Tink2000's Journal: A decision concerning metamod

I have been reading /. for almost 2 years now, and participate in the metamod daily. I have noticed that I never get to mod, as I mod'd exactly once, and out of 5 points 2 of them were shot down in metamod, resulting in a loss of karma, which means unless I resort to karmawhoring, I won't ever get to mod anymore.

It pisses me off that ChrisD (who does a lot of the polls as I write this) gets modded up +5 insightful for saying shit like "oh, I thought of this poll while eating Natalie Portman's Soviet Russia Grits". It's not insightful, nor interesting. Who cares. It's almost like he posts it to keep a megakarma going. It's also brownnosing on the part of the mods; thankless brownnosing as far as I can tell. Wil Weaton gets an automatic +5 for anything too, because -- well, he's Wesley.

I don't resent that these guys are well known. But just because they are well known doesn't make them any more funny or insightful or interesting. It means they are well known.

So: when I metamod, I used to more or less go "yeah that's agreeable". I don't now. I'm harsh. More stuff gets metamodded negative. Posts that are trolls that get marked interesting are a great example. Yes, it's a troll, but I'm not metamoding it as a troll, I'm meta-ing an insight. Before, I would ignore the fact it was a troll and mod it fair for insightful. I don't anymore. Posts by "regulars" that get modded to +5 because they are "regulars" I almost always meta as "unfair". If it's modded funny and I don't get it after reading it twice and looking at the parent, it's modded "not funny".

--
Mudo,
A Bitter Ex Mod.