Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does jamie mod his own posts?

John Harrison (223649) writes | more than 9 years ago

User Journal 8

In this journal entry pudge and jamie trade barbs as usual. I don't agree with much of what pudge says, but I think his positions are well thought out and well explained. He also is actually willing to point out when Republicans lie! Shocking I know.In this journal entry pudge and jamie trade barbs as usual. I don't agree with much of what pudge says, but I think his positions are well thought out and well explained. He also is actually willing to point out when Republicans lie! Shocking I know.

I modded two of jamie's posts in this journal entry. I hit this one with a troll mod and this one with a flamebait mod. You tell me if the mods were fair. I did them mostly because I don't think jamie is able to present a point in a civil manner.

I look at the discussion tonight and suddenly those two posts, and only those two posts are modded as informative and insightful. Tell me if either of those mods are fair. Interestingly only three of the 54 posts under that journal have been modded at all. Those that I (and jamie?) modded and one other. How likely is it that jamie modded his own posts back up?

cancel ×

8 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hate to spoil a good conspiracy theory but (1)

turg (19864) | more than 9 years ago | (#10562392)

There are obviously many readers of pudge's journal, so there is likely to be someone else with regular old mod points. There's a pretty good chance that this person will think your modding is unfair (Not only is this likely in any case but, AFAICT based on JE's on the subject, most readers of journals think that downmods in journal discussions are always unfair). This means this person is probably going to mod up the posts you modded down. They're probably not going to mod up much else, because it's not really necessary in a journal.

Re:I hate to spoil a good conspiracy theory but (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10563976)

shall I conduct an experiment now that the journal is a few days old? You pick one of jamie's posts and the downmod. I will downmod it and we'll see what happens.

Re:I hate to spoil a good conspiracy theory but (1)

turg (19864) | more than 9 years ago | (#10564161)

Downmodding arbitrarily like that would not be a good experiment. An arbitrary downmod would necesarily be unfair. I would probably give it an upmod myself, even though I don't like the way he's acting.

The moderation system was developed because of the problem of people posting stuff that was not an appropriate part of the conversation at all -- not to punish people for being rude. If this was the type of trolling or flamebaiting that the developers were thinking of, they wouldn't have created the moderation system at all.

If he's participating in the conversation, then a downmod will probably be viewed as unfair by other moderators.

If really you want an expiriment to test my theory, try arbitrarily applying a few downmods on others in one of pudge's journals when it's new (preferably the weekly Sunday Thoughts entry, as it gets more attention and that's what this one was).

I really don't think that Jamie would care about being downmodded in pudge's journal. People have to read the journals with a threshold of 1 or lower, so everyone would still see his message. He doesn't have to worry about karma.

Re:I hate to spoil a good conspiracy theory but (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10564745)

It would only be arbitrary if you picked a post and a mod arbitrarily.

I agree that these posts probably do not rise to the level of troll and flamebait that was envisioned when the moderation system was written. I am perhaps guilty of holder an editor to a higher standard.

I actually do think that jamie might care about being down modded. If you look at the juvenile nature of his comebacks, downmodding is exactly the sort of challenge to his stature that he would respond to.

Re:I hate to spoil a good conspiracy theory but (2, Insightful)

turg (19864) | more than 9 years ago | (#10567153)

Jamie could have done it, but that's not the most likely explanation.

Outside of pudge's journal, I find jamie to be one of the more well-mannered editors. Consider the Sunday Thoughts personna to be like watching Crossfire -- it's part of the entertainment :-)

Re:I hate to spoil a good conspiracy theory but (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10567639)

To me it is likely, but not for sure. My next most likely candidate is pudge. I do agree that he is generally well behaved.

Of the two posts... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10563955)

I'd have modded the first up. It was relevent, it highlighted hypocracy on the issue, it also put what was a positive comment about Cheney's campaign manager and daughter (which, insofar as it hurt Cheney and Bush, only did so to the extent of making it clear any appeals to base homophobia would rebound upon them) into the general context of what people usually mean and criticise when they criticise the use of candidate's children by opponents. I would have metamