Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Question about personal attacks

joelr wrote:

Here's what I want to do: I want to shut down this annoying metadiscussion without a lot of argument about it, without locking this thread, and without either overtly or covertly overturning or endorsing an admin's decision.

Can't do that, though.

What I can do is point out what happens when these kind of metadiscussions feed on themselves: go over and take a look at the <a href=http://mnguntalk.com>day care site</a>. (I just did, yesterday, spurred by this discussion, and found that an ill-informed criticism of a nonexistent safety violation had the kiddies endlessly bickering with each other. Again.)

Now, granted, the day care kiddies are having fun with it; they groove on that kind of thing.

I don't find it fun at all.

Author:	MostlyHarmless [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:
I have tried to address this matter privately with Joel. He has chosen not to respond, which I think is unfortunate. Moderators are, in general, entitled to judgment calls, and in general, I am willing to put up with a certain number of bad calls from moderators. It's part of the nature of forums. I do consider this a bad call, because Andrew had chosen to expound upon his practices and attitudes as a part of the discussion upthread, making those attitudes and practices fair game for criticism, in my view, especially given the overall "lightly moderated" tone of the site. That, however, is a small part of the problem here. The larger problem is that Andrew is being permitted to play referee and goalie in the same game. He's done it here, and he's done it in other threads. I don't think that's appropriate, and most forums don't allow it for good reason. Moderators should not be using their status as mods to shape a debate in which they are heavily involved.

Author:	joelr [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:
Here's what I want to do: I want to shut down this annoying metadiscussion without a lot of argument about it, without locking this thread, and without either overtly or covertly overturning or endorsing an admin's decision. Can't do that, though. What I can do is point out what happens when these kind of metadiscussions feed on themselves: go over and take a look at the day care site. (I just did, yesterday, spurred by this discussion, and found that an ill-informed criticism of a nonexistent safety violation had the kiddies endlessly bickering with each other. Again.) Now, granted, the day care kiddies are having fun with it; they groove on that kind of thing. I don't find it fun at all.

Author:	a911scanner [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:
joelr wrote: Here's what I want to do: I want to shut down this annoying metadiscussion without a lot of argument about it, without locking this thread, and without either overtly or covertly overturning or endorsing an admin's decision. Can't do that, though. What I can do is point out what happens when these kind of metadiscussions feed on themselves: go over and take a look at the <a href=http://mnguntalk.com>day care site</a>. (I just did, yesterday, spurred by this discussion, and found that an ill-informed criticism of a nonexistent safety violation had the kiddies endlessly bickering with each other. Again.) Now, granted, the day care kiddies are having fun with it; they groove on that kind of thing. I don't find it fun at all. You're right Joel. And you're right too, Andrew. I was wrong. MM

Author:	MostlyHarmless [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:
joelr wrote: What I can do is point out what happens when these kind of metadiscussions feed on themselves: go over and take a look at the <a href=http://mnguntalk.com>day care site</a>. .... I do not believe that mnguntalk.com's problems either begin or end with mismanagment of metadiscussions. I believe they have mainly to do with failure to attract a sufficient critical mass of insightful posters, due to the fact that they try to address topics that are inherently nationwide in nature and are therefore better addressed by forums such as THR. While I can understand that metadiscussions can be unpleasant and distracting, I do not believe that holding up the problems at mnguntalk is an especially insightful answer to a legitimate question about site governance.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Question about personal attacks http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11518	Page 2 of 2

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/