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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 769
  • Views: 18K
  • Off-Topic 
Still looking for response to my question about commenting on threads you heavily moderated. I understand you suffered a massive head injury last night but when you get your senses back.
 
LosPollosHermanos said:
He enjoyed the power of being a volunteer moderator a bit too much and now he's starting a J.D. Vance style glamour piece on a new board trying to hold on to his pathetic one and only claim to fame.

Ask you anything huh? I wasn't a frequent or well known poster but I had 2000+ posts over a 7 or 8 year period without a single warning of any kind. I got banned with no communication whatsover from anyone for a mild joke of the Chappelle variety. If it crossed a line so be it, but there should have been communication of some kind and at least a warning or temporary ban first. Why was that?

The bottom line is you are completely full of shit. You moderated like an insecure, power tripping little bitch and the moderating on the ZZLP board was completely arbitrary depending on how much insecurity you needed to overcompensate for on any given day. I easily came back under a different name and did the same thing I always did, mainly using the board as a news source and just commenting here and there. And the moderating always resembled something out of a sixth grade classroom when the teacher left the room and told the class nerd to "take names".

So I call bullshit on this little effort to save face on your shitty moderating. There was no rhyme or reason to it. It was at your whim, and I certainly hope anyone who enjoys that nonsense banning, splitting up fucking threads over bullshit, and locking threads up for no reason whatsover has a decent psychiatrist. You are fucking pathetic.
Click to expand...
Oprah Winfrey GIF
 
I think you need to separate the opinion page, which I liken to a message board, and what goes on page 1. For me there was a lot more leeway on what passed muster in the opinion page. When some thought is allowed and other isn't there is an interest danger related to the goalkeeper. I think we saw that with the pandemic as do much misinformation was out out early to be corrected later. For example if some conspiratorial nut wants to suggest in a letter to the editor that Helene was manmade to steal lithium rights or whatever, have at it. I don't feel inclined to protect you from your in stupidity. Folks can sort it out. Page 1 is a different animal
 
OGtruthhurts said:
Did the moderators know the truth about the owners of IC and them knowingly keeping that info from subscribers for profit and greed?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're referencing, so we were obviously kept in the dark.

It would be so much more interesting if you shared your secret knowledge so that we can all know whatever it is you're talking about.
 
Centerpiece said:
Why do you think a rambling wreck from Georgia Tech is so heavily engaged on a UNC message board to begin with? (this is a question for Snoop... not you jacket). Do you think it's because of the political discourse? Did jacket ever poast on other boards besides the golf board? Is there no GaTech message board with golf and politics? (That question may be for you, jacket)

It's an honest question. I've never ventured over to any Tech message boards. No interest in that at all. I did venture over to TDD a couple of times, because d00k... and I was banned post haste because I cast aspersions about k-rat. I get that. But d00kies got away with slamming Dean or Roy all the time - they didn't get banned as quickly as I did over there.
Click to expand...
As IC has always been one of the biggest sites on whatever network it's on (Insiders/Scout/247) and the ZZL/P has been one of the largest off-topic/political boards on those same networks, the ZZL/P has long attracted folks from other sites.

On the whole we tried to moderate them like everyone else, although they did get a bit less leeway before bans were put in, especially if their infractions were related to anti-UNC posts.

edit: typo
 
Last edited:
heel79 said:
I think you need to separate the opinion page, which I liken to a message board, and what goes on page 1. For me there was a lot more leeway on what passed muster in the opinion page. When some thought is allowed and other isn't there is an interest danger related to the goalkeeper. I think we saw that with the pandemic as do much misinformation was out out early to be corrected later. For example if some conspiratorial nut wants to suggest in a letter to the editor that Helene was manmade to steal lithium rights or whatever, have at it. I don't feel inclined to protect you from your in stupidity. Folks can sort it out. Page 1 is a different animal
Click to expand...
I understand that page 1 news is different from an opinion page, but I still don't think that should mean anything goes. No newspaper should ever print anything stating that Helene was manmade to steal lithium rights no matter where it is located. It's irresponsible and in the age of misinformation it contributes to the idiocrification (yes my word) of society.
 
heel79 said:
I think you need to separate the opinion page, which I liken to a message board, and what goes on page 1. For me there was a lot more leeway on what passed muster in the opinion page. When some thought is allowed and other isn't there is an interest danger related to the goalkeeper. I think we saw that with the pandemic as do much misinformation was out out early to be corrected later. For example if some conspiratorial nut wants to suggest in a letter to the editor that Helene was manmade to steal lithium rights or whatever, have at it. I don't feel inclined to protect you from your in stupidity. Folks can sort it out. Page 1 is a different animal
Click to expand...
Given that trust in the legacy media is at an all time low and misinformation is more rampant and pernicious than ever, I don't know why anyone would want to follow the advice that got us to that point.
 
