Mods: an appeal

[Simon Viavant]

It's true. If she stopped giving them attention and locking them, people probably wouldn't post them. Sure, if the rules suddenly said it was ok, there'd be a song fest for a while, but it's get boring quickly with no conflict and people'd lose interest and it'd stop.

[hecter]

I enjoy the lyrics...

[Ditocoaf]

Admit it. When you say "never gonna give you up," it might be funny in of itself, if worked into the conversation masterfully. But when everyone else jumps in and continues the song, the reason it's fun is because of a "hehehe, here we go again! how far can we go until this gets locked?" feeling.

[TheProwler]

in order to drive all intelligent life out of a forum, like whump/assprowler did in Flame Wars.

Come on, you give WU way too much credit.

[Nikolai]

Incidentally, on the subject of there being threads in NYB one doesn't want to read, sometimes: so what? Don't read 'em.

My personal opinion precisely. I commented on my dislike of certain types of threads because there seemed to be a gang attempt to insist that clapper's perception of how much certain threads are appreciated was incorrect, and because it served as an excellent method of pointing out the hypocritical reasoning process used by some of the posters in this thread.

It's true. If she stopped giving them attention and locking them, people probably wouldn't post them. Sure, if the rules suddenly said it was ok, there'd be a song fest for a while, but it's get boring quickly with no conflict and people'd lose interest and it'd stop.

An interesting perspective. Are there others here who agree that the notoriety granted by a lock encourages more threads of that type?

[Nikolai]

Really, no takers? I really am curious.

[TheProwler]

I think it does.

Some of the people here are real rebels.

Hardcore bad-asses.

To be honest, it frightens me.

[Snorri1234]

An interesting perspective. Are there others here who agree that the notoriety granted by a lock encourages more threads of that type?

In some cases, yes. I think it's more often the case that it doesn't discourage people in the slightest. I didn't stop making silly call=out threads for clans when Twill locked my threads and gave me a warning.

I only stopped when Marval send me a pm asking me to stop because it was detrimental to the process of that forum. He actually gave a good argument for not doing it, instead of just telling me to stop and locking my threads.


I think that is one of the main reasons for this problem: Miscommunication. We aren't told why we should stop doing certain things, and we're not allowed to argue with them about it.

[pimpdave]

I think it does.

Some of the people here are real rebels.

Hardcore bad-asses.

To be honest, it frightens me.

Excellent. This means the respective houses of cards we've all been building are invincible!

[Dancing Mustard]

I think that is one of the main reasons for this problem: Miscommunication. We aren't told why we should stop doing certain things, and we're not allowed to argue with them about it.

Well exactly.

Only other day a thread got locked here for no apparent gain. I struck up polite PM conversation with Clapper to try to get her persepective, but she got really defensive and refused to answer several of my questions. The conversation ended without me getting a real answer to what I asked, with me still not understanding her logic for locking the thread (sure, I got a 'reason', but it wasn't consistent with all of her other logic). The worst thing was that the dialogue was cut off with a haughty "I'm not arguing this any more", when all I was doing was trying to have a discussion.

I really think that if a bit more communication happened (not "I say it's bad. So lock", but actual explanations) and mods explained their logic rather than just honking "Guidelines!" at us, then things could be so much better here.

[pimpdave]

[The1exile]

Admit it. When you say "never gonna give you up," it might be funny in of itself, if worked into the conversation masterfully. But when everyone else jumps in and continues the song, the reason it's fun is because of a "hehehe, here we go again! how far can we go until this gets locked?" feeling.

I disagree, and it's hardly a forum only thing, either (spontaneous singing was a big part of my second lesson at school today).

