DescentBB

Trying to teach a pig to sing only serves to waste your time and annoy the pig.

Lothar is the most engaged, respectful and professional mod on the DBB, hands down, and I think it's dishonest for some to insinuate otherwise. In addition, he runs the most hazardous forum with a strong adherence to impartiality.

My last criticism turned out looking a little more dramatic than I intended. I never saw it as a huge error in judgement, though still an error. I'll take your explaination at face value, that you didn't intend to do what it looks like you did. I'm sure you'll be more aware of your comments when closing future threads, so I'm happy.

On everything else, I intend to post the same way I have. If that means I'm going to get moderated if I say Woodchip is full of sh*t, then I guess I'm going to get moderated, because I'm more than likely going to say "Woodchip, you're so full of sh*t" at some point in the future.

In the end, I think it's a fools errand trying to bend posting habits to create some sort of utopian E&C where everyone contributes thoughtful posts. The people who are thoughtful will post thoughtfully. The people that are snarky will post snark. I think bash said it best years ago: The best moderators hardly moderate at all. It's our forum, not yours.

Cheers.

Trying to keep people on topic might be considered a fool's errand but it's why we have mods in the first place. Going off-topic is not a cardinal sin and I'm sure Lothar overlooks alot but when no one responding is talking about the topic and instead is trying to peer-censor and shout down the messenger, then moderation is justifiable and welcome. There's a chilling effect on debate and participation when the most one can expect is ridicule for voicing one's opinion. Mods aren't the only ones supposedly held to a certain level of courtesy and respect; members are too and they need to be reminded of that every now and then.

bash wrote:Lothar is the most engaged, respectful and professional mod on the DBB, hands down, and I think it's dishonest for some to insinuate otherwise. In addition, he runs the most hazardous forum.

lothar is allowed to be a human being and make mistakes. but you have to grant that to everyone, not just him.

to be honest, i felt more comfortable with stingrays methods... he pulled no punches.

but who cares? if you want a righty party that's cool. if you want to attack and lay down the cute nicknames like it's some sort of validity that's cool.

bash... you know i will never waste my day on research like you folks do. i'm to busy getting naked and playing the guitar like a hippie.

i remember waaay back when i tried to keep up... what a miserable world.

"There's a chilling effect on debate and participation when the most one can expect is ridicule for voicing one's opinion."

I've been ridiculing Woody's wingnuttery for 4 years! Hell, I think I even called him a fascist once after hearing his opinion! A lot of good that did us.

Anyways, I've said previously what I wanted to say.

Gooberman wrote:

Bash wrote: If you look at the threads Lothar closed, both could be considered somewhat anti-left in tone.

Exactly, and closed before we can really respond!

ROFL! Oh man, I was going to stay out of this thread, but that's just rich! You close threads bashing the right, and you're censoring the left. You close threads bashing the left, and you're censoring the left's responses. That's the catch, the catch 22--you're biased to the right, no matter what you do.

Geeeeeez....

Tetrad wrote:I can't do that simply because I hadn't been reading that deeply into those types of things

Consider the possibility that you can't do that simply because the threads don't exist. I haven't displayed any thread-closing bias; there simply haven't been threads leaning the other way that deserve to be closed.

Gooberman wrote:

bash wrote: If you look at the threads Lothar closed, both could be considered somewhat anti-left in tone.

Exactly, and closed before we can really respond!

Closed before you could really respond? LOL Goob, now that's some impressive spin, especially considering that you posted a completely off-topic reply in the "Hi Ho Silver" thread. After that off-topic post (11:04 PM July 28), the thread remained open for just under 24 hours (closed at 10:53 PM July 29). That should have been adequate time for *somebody* to at least give a half-hearted attempt at a real response.

The threads were closed because nobody *tried* to really respond, but instead, just took cheap shots at one another (and yes, woodchip was a part of this.) The political leaning of the threads really didn't matter to me at all -- just the fact that in both cases, nobody was trying to discuss the topic.

Goob wrote:no where has the thead been closed because of what woodchip said (read lothar's reasons again).... They were closed because how the left respondedto "anti-left" threads!

