# Rules Don't add up with Policy- policing moderators



## DonTadow (May 17, 2007)

There is a message on the meta forum that says that if you have a problem with the way things are ran it goes in here. This contradicts an official rule quoted  by Piratecat (in a thread about his thread closing that he so oddly closed). 

which is it?  

This thread is not about a specific thread shut down and is directed at the owners of the board as per the meta policy quoted before the thread. 

My problem is not a specific thread. I don't really care about the Mary Jane thread. The Mary Jane thread is an example of the overzelous behavior I have seen on here since the crash of last May in which threads are shut down for virtually no reason.  The leading official of this has been Piratecat.  

He  has a habit of prematurely shutting down threads. A simple review of the threads he has shut down will draw you a picture of the inconsistently he uses to shut down a thread. In a recent one, it was shut down simply because he felt like it. 

Closing down a thread used to be important. You knew things were out of hand. Now its become common place according to the moderators whims.  I believe that when a thread is shut down, or even before it is shut down, it should be decided by no less than two or three moderators and or James or Morris.  

I will gleefully look forward to the day when this police state ends.


----------



## Rel (May 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I will gleefully look forward to the day when this police state ends.




Well that's never going to happen.

The job of moderator is to keep the site going smoothly.  And we have to make a call about shutting down threads that we believe will come out on the losing end of the fun to hassle ratio.  It is left to each individual mod to decide when a thread has reached that point and we don't need quorum to make that call.

As far as the issue of shutting down a thread goes, the metric I usually use is this:  If a couple people in a thread seem to be causing problems then I'll ask for them to leave the thread (and let me just say as an aside, we have NO patience whatsoever with people that ignore that request).  If it becomes more than a couple people that are causing trouble in the thread, I'm more inclined to close it.

Is that "fair" to the people who were posting in it within the rules?  Maybe not.  But I'm not paid to be fair.  In fact, I'm not paid at all.

I do it for the adulation of the chicks.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> There is a message on the meta forum that says that if you have a problem with the way things are ran it goes in here. This contradicts an official rule quoted  by Piratecat (in a thread about his thread closing that he so oddly closed).
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Henry (May 17, 2007)

Actually, Don, the rule goes something like:



> 2) If you really, really disagree with a moderator's position on a [moderating] issue, please don't argue about it on the boards. That means no calling out of moderators, no challenging their decisions in the thread, and certainly no attempts to go over a moderator's head. The moderators all discuss such things amongst themselves, and no moderator or admin is ever going to override another. If you honestly feel that you have been treated unfairly, please contact the moderator in question privately and discuss it with them. The end result may not be the one you were seeking, but we will do our our best to be fair.
> 
> Thanks for reading! If you have a question or comment about this post, please start a thread in the Meta forum.




And PCat offered to discuss it privately, and you bumped it back to publically, and it really looks like you're trying to call him out above - another flat against-the-forum-rules thing. You want to discuss, fine, and if you want to discuss a mod, e-mail them and CC: us in, but by e-mail, not trying to drum up a public revolt.

Thanks.


----------



## Morrus (May 18, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> it should be decided by no less than two or three moderators and or James or Morris.




Who's James, and why should he have a say in how this board is run?  (or Morris, for that matter?)


----------



## Rel (May 18, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Who's James, and why should he have a say in how this board is run?  (or Morris, for that matter?)




Um...Boss...the thread is closed.  I don't think he's gonna answer.


----------



## Michael Morris (May 22, 2007)

I'm Morris. My say in how this board gets run goes something like this...


```
require ('global.php');
```


(Sorry - couldn't pass that one up.  Thread closed Shmead closed  )


----------

