Friday, April 22, 2011

Adventures At Brian's Page: Arbitrary Moderator Rulings

Moderator At Brian's Page

 The story:

A couple of days ago Brian K posted about a "possible" scene in a movie he saw the trailer for online. I went over and looked at the trailer, and frankly didn't see anything that would leave me to think this film had a DiD scene. It struck me as funny, so I bopped back over and told him that I didn't see anything, and then asked what he saw that led him to pick that film out over so many others.

Knowing that there are some ridiculously thin-skinned people on that page who can turn the slightest remark into WWIII, and/or pick a fight over virtually anything, (Not Brian K that I know of, but why take chances?) I went out of my way to be as lighthearted and jovial as possible so as not to offend anyone. I was IN NO WAY picking at Brian K, or his post.  I guess I was having a little amusement with his selection process, but it seemed like a fair question, and I really honestly wanted to know why that film was listed. 

Now, it turned out the film apparently does have a scene, at least technically speaking, so all congrats to BK for his psychic DiD detection ability. (If you can reliably tune that to gag scenes, lemme know) Frankly, a gal in cuffs alone is pretty lame, IMO. "No gag, no care" y'know, but that's not the point here at all. And, that clip wasn't the one he posted the link to.

The point is, all was fine until the Moderator gets involved and shuts things down. Even THAT was fine, although I still would have asked why, out of curiosity if nothing else. I mean, sometimes I post things that I'm not sure broke his rules or not, but in this case, I wasn't even considering that possibility, so this one kind of threw me.

But where he got me going was this little add-on diddy:

"Refrain from the urge to moderate the page for me."

I went back and re-read my posts half a dozen times trying to see what he saw that could be construed as any possible attempt to do this and came up with nothing. Then, I had a several people come to my defense, which is kind of unusual. (The number of supporters, not the defense.) Which, as usual, led to a coupe of others taking the Mod's side, and which is why I brought this over here. Too many cooks... blah blah.      

I asked for a detailed explanation for his ruling and basically got told to suck it. As the Mod usually loves to tell someone exactly why they broke one or more of his seemingly endless list of rules, I saw this as curious to say the least. And telling as well. Perhaps the explanation is, there is no explanation, but to get the moderator to admit an error is like getting... well, he just ain't gonna do it, OK?  

Which is, of course, his purview, as it's his page. That however, does not make it right.

While it's true anyone can theoretically read anything into anything (SCOTUS has proven that far too many times. Many of us are still looking in the Constitution for the right to tax personal income and the right to kill preborn humans. No luck on that, BTW.) when you go off the reservation that far, there's usually some predisposition to find something, anything to justify an act or process you want carried out.

In this case, I feel he played the "trying to moderate my page" card, and then used the weak and silly "Because I said so" defense to avoid having to justify or even explain his arbitrary actions. 

This raises an interesting dichotomy. Is all this tight control really necessary? Brian claims it is, but recently I've begun to visit Anubis' forum over at DIDVIDS. They've been around for 2-3 years now, and despite far more casual rules even in their non-AG areas, the place has not fallen into chaos and anarchy at all. Perhaps over at BP, Brian could have the Moderator ease up a bit and let's just see what happens?

Now, Brian K, I STILL would love to know how/why you select these "possibles" for DiD scenes if there's really nothing in the trailer to indicate a scene. 


Davey said...

Personally,I just look and read the page.:)

The Greyman said...

Nothing wrong with that, but truthfully, it wouldn't be much of a site without any posters.

Davey said...

Yes,you're right.:)

Ty M Goode said...

Whew-Boy. This one's got *LANDMINE* stamped all over it.

Okay, let me slip into my fence-straddling Speedo and toss in my two bits.

Whilst it is every bit your right to question content posted on BK's site, it IS his site. No doubt your query, though phrased in a non-argumentative fashion, was still viewed as a challenge to the author's right to post whatever he chooses. Ask yourself honestly, if some yokel commented that "Your Site Sucks!", even if it were phrased humorously, how would you take it.

Flipping the coin, it certainly seems like an, "It's my bat and ball, we play by my rules" cocky response. Not the greatest formula to encourage visitors to keep coming back.

Judging by the amount of time and print you invested on this topic, it obviously hit a nerve.

So, what do you do next? Boycott? Call them on their bluff? Laugh it off? Send them a dose of internet gonorrhea?

With you V, I've learned to expect the unexpected.

The Greyman said...

First of all, "landmine" is a little over the top. In fact, I think this has pretty much blown over. The only ones still going on about it over on BP are members of the modisgod ass-kissing squad. Y'know, the ones who go on and on and on about how THEY fully support Brian and his rules 100%.

As if questioning a ruling is some sort of proclamation that you don't like or support BR or his page.

Oh, and then they love to throw out some variable of the old "If you don't like it, GTFO" line.

People can and have said bad things about my various sites for years. With and certainly without any humor. As long as they don't go into personal insult territory, I have no problem with it.

It hit a nerve because it was an utterly ridiculous ruling, but mostly because he refused to back up his reasoning.

Oh, and then he called me unreasonable. I may well be a lot of things, but that's not one of them. And for HIM to call me that is pure pot/kettle/black territory.

Laugh it off, of course. I really truly don't have any desire to cause the man any extra work. I really hate it when I do, but one thing I've come to realize is that he brings a lot of this on himself. In those cases, I have little sympathy for his extra efforts.

I figure since he cares enough to let nothing slide, then neither should I.

Sasha said...

Ah yes, the Ego trap of being the only game in town. If there was another forum with a bigger, better database to reference with new DID scene leads added almost every day, I daresay Brian wouldn't be so arbitrary and he just might bring the whole forum out of its technical dark age.

I've never been able to make sense of Brian's rulings one way or the other aside from the dreaded "NO AGE DISCUSSION" banishment rule.

Anonymous said...

I am as libertarian as the next guy, but doesn't the 16th amendment allow for an income tax?

The Greyman said...

Truthfully, I don't BR changing a damn thing, ever. He's a stubborn one, that fellow. Never one to admit a mistake.

Maybe if no one, and I mean NO ONE, posted there for a few weeks, he might... nope. He wouldn't change a thing.

I really rarely use the discussion part anymore. It's so locked down and any real discussions, even if they don't break his rules, get cut off by the mod because HE thinks it's run it's course. Perhaps he should make his rules list about what you CAN post. It would be a much shorter read.

The Video Page is a different matter. That's a valuable asset there. Love it.

Hey, you should drop by over at Anubis' DidVids Forum. It has a lot of potential and it's moderated by a fellow who doesn't have a massive stick up his butt most of the time.

The Greyman said...

Problem is, the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

Do you actually think most Americans would vote
for a new way to tax themselves? Not hardly.