The third thread actually was closed because of what pretty much everyone in the last half of the thread, including woodchip, said. Or, rather, because of what they didn't say -- which would be, *anything* relating to the original topic.

It doesn't matter whether the thread was anti-left or anti-right or anti-Jew or anti-your-mom or whatever. It was closed because people decided to respond by taking cheap shots at each other, rather than by trying to discuss whatever topic had been brought up.

I notice that nobody has taken up the challenge I put forth to Tetrad: show me the threads from the "other side" that I should have closed. You're accusing me of bias. You could prove it just by linking to one or two threads -- if they existed.

Goob wrote:Next time we should just all post OH THANK YOU WOODCHIP, I SEE THE LIGHT

No -- next time you should either discuss what woodchip posts, or not bother responding. You can respond to his insults with insults of your own, but if the thread is *all* insults and *no* content, it's getting closed (actually, now that we've had this discussion so people know better, it's probably getting deleted.)

Vander wrote:I never saw it as a huge error in judgement, though still an error.

Yes, it was -- I should know better than to say anything that can even be remotely interpreted as "commentary" when I close a thread, because I know people will try to interpret anything they possibly can as "bias".

Thank you for taking me at my word. It makes me a lot more likely to take your criticism to heart.

Vander wrote:If that means I'm going to get moderated if I say Woodchip is full of sh*t...

I don't mind you telling woody he's full of crap. But I'd prefer if you also gave at least a little bit of response to the actual crap he posted. More accurately: I'd prefer if *someone* gave at least a little bit of a response to the actual crap (see, for example, the way "the right" generally responds to Zuruck.)

"Yes, it was -- I should know better than to say anything that can even be remotely interpreted as "commentary" when I close a thread, because I know people will try to interpret anything they possibly can as "bias"."

Shorter Lothar:

"You're right, but only because you're an oversensitive ninny."

I still think you could at least move threads you close to NHB. But since you're being stubborn on this point, perhaps Tetrad could flex some mod muscle and move the threads?

Tetrad?

it's gonna become really boring now...

I'm not saying you're oversensitive, V. Mostly I'm saying Goob and others who have refused to take me at my word on that point are oversensitive, and that I should know better than to give them fodder.

Oh, and it's generally a bad idea for one mod to step on the other mod's toes like you're suggesting Tetrad should do.

I just remembered something..

when a lot of people are complaining.. it usually means you've made a bad call. and if you deny it, that also means you're not being accountable.

"Oh, and it's generally a bad idea for one mod to step on the other mod's toes"

You mean like opening closed threads in forums you are not a mod in? I seem to remember something like that happening to me in NHB a while back.

Anyways, perhaps you're the one stepping on Tetrad's toes by causing a commotion in his forum! Don't hold threads hostage! Free my people! No Justice! No Peace! Attica! Attica!

Ferno: The number of people complaining doesn't determine whether or not I made a bad call. It's the nature of the complaints that determine that. (Similarly, the number of people who believe a particular thing is not what makes it right or wrong.) Look at the nature of the complaints:

1) disagreement with my philosophy of moderation -- "you shouldn't close threads, you should move them." I understand why people disagree, but I don't buy into their reasoning.

2) accusations of bias -- "you only closed it because people were bashing someone on the right." Nobody seems to be able to back this up, and nobody even wants to try. This tells me that there's no real basis for the complaint.

3) Vander's statement that I shouldn't have posted the "funny" comment when closing a thread. He's right, I made a bad call there. I admit to it; I'm accountable to the fact that I should not have posted that.

So, in the case that I think I made a bad call, I'm accountable. In the other cases, nobody has managed to convince me that I made a bad call -- and when I've put forth a challenge by which it could be publicly demonstrated that I made a bad call, nobody stepped up to it.

Also, when you mention the number of people complaining: I've made bad calls before, and gotten at least half a dozen e-mails about them. In this case, the only person who privately contacted me about any of this was Birdseye. Nobody else said a thing about it until after it was made public. If I really made a bad call in closing those threads, I'd have gotten a lot more e-mail than I did.

Vander: what incident are you referring to, and how long ago?

