a request to tone things down, and you've gotten someone who needs to have their attention thoroughly gotten. Does that attention-getting venture over the line itself sometimes? Yup. Consider it similar to "Dammit, son, what the HELL is WRONG with you? You KNOW better."
In short, one poster may see what seems to be a bolt from the blue or a merciless piling-on. Just try to keep in mind that more times than you might think, it's simply the tip of the iceberg, the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sometimes, this stuff's enough to drive me to quit drinkin'. :D
--- End quote ---
This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.And there is the whole "lead by example" thing. My understanding of the policies/rules is that there isn't any justification for violating the rules.
Shecky:
--- Quote from: Niccos Shadow on June 22, 2010, 07:37:28 AM ---This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.And there is the whole "lead by example" thing. My understanding of the policies/rules is that there isn't any justification for violating the rules.
--- End quote ---
That's as may be. Why, then, do the rules keep getting violated when mods ask pretty please with sugar on top over and over and over again? I don't like coming down harshly on an offender. I've never liked it. It would be easier and probably more efficient just to ban the offender; the extra effort to get through to the person seems like such a waste when most offenders just wind themselves up more over the affront of being called to task for their actions. In short, the rules' enforcers following their own enforced rules to the letter rarely works. It would be simpler all around just to ban the offenders outright instead of trying extreme ways to get through to them.
Wouldn't it? Shouldn't we just follow the rules rigidly and never go above and beyond to try to supply that cosmic cold-water-in-the-face in order to persuade a person to do the right thing?
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Niccos Shadow on June 22, 2010, 07:37:28 AM ---This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.
--- End quote ---
It's fine by me, speaking as one of the ruled in this metaphor, for what that may be worth; I do not see that, as a poster and participant who is not a mod, not temperamentally suited to be a mod, and not taking on the responsibilities of being a mod, that I have necessarily earned exactly the same rights as someone who is contributing all the extra work the mods do has.
There's a basic information dynamic here that I don't think is superable. If you know from their past ten thousand posts that someone is generally a civilised and constructive poster, it gives you information to allow you to know that three hot-tempered posts on one day are most likely just a bad day. It's not possible to make as informed a judgement when those three posts are the only interaction that person has from the board, so it seems unreasonable to me to expect the standard to be the same.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version