Don't feed the animals... - Page 2

Evan · #1 12-19-2005, 05:03 PM

I never understood this. Why can't we disagree in public? What are the downsides? Do you really think there will be civil unrest or some bs if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?

Lloyd · #2 12-19-2005, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think there will be civil unrest or some bs if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]
Most definitely.

GrunchCan · #3 12-19-2005, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
... if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the very least, there's no advantage to saying it was stupid in a public forum. More likely, posters would lose respect for one of you, and that's never a good thing.

Evan · #4 12-19-2005, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the very least, there's no advantage to saying it was stupid in a public forum. More likely, posters would lose respect for one of you, and that's never a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If I saw that happen as a non-mod I wouldn't lose respect for either mod. I'll go along with the rule because I don't really get any benefit out of refusing and it seems to make most of you happy, but I don't understand why you guys think it's so important.

Lloyd · #5 12-19-2005, 07:41 PM

Very simply, as soon as a thread is moderated and another Mod chimes in that he thinks the decision was stupid, the original poster will start attacking the Mod who edited/locked/deleted the thread citing that even the other moderators agree with him (yes, moderators as in plural because that's how it will be projected until other moderators disagree and then we're all over the place).

Evan · #6 12-19-2005, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Very simply, as soon as a thread is moderated and another Mod chimes in that he thinks the decision was stupid, the original poster will start attacking the Mod who edited/locked/deleted the thread citing that even the other moderators agree with him (yes, moderators as in plural because that's how it will be projected until other moderators disagree and then we're all over the place).

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, I just don't see why that's a big deal.

Mat Sklansky · #7 12-19-2005, 07:48 PM

Moderation on this site from the beginning has been criticised. People wanted more and less and different. Now that there are 40+ user mods, I don't want detractors of the site to be able to link to threads in an effort to illustrate how [censored] up they think moderation is.

That's the downside for me and the company. Even if you think this is not an actual potential problem, unless you can provide some real benefits to moderators attacking one another's ability to moderate in the other forums, the rule stays in effect.

Evan · #8 12-19-2005, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Even if you think this is not an actual potential problem, unless you can provide some real benefits to moderators attacking one another's ability to moderate in the other forums, the rule stays in effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my post:
"I'll go along with the rule because I don't really get any benefit out of refusing."

Greg J · #9 12-20-2005, 01:44 PM

Sometimes people (mods) make borderline decisions that are really difficult and close. When the rabble speak out against such a decision, well that is to be expected to some extent. But when a mod speaks out against another mod in his/her forum, that can undermine credibility.

I will say I do understand yr position. We are, after all posters as well. Why should we not be able to express our opinions as posters? It's actually a vaild point. My counterargument is that we do unfortunately have to give up some (but not all, or even most) of our "personal liberties" as posters when we turn green. We are, to some extent, "the man," and should behave as such.

To be clear I was not refering to you Evan. (I'm pretty sure you 1) know this and 2) it doesn't matter to what you feel is a matter of principle, but I thought I would point it out anyhow.)