It seems to me that its Lothar, Woodchip, and Bash vs the rest of us. I pretty much agree with Fernii...the majority of the posters here wouldn't be complaining if there wasn't something to complain about.

Just because you disagree with a post doesn't mean you cant be impartial.

As far as people bashing woodchip, I agree its uncalled for. I mean, the guy is only posting the holy message of the GOP (God's Own Party) I mean, the only reason to flame him is if you're a dirty Satan-worshiping hippie idiot.

Ok, seriously though. I mean, how can you not compare Woodchip and Rican? They're like the same guy on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rican posted every little piece of irrelevent BS that could be spun to make the left look better, and woody does exactly the same thing in the other direction. Rican insulted and flamed people with blanket statements...woodchip does too. I don't dislike woody, but I get this very very condescending vibe from him. When he posts, he makes it sound like someone with a different viewpoint is obviously an ignorant fool for not agreeing with him.

Bash is right, despite his blatent tongue-in-ass work, about Lothar. He's a good guy and I respect him a lot, but I still get the condescending vibe from him, though he's more tactful about it than woody is.

Maybe I'm just a dirty stupid liberal. But I know who has more fun on this board

Vander wrote:Tetrad?

This is his mess, if it's going to be cleaned up he's the one to do it.

"Vander: what incident are you referring to, and how long ago?"

I closed a thread in NHB, and you re-opened it. I'm pretty sure it was you. It was a while ago, though. Few years maybe.

Beowulf wrote:how can you not compare Woodchip and Rican?

I have before, more than once.

But this isn't about woodchip. This is about whether or not I should close a thread that turns entirely into people bashing one another and not talking about whatever the thread was supposed to be about. It doesn't matter whether or not the guy deserves to be bashed -- all that matters is whether or not there's any point to having such a discussion in E&C, and whether I should reward people's bashing by moving the thread to NHB or just cut it off and let you start a new thread in NHB if you really care.

I don't think there's any point to sitting here bashing each other, and I don't think I should reward thread-crappage by moving them to NHB where they can be crapped on some more. At most, I should consider splitting the insults off into a new thread and moving that into NHB, but I don't usually want to do that much work.

V, I have very vague recollections of a thread being closed and re-opened, but I don't remember who re-opened it. Doing such a thing definitely would have counted as "stepping on your toes", though. It could've been me -- 3 or 4 years ago, I wasn't nearly as careful about not stepping on other mod's toes -- but I don't remember it being me, and I certainly wouldn't do such a thing now.

REWARD US BY GIVING US A THREAD IN NHB! Mother Theresa would be rolling in her grave at an immense display of generousity like that!

I don't understand why threads that could potentially be decent debates are shut down without even a warning or anything. You're a pro-life Christian, don't abort threads that could grow up to be something meaningful. Just because they're born retarded doesn't mean they're completely useless.

EDIT: i'd also like to ask if you've considered just once maybe that High and Mighty Lothar might be at fault in this one? Why would the majority of the E&C patrons be complaining otherwise?

Beowulf wrote:I don't understand why threads that could potentially be decent debates are shut down without even a warning or anything.

Both threads were essentially "bash each other" fests. There was no potential for discussion because the thread participants had no interest in discussion, just in bashing one another.

In the future, I may decide to give more warning, or delete posts instead of closing threads. I should have given better explanation when I closed those two, but I stand by my decision to close them.

You're a pro-life Christian...

That's an ill-formed analogy, especially since I don't argue about "potential" human lives when I talk about abortion.

Anyway: it's up to the people who post in E&C to create interesting threads by filling them with content. In terms of your analogy: both of those threads were miscarriages before I got there. There was no content; both threads were already dead, so I closed them to keep them from decaying.

New rule. Anytime someone says *bash* everyone has to take a drink.

Beowulf wrote:Why would the majority of the E&C patrons be complaining....

Heh. So far, we have...