I went on TDD when ZZLP died . I enjoyed it. One day I cut and paste some IC post about school rankings-it was the one a while back that rated UNC and Duke way low
I did not sincerely notice in the rankings I copied that Duke was spelled dook
Kind of ended any tolerance TDD had for mpaer . I pretty much stay away now as several posters automatically piss on my posts
It was sincerly my bad
 
StrangePackage said:
Given that trust in the legacy media is at an all time low and misinformation is more rampant and pernicious than ever, I don't know why anyone would want to follow the advice that got us to that point.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with heel79. Just because someone posts on here that FEMA is shooting people driving up the mountain to bring aid or whatever, nobody believes it. The kooks aren't changing any minds. They're just looking like an idiot. Most people can sort that out.
 
SnoopRob said:
As IC has always been on of the biggest sites on whatever network it's on (Insiders/Scout/247) and the ZZL/P has been one of the largest off-topic/political boards on those same networks, the ZZL/P has long attracted folks from other sites.

On the whole we tried to moderate them like everyone else, although they did get a bit less leeway before bans were put in, especially if their infractions were related to anti-UNC posts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for response - and sounds as reasonable as anything else I guess. But surely somebody like jacket knows he is on somebody else's lawn, and to piss on their flowers, or antagonize the owner's dog or scare the cat is simply not neighborly. Shouldn't one be a humble visitor in someone else's home?

And after egregious actions like that, if the owner says: "get off my lawn" I would hope the interloper would either stfu of find another sandbox in which to take a dump. Do better jacket.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I tend to agree with heel79. Just because someone posts on here that FEMA is shooting people driving up the mountain to bring aid or whatever, nobody believes it. The kooks aren't changing any minds. They're just looking like an idiot. Most people can sort that out.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can say that when we have a massive problem with people believing false information.
 
Tend to agree. I was talking pre pandemic but there was also a lot of info out out about vivid that was wrong and dissenters were locked and denied platforms.
 
heel79 said:
I got question snoop. First a bit of a peace pipe. I was among your biggest critics. Likely because I could not shed my view as a journalist and belief that all views be accommodated and let the folks figure it out. I know it was a thankless job. You answered one question about the quick ban on conservative posters without a long history of posting. I always maintained that some level of decorum could have been maintained by aggressive moderating but whatever. I do think moderating was uneven. You, more than other moderators, were an active poster and obviously I think it is difficult to moderate fairly while participating in a thread. It would be like letting K officiate games with UNC. Surely you understand that position. So the question: why were you so active in threads you were moderating?
Click to expand...
The ZZLP mods were volunteers and expected to be poster-moderators, meaning it was understood that they would be moderating a board and, at times, threads where they were participants. There was no expectation that volunteer mods refrain from posting on the board just because they were mods. If IC had wanted that, they would have obviously needed to pay folks to take on that kind of work.

As far as moderating threads I was posting on...rarely did I choose when and where someone would decide to break the rules. I could be posting along like a happy little guy and someone decide that they'd violate board rules. I couldn't simply ignore those violations because I was already posting on said thread.

As a mod team, we tried to take into account personal bias - whether or not we'd posted on a particular thread - by making major decisions as a team. We'd edit or delete posts unilaterally (although we'd typically leave a note for the rest of the mod team with what we'd done, including screen caps) and we would hand out short-term bans, where necessary, of 24-48 hours when a situation called for it to give the mod team time to discuss the issue. Also, if something broke out on a thread where one of us was participating and a serious issue broke out, we'd typically try to see if another mod was available to do the mod work. But if there were no other mods on the board at that time, you'd just have to deal with the problem yourself (unless it was a situation where a major ban was warranted and then the mod team would confer as quickly as it could).

So, to answer your question, I was active in a lot of threads because I enjoyed the ZZLP as a poster. Given that all the ZZLP mods are volunteers, there was an understanding that we'd end up sometimes moderating threads where we had participated. At the end of the day, the IC PTB determined that there would be volunteer mods chosen from the boards themselves and that meant that there would be times where the mods had to moderate threads they'd participated in.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Snoop was far and away the name most commonly on the ban thread.
Click to expand...
The software had issues with the ban thread(s) because they were locked and unlocked so often. After awhile, as I was the one who had started the last ban thread, I was the only one who could get it to work most of the time and therefore was pretty much the only person able to put bans into the thread. Ergo, I was the one recording all the bans into the thread.
 
Zoo_View said:
Pretty certain that Snoop never banned anyone. IIRC, a mod didn’t have the ban hammer - bans were done by the mods, not “a” mod. Don’t know if the decision had to be unanimous or a majority vote.
Click to expand...
With the software changes, the mods were given the banhammer not long after I became a mod.

But you're correct that all bans over short-term ones (longer than 48 hours or so, although we aimed to make decisions within 24 hours) were approved by the mod team.

Typically bans were unanimous by the mod team. When we'd disagree, usually it was on length of ban rather than the ban itself, and we'd typically find a consensus answer.

There were also occasionally bans that would come down from the PTB that we'd have to enact and enforce. But those were pretty rare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top