[clapper011]

Dm its too bad all that you have said is one sided. You are in fact your own worst enemy. I told you I had to stop discussions due to the fact that I had rl stuff to take care of. And yes it got to the point where you only heard what you wanted to hear. The more we continued the more I heard "what was the problem" as almost every response you gave! Now tell me how a person is not going to get somewhat defensive with that when I gave you reasons why there was a problem with it being off topic making you the troll since you brought it off topic.. yet you are quick to call prowler and others trolls when they do it. Now heres a good question for you DM:
What makes it alright for you to do it?

[Dancing Mustard]

The more we continued the more I heard "what was the problem" as almost every response you gave!

That sort of thing does tend to happen when you refuse to answer the question. All you have to do is give me an answer and I won't have to keep asking. It's really that simple.

So, if you're ready to talk to me now, then I'll ask the question that you refuse to answer once again: What harm was that thread doing, or what gain was made by locking it?

Now tell me how a person is not going to get somewhat defensive with that when I gave you reasons why there was a problem with it being off topic

No you didn't. You just said "It was going off topic, so it got locked. You didn't explain how that was a problem for anybody (1) who created the thread, (2) posting in the thread, or (3) anybody else in the forum.

Saying why you locked it, not the same thing as saying why it was a problem. I mean, you could lock it because it smelt of ice-cream, but that wouldn't explain why it was a problem, would it?

Seriously, there's no need to be defensive with me. If you don't understand why I keep asking you the same question, then just say so. I'm a reasonable guy, I'm not trying to harass you or argue. I just don't understand why harmless threads get shut down simply for the sake of it.

you are quick to call prowler and others trolls when they do it.

This is all delightfully off-topic and a whole new case study isn't it? Mildly ironic in the circumstances, no?

To counter your accusations though, I only complain when I see something useful being destroyed/defaced, when I see users being harassed/trolled, or when I see some other demonstrable harm being done to the community/discussion. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing with the 'report post' button? Or is that a problem for you now?

What makes it alright for you to do it?

To do what? Lock threads for no readily apparent reason? To attempt to shut-down harmless behaviour? To get haughty with people that are trying to have a polite conversation with me?

Sorry, but I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific before I'm able to answer that question properly.

[Gregrios]

DM, you should take this up with whomever made up the rules because Clapper is just doing her job. You ask what harm was the thread doing when frankly all you need to know is that it was in conflict with the rules and therefore got locked. Is it really that hard to understand? If a bonehead like me can figure that out, why the hell can't you?

[F1fth]

DM, you should take this up with whomever made up the rules because Clapper is just doing her job. You ask what harm was the thread doing when frankly all you need to know is that it was in conflict with the rules and therefore got locked. Is it really that hard to understand? If a bonehead like me can figure that out, why the hell can't you?

His question does not concern the rules, but Clapper's enforcement of the rules hence the reason he's talking to Clapper. But don't worry, I wouldn't expect a bonehead like you to be able to figure that out.

[Gregrios]

DM, you should take this up with whomever made up the rules because Clapper is just doing her job. You ask what harm was the thread doing when frankly all you need to know is that it was in conflict with the rules and therefore got locked. Is it really that hard to understand? If a bonehead like me can figure that out, why the hell can't you?

His question does not concern the rules, but Clapper's enforcement of the rules hence the reason he's talking to Clapper. But don't worry, I wouldn't expect a bonehead like you to be able to figure that out.

Well that clears things up.

[Dancing Mustard]

It sure does.

This isn't a question about 'what are the rules and why are they so', it's a question about an individual moderators exercise of personal discretion. Who better to answer questions about that than Clapper herself?

[Ditocoaf]

Ah, the classic "one person argues whether or not something is against the rules, another argues whether or not something is harmful, so both continue to feel frustrated" situation. It's actually number 8 on my "reasons people argue" compilation.

[King_Herpes]

Ah, the classic "one person argues whether or not something is against the rules, another argues whether or not something is harmful, so both continue to feel frustrated" situation. It's actually number 8 on my "reasons people argue" compilation.