People who said they think Lothar's doing a bad job:
Birdseye, Ferno, Dedman, Vander, Gooberman, Beowulf, maybe theCops (I can't quite tell for sure through the cryptic prose )

People who said they think he's doing a good job:
Bash, fliptw, Drakona, (and if he gets a vote, Lothar)

People who post here who haven't voiced a definite opinion:
Suncho, Ford Prefect, Topher, woodchip, BfDiDDy, DCrazy, Grendel, whuppinboy, Fusion pimp, Cougar, Palzon, Tetrad, Will Robinson, ThunderBunny, Vader, Robo, Roid, Top Wop, Top Gun, MehYam, Arol, snoopy, Plebeian, Tyranny, Flabby Chick, CUDA, CDN_Merlin, *JBOMB*, Testiculese, index_html, Sarge, Fusion Pimp, Tricord, MD-2389, Kyouryuu, kurupt, De Rigueur, Genghis, Duper, Sirian, Hostile, Zuruck, possibly others that I missed (that's just scanning down the thread starters from the past month or so). Oh yeah, and Xciter.

Yeah, it's an uprising! The majority of the posters are up in arms at the injustice! Oh waitaminnit... there's only six of you. You just post a lot.

I'm not saying you're oversensitive, V. Mostly I'm saying Goob and others who have refused to take me at my word on that point are oversensitive, and that I should know better than to give them fodder.

Yes, especially the parts when I said "it really doesn't matter". "There is only one really valid criticism". "It's not like things are crumbling down", in a different situation my mod style would be just like his, and that "this is just a spit in the ocean compared to what some other mods have done."

Honestly, talk about selective reading.

I completely believe that you didn't do it maliciously, just that you weren't open to the idea that it could be read that way! It was your implication that "there is nothing to respond to in that statement" period. This is what I have mostly been commenting on! Its that, yes, there were things to respond to, malicious or not! I could say it again, "I could care less", but just read the above paragraph again.....

ROFL! Oh man, I was going to stay out of this thread, but that's just rich! You close threads bashing the right, and you're censoring the left. You close threads bashing the left, and you're censoring the left's responses.

Drakona,

That is a bit of an oversimplification. Is it pro right against left, or is it pro right in favor or right? Is it pro left against right, or pro left in favor of left?

In a small sence, Yes, 'when' a thread is closed is everything. Say I am mod here. A thread comes out, saying Bush made millions in oil, and only went to Iraq for the money. I then closed it before you could reply. (pro left agenda)

You would want to rebute it, but you can't.

A different thread later comes out saying WMDs were found in Iraq. There exist some replies saying its false, then, thread closed. (pro right agenda)

Again, you would want to add, but you can't.

Yes, Lothar is hardline republican, so it is lose-lose unless its timed right, which, then wouldn't be fair. If you have strong political beliefs, and you censor *anything*, it will come off as biased. (this is also why NHB would be a good alternative, for us AND Lothar, but again, its not that big of a deal).

Thats why in my first post I said I didn't consider the other criticisms to be valid. In the second post I said it doesn't matter, and, for the most part it runs well, and for my grand finale: "Compared to other moderators in the past, this is really just a spit in the ocean. Your style is just different form mine." I'm not sure why these seemed to have slipped under the radar?

Maybe I should bold them or something?

People who said they think Lothar's doing a bad job:

sigh

come on now lets try and be fair...

Offering some criticisms does by no means even remotely equate to accusing, or believing, that the other person is doing a bad job as a whole.

Things arn't black and white, 1 or 0, left or right....

Again, its not that big of a deal. I don't think anyone is really up in arms about this. I'm beginning ot sound like a broken record.....

Drakona wrote:People who said they think Lothar's doing a bad job:
Birdseye, Ferno, Dedman, Vander, Gooberman, Beowulf, maybe theCops (I can't quite tell for sure through the cryptic prose

Actually, Drakona, I never said I thought Lothar was doing a bad job. Before this one, I have only two other posts in this thread.

In my first post, I merely agreed with Birds that unless it's against terms, a thread shouldn't be closed.

In my second post, I was merely pointing out that I didn't believe Lothar would change his stance no matter how hard folks tried to persuade him to do so.

So you see, I never said or implied that he wasn't up to the task or that he was doing it poorly.

For the record, I think he is doing a fine job. He just isn't doing it the way I would if I were in his shoes.

