I want to preface my comments in this post with a few personal views about being a mod here. The mods were selected in an election, and we never had to campaign to prove that we had any special abilities above and beyond those of most members here. I can't speak for Susan and Mike, but I'm guessing that they don't feel any more "special" or "elevated" than I do. To be a moderator on a corn snake forum is hardly a stepping-stone to acheive lofty political heights or reason for any sort of big-headed delusions of power. Sometimes I feel silly warning a member that their actions may lead to suspension or banning-- this place may be important to me, but I can't really expect all members, especially new ones, to consider suspension or banning to be the end of their world.
Oh NO you guys. I don't want to put this thing away just yet. I was saying this stuff about him being very confrontational, abrasive, and self serving on his very first thread if you all remember correctly. I went to another members defense and I have to say that some of you felt the need to chastise me about my intuitions on this guy. Well, maybe not chastise me but definitely brought it to light where I felt I was in the wrong. Now a couple of other members here have seen how this guy really is and the members who chose to make me feel the way they did have now decided to jump on the bandwagon. This guy pretty much blatantly told one of our mods off and now you guys come out of the woodwork to his defense.
It seems to me that only one guy's words can even loosely be viewed as coming to Double Het's defense in this thread, and that guy is me. Who "came out of the woodwork"? I don't feel I was coming to his defense; I just felt that he had already taken his share of bashing and I politely asked for a cease-fire. So he blatantly told me off, and you blatantly ignored my request. I don't feel particularly offended or challenged by either action. :shrugs:
Does this mean it comes down to who is being belittled and attacked by this guy before things are said and done? If so, NOT FAIR in my book. Please understand I mean no disrespect to you Dean and that I am not trying to attack anyone when I say this but, Tyflier and Duff, I TOLD YOU SO. I guess my first impression of this guy wasn't so far off base now was it? :shrugs: I just knew it would be a matter of time before this guy really let his true colors shine through.
The thing is, we see new members all the time whose forum/internet experiences are shaped by sites that have a different climate than this one. Heck, even Fauna, this site's sister-site, has a very different atmosphere where aggressive and confrontational posting is not nearly as discouraged as it is here. Sometimes people need a little time to acclimate. Some new members' posting styles raise red flags from the start, and we know we're going to have to keep an eye on them, but we can't act on intuition alone. I can't blame Chris or Duff for maybe trying the sugar over vinegar approach to get this guy on track. It doesn't seem to have worked, but I'm not going to bash them for trying. Yeah, your first impressions were probably correct, and I shared them, but I'm not ready to give up on the guy yet. He's received his warnings, so we'll see how things play out. I don't think I understand what it is that you think is "NOT FAIR".
The way I see it is if he wants to be course, argumentative and hostile instead of being useful and helpful on this forum then we, as a whole, will be better off without him. I feel some kind of disciplinary action should be taken against this guy for the way he has talked to other members, contributing members, and the moderators of this site. If we continue to allow this guy to act the way he does then it will be just a matter of time before others join and act the same way. Again, please understand I am not trying to personally attack anyone in any way. This is just my opinion and feelings about this subject.
Here's the thing, the mods can only take action when rules are broken. Some of these rules are pretty darned vague. Name-calling is pretty clear (e.g., "knucklehead", "big boy"), but inflammatory posting is not so clear. The strictest interpretation and enforcement of that rule would probably result in the banning of you AND me, Jay. This place wouldn't be much fun if the rule was strictly enforced, and it would be a whole lot less active. I'm sure there are members here who feel that this forum would be better off without either of US, Jay. I enjoy the freedom to throw in a dig here and there, and I suspect that you do too. So where do we draw the line? For all of the in-forum complaints I've heard about this guy, there have been relatively few "report posts" made against him. I certainly don't encourage frivolous use of the "report post" function, but it is the PRIMARY method by which members are supposed to communicate rules infractions to the mod team. We can't (and I won't) monitor every thread. I don't know if you're familiar with the term "mini-modding". It's when non-mods attempt to act as mods. I've seen some discussion boards where this is strongly discouraged because some members react VERY poorly to being mini-modded. Here at cs.com, we've prided ourselves on being largely self-policing, so it isn't so strongly discouraged. BUT, that doesn't mean that new members, or even veteran members, will like it. Disciplinary action HAS been taken against this member-- he's been warned at least twice. Further rule-breaking will result in suspension. But we can't just ban him because you think we'd be better off without him.
unch:
