I'm a former IC ZZL/P Mod = AMA

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 772
  • Views: 12K
  • Off-Topic 
stankeylegjones said:
Well, I knew that you knew that I knew.... I was just curious what your goal was - if it was to let others ask you anything or if it was more of a "bait" to attract those who felt wronged by you so that you could interact with them again.
Click to expand...
It's means I'm in a downcycle at work and had some time to kill.

I figured there would be some discussion from those who got bans, but I really just thought it might be a fun thread to pull back the curtain a little on moderation on the IC ZZL & ZZLP.
 
SnoopRob said:
It's means I'm in a downcycle at work and had some time to kill.

I figured there would be some discussion from those who got bans, but I really just thought it might be a fun thread to pull back the curtain a little on moderation on the IC ZZL & ZZLP.
Click to expand...
I have enjoyed reading about some of the inner workings that you have shared with us, along with the gripes and victimizations. Thanks for thinking of it, and for doing it.
 
SnoopRob said:
It's means I'm in a downcycle at work and had some time to kill.

I figured there would be some discussion from those who got bans, but I really just thought it might be a fun thread to pull back the curtain a little on moderation on the IC ZZL & ZZLP.
Click to expand...
Holy shitpickles I feel like I won the lottary!
NOVAHEEL13 said:
Ask Me Anything. It's not a ask a question then argue/ignore/move goal posts and repeat ad nauseam because you don't like the answer. One or two back and forth posts with follows for clarity. Sure. 30 pages of festivus-level greivance airing about biased internet mods simply because the answer didn't meet some arbitrary level of satisfaction. No

either Snoop is bored, recently finished a project and now has time on his hands to respond to their tantrums OR this is the greatest stealth thread of all time,
Click to expand...
 
stankeylegjones said:
For a recent example, your stance in the argument with the other user over the word 'abnormal' and your stance with the user in this thread on 'lost your job.' Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem, to me, to be arguing for the "technical meaning" in one case and "non-technical meaning" in the other. Like I said, nothing wrong with this, but, at least for me, it leaves me questioning what you are actually trying to say in some posts. And, like I said, it's probably just me.
Click to expand...
1. "lost your position" wasn't intended to be specifically non-technical. It was specifically because I didn't know/remember what happened. I didn't want to say fired because I didn't know if that was the case. I didn't say retired because I didn't know if that was the case. What I knew was that he was an editor, and then after a certain date, was no longer an editor. Hence he lost his position. That was my thought process. I suppose I could have written something precise like, "had your employment terminated by the agreement or action of one or both parties" but that seems needlessly formal and hard to read.

2. The conversation about abnormal wasn't about a "technical" meaning. There is no "technical" meaning of that term. Its meaning implies a value judgment. I mean, that's true of a lot of words. But this poster was contending that his use of the word "abnormal" was "objective" and the only reason liberal squishes were objecting was that we're too afraid of being mean. The truth, of course, is that there is nothing factual or objective about claiming something to be abnormal. The concept requires normality, which is a privileging of certain characteristics over other competing characteristics. By definition, that is a judgment, not a fact.

If there is any lingering doubt on this point, try an exercise. Think of something you consider "abnormal." In the case of this thread, it was suggested that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality "abnormal." But it's also possible for both to be normal. So, how do you argue in favor of one of those qualities (e.g. hetero) as normal as opposed to both being normal? There's no way to do it except by bringing in some concept of what the world should be. None. Try it. Argue that a one-normal descriptor is superior in principle to the two-normal one.

This is not a question of technical meaning. It's a question of a) a basic, fundamental aspect of the meaning of the word and b) the nature of the concept of normality.
 
superrific said:
This is not a question of technical meaning. It's a question of a) a basic, fundamental aspect of the meaning of the word and b) the nature of the concept of normality.
Click to expand...
That’s the point. To use your words, you seem, to me, pick and choose when
superrific said:
1. "lost your position" wasn't intended to be specifically non-technical. It was specifically because I didn't know/remember what happened. I didn't want to say fired because I didn't know if that was the case. I didn't say retired because I didn't know if that was the case. What I knew was that he was an editor, and then after a certain date, was no longer an editor. Hence he lost his position. That was my thought process. I suppose I could have written something precise like, "had your employment terminated by the agreement or action of one or both parties" but that seems needlessly formal and hard to read.

2. The conversation about abnormal wasn't about a "technical" meaning. There is no "technical" meaning of that term. Its meaning implies a value judgment. I mean, that's true of a lot of words. But this poster was contending that his use of the word "abnormal" was "objective" and the only reason liberal squishes were objecting was that we're too afraid of being mean. The truth, of course, is that there is nothing factual or objective about claiming something to be abnormal. The concept requires normality, which is a privileging of certain characteristics over other competing characteristics. By definition, that is a judgment, not a fact.

If there is any lingering doubt on this point, try an exercise. Think of something you consider "abnormal." In the case of this thread, it was suggested that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality "abnormal." But it's also possible for both to be normal. So, how do you argue in favor of one of those qualities (e.g. hetero) as normal as opposed to both being normal? There's no way to do it except by bringing in some concept of what the world should be. None. Try it. Argue that a one-normal descriptor is superior in principle to the two-normal one.

This is not a question of technical meaning. It's a question of a) a basic, fundamental aspect of the meaning of the word and b) the nature of the concept of normality.
Click to expand...
This post highlights my point, that your level of pedanticness will vary, considerably. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this, assuming that it is not an attempt to mask underlying issues that one should work to improve (inability to be wrong, perfectionism, etc.), but it can lead to misunderstandings. Just my observation and opinion.
 
To me this thread has been fascinating… both in getting a behind the scenes glimpse at how banning decisions were made on the ZZLP, but also in seeing the intensity and duration of the grudges held by some posters over bannings. I’m glad I never became a mod… and I have much greater appreciation for those who did.
 
I liked hearing the behind the scenes thought process and machinations that led to IC shutting down the ZZLP and also the financial stuff re: subscriptions vs. page views (advertisement) as a revenue generator. Of course, the posters who were chapped ass about getting banned swamped the thread but that was to be expected. It's been entertaining watching ancient grudge break forth to new mutiny...
 
gtyellowjacket said:
This is kind of what I saw. Post a dissenting view and there are a lot of people that act like assholes. So to improve the behavior on the board, Snoop removes the person causing all these people to act like assholes instead of removing 10 or 15 people. Seems logical but then you get a bunch of assholes who all agree with each other and when someone new comes on the board with a different opinion, folks have learned what Snoop is going to do.
spaceballs GIF
Click to expand...
Bull Shit. The whole board is “wrong” and “assholes” and the one guy who comes on the board with a “dissenting” view is correct in that view… everybody else is “wrong” and an “asshole” for pointing out the bull shitter
 
You keep referring to the “PTB” making decisions and issuing edicts. Who exactly are the “PTB?”
 
farce© said:
You keep referring to the “PTB” making decisions and issuing edicts. Who exactly are the “PTB?”
Click to expand...
That would be staff of IC. Ben took most of the burden of dealing with ZZL/P issues, but I'm guessing that he discussed with Buck and likely some others the bigger issues which would arise.

Very, very occasionally, 247 folks would be pulled into an issue, but that was really rare. And I never interacted with those folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top