"The number of people complaining doesn't determine whether or not I made a bad call."

so if sixty people say you made a bad call, does that mean they're wrong?

Note, I said bad call instead of bad job Drakona. And I have always said a bad call. a bad job would constitute something similar to what happens in usenet.

On everything else, I intend to post the same way I have. If that means I'm going to get moderated if I say Woodchip is full of sh*t, then I guess I'm going to get moderated, because I'm more than likely going to say "Woodchip, you're so full of sh*t" at some point in the future. Vander

Actually Vander, I don't know that we ever called one another names while arguing our disparate point of views...proly 'cause we were both full of shiat.

it's gonna become really boring now... Ferno

No, it got boring when you and Rican stop having those all out verbal WWF matches.

Maybe I'm just a dirty stupid liberal. But I know who has more fun on this board. Beo

Now now Beo. You're not a "Dirty stupid liberal. I realise that you probably shower on a regular basis

That was Beo's quote, but thx

I am going to repeat what I said in another thread:

Closing down a whole thread is stupid when on a modern BB you can just delete the offending posts and allow the discussion to continue. Dont let the rest of us suffer because of a few idiots.

PS: You are doing fine, however the call was bad, so you can put me on that list as well.

There...I fixed it.

Top Wop wrote:I am going to repeat what I said in another thread:

Closing down a whole thread is stupid when on a modern BB you can just delete the offending posts and allow the discussion to continue. Dont let the rest of us suffer because of a few idiots.

PS: You are doing fine, however the call was bad, so you can put me on that list as well.

Deleting posts is more liability to Mods then closing the thread.

Without sane evidence of why the post was deleted, people can call bias left, right and centre.

and you can unlock a locked thread, you can't undelete a post.

wel in order to make E&C entertaining again i need unrestricted reign. which i know won't happen.

Since, except for when arguing with me, I've never seen Lothar wrong before, and I'm not sure there's a foreseeable time in the future when he will be (or at least this is the closest anyone except me will get), I'm going to side with everyone and say that Lothar is wrong.

add Jeff to the list, stat!

Drakona: you can blame people's lack of faith in the system for the low voter turnout

Lothar: I was just being an ass with the abortion thing. Hehe

As far as those threads not having any potential for discussion, you don't know for sure if the threads were useless. Back when Stingy was overlord, he'd say something like "Get back on topic biatches before I shut this thread down" and if people kept bein lame he'd shut it. But he wouldn't just shut without warning. Sometimes people get a little off track and they need a little nudge to resume the conversation.

Anyway, I still have no hard feelings against anyone. I love you guys!

I think Beo has an excellent suggestion. Perhaps you could at least give some warning and time for threads to go back on track before closing them.

Although there is considerable opposition to your style and I still see no good reason not to just move them, giving a warning and some time before pulling the trigger might help.

Ah, sorry if you felt I was putting you in a box you didn't deserve, Goob, Dedman, and perhaps others. I was trying to break things down simply into people who approved and who didn't--I realize that's guaranteed to oversimplify things.

Goob, in your case, I did ignore your gentler comments, simply because the accusation of bias seemed to me so outrageous. First, I know Lothar very well, and he's not like that--and I think it's very evident from the way he works, too. More importantly, a suggestion that someone is corrupt is a serious thing in my eyes, however small the impact of their actions may have been. I guess character is important to me.

I see what you're saying when you say that virtually anything could come off as the result of bias. There are two ways you could go whenever you're trying to infer the content of someone's character from their actions: you can either assume they're innocent until they prove corrupt, or you can assume they're corrupt unless they do things that could not *possibly* be due to corrupt motives. The second seems to be what you're promoting, and (being quite frank here) I think it's irrational.

Looking for corruption wherever you can means you're going to assume a lot of innocent people are corrupt. It means that if there *was* a good moderator, a good politician, a good authority figure of any sort, you simply wouldn't know--especially because I think always proving yourself innocent ties your hands so much that you cannot be effective.

Let me set that aside, though. I'm surprised that so many people seemed so willing, in this thread, to suggest that Lothar abuses power to favor people who agree with him. It's so self-evidently false to me, I have to wonder if anybody really is serious about it. I'm hoping people only said that to lend weight to the real point--that they didn't like his way of moderating.