What are 1-7? This should be a thread in itself if you're not just jerkin' my gerkin'

[jonesthecurl]

To (almost) agree with greggy (HElp! HElp! Emergency!)

I think the problem is this: DM and many of the others in this thread are aware of the rule about not going off-topic. We are aware that according to the rules as stated it is legitimate to lock a thread that goes off-topic.

The question is, why is this a rule in a forum which is about things that are of-topic and which has been named (apparently) at one point the "Off-topic forum"?

If you drag a GD discussion away from who's farmed the most noobs into a discussion of whom to vote for, the lock-down woulod be legitimate - but as long as the posters and readers are enjoying a thread, why wory if it segues from a ddiscussion of what's the best whisky into which duck recipe is the best?

IN other words, we know the rule, we've seen the rule, we're questioning the purpose of that very rule.

[clapper011]

then you really need to ask someone who made the rule....I don't make the rules. I try to follow them to the best of my ability.

[Dancing Mustard]

as long as the posters and readers are enjoying a thread, why wory if it segues from a ddiscussion of what's the best whisky into which duck recipe is the best?

IN other words, we know the rule, we've seen the rule, we're questioning the purpose of that very rule.

Well exactly.

Is that really agreeing with Greggy though? Because so far as I can tell, it's agreeing with me.

then you really need to ask someone who made the rule....I don't make the rules. I try to follow them to the best of my ability.

Do we really? Because last time I checked all of the rules on CC's 'guidelines' are at mod-discretion.

Now I know I've made this point before in PMs, but as I didn't get a real answer, perhaps I could ask again here:

All of the deciscions you take are predicated on your discretion and personal interpretation of the guidelines.

You tell us "it's locked because guidelines say so" ("I follow the rules to the best of my ability"); seeming to indicate that your hands are somehow bound and that you just slavishly follow the rules to the letter.
But if that's really true (which it isn't) then why do you unlock some tangented threads after the community asks nicely? That's against the guidelines, right? I mean, it's still off-topic isn't it, don't guidelines force you to lock it again?
Why don't you delete every spam post you see? Hell, why are Spamalot or TLTT still standing? Guidelines tell you that you must act. Don't they?
Why aren't you erasing every off-topic comment that you see? Hey look! Herpes just made one three posts up this very thread... to arms Clapper!

If you don't have the discretion that I'm calling into question, and if you're bound to do things simply because guidelines technically prohibit them, then surely not doing the things listed above is a dereliction of your duty?

However, if you don't agree that you ought to be doing all of the listed mod-actions, then you must have some kind of discretion over how you apply the rules, no?
And if you do have that discretion (and I assure you that you do), then I'm on safe-ground trying to discuss your occasionally irrational application of it, aren't I? My problem isn't with the rule-makers, but it's simply with the infrequent double-standards of the rule-enforcers.

Do you see now? Do you understand why "Guidelines!" doesn't answer my question?
I know what the rules are: but I'm questioning why you apply them one way in Situation-A, and another way in Situation-B... despite there being no apparent difference in the character or harmful nature of either situation.



So, what I want to know, and what I still don't have an answer to, is why you see fit not to punish/prohibit some harmless posts/topics... but have an uncontrollable urge to prohibit a certain type of other harmless posts/topics.

Can you identify a difference in the quality of the two sets of acts (some difference in the harm they do), or is it just an arbitrary double-standard predicated on your own personal preferences?

Tell us Clapper, where is the harm in going off-topic when everybody wants to do it? Where is the harm in an individual jokey spam-thread that sinks to page 3 after a couple of days? Why, after politely consulting you in PMs as you requested we do when we had queries, and after asking you in an open forum, do I still not have an answer?

[DAZMCFC]

seeming to indicate that Clapper your hands are somehow bound.

how did you find out about her kinky sex?

is it Lack or Twildo?

[bedub1]

I posted a topic. Some people thought it had porn. James Vazquez cleared it. Then Jennifer Marie locked it. Inconsistency....