That's the real issue, right? Whether it's better to be uptight or laid back? I mean, it's more complex than that--whether you should close threads or move threads or delete posts in which cases--but the general thrust, the general complaint, is that things should be left open or treated less harshly, right?

Let me make an obvious observation, then. (And I'll try to be brief since I think I personally make a poor leader and shouldn't generally be offering advice on how to do it.)

There are different roles a moderator can take--either as a leader of discussion, an enforcer of bare minimum rules, or even as Goob suggested, a custodian. I would suggest that the mode of moderation depends very much on what you (the moderator and the posters) want the forum to be.

The more focused, productive, and academic the discussion, the tighter the controls on unproductive discussion have to be. The quality of the discussion depends precisely on how many flames and lame responses get through--if nobody is going to take your writing seriously, you don't write seriously. A post-only-by-invite rule is appropriate for rigorous, scientific discussion; a free-for-all is appropriate for silly, fun, lightewight discussion. What do you want the forum to be? Likewise, the broader an audience you want a forum to appeal to, the tighter the controls on offensive material have to be. What sort of forum do you want to run?

Tight content quality controls foster productive, deep, philosophical discussion--that's the up side. On the down side, they limit who can participate, and they mean that informal 'gut' arguments don't get posted. Tight offensiveness controls mean that people from a broad range of backgrounds can participate--that's the up side. The down side is that it suppresses people's real anger on subjects, and limits the subjects a forum can discuss. It's a balancing act, no doubt. A forum can be moderated to death; it can also be unmoderated to death.

E&C has always been a forum running on the brink of chaos. It's so productive precisely because it stays on topic but lets tempers flare--there is a powerful communal drive toward productive discussion, yet an allowance for people to say stupid things. The forum runs best when there's a constant threat of flames and nonsense. I think that calls for a very active, tough moderator who has sound judgement.

That was long-winded... I didn't mean it to be. Basically, it seemed to me that some of you are saying moderators should always be laid back, minimally active, and so forth. That is appropriate in some forums, but it seems to me that that is not appropriate for every forum--and I certainly don't think it's appropriate for this one.

Now, for some of you, the suggestion may come from a naive dislike of authority--that is, you haven't really thought through or experienced what a less-moderated forum would look like. You'd like freer discussion at the same high quality, not realizing they don't go together. If that's the case, I'll think the argument foolish and hope nobody listens. On the other hand, the suggestion could also spring from a different vision for the forum. That would be if you know what a softer-moderated forum would look like, and that's really the one you prefer. If that's the case, I can at least agree to disagree with respect.

I personally really like E&C as it's been for the past two years or so--I think it's one of the best communities of discourse I've ever participated in. The quality of the commentary here is really excellent, while still being very honest and free. I really love that. And I think it really calls for a moderator that can be tough at the right times--certainly not one who's always soft.

(I know some of you are making specific criticisms, and not the general one I just cited. In fact, nobody seems to be saying that anymore, so perhaps this post is just a day late and everybody should disregaurd it. But hey... it's 4 AM, I can't sleep, and I felt like it needed to be said. )

Lothar deleted one of my post's, it was an off topic shot I took at someone who said something really stupid.
My first reaction was to start another thread to attack the stupid thing that they said and I realized it wasn't worthy of a new thread and I also realized at that point that my deleted post wasn't really worthy to begin with and thus deserved to be removed.

Another time he shut down a thread right after someone said something stupid that I wanted to respond to. Again I considered starting a new thread about it..again I realized it wasn't worth it...

In this thread we've learned that some people wanted to respond to some closed threads yet they weren't motivated to start new threads to post their thoughts in yet they did have the motivation to participate in a complaint thread....
Makes me think they too really didn't have worthy responses to begin with.

I know Lother leans to the right (as all intelligent people do ) but I see his moderating as politically neutral, he just has a very low tolerance for nonsense and flame bait.

Whilst having pert little buttocks, i feel lothar should try to be a tad more liberal when using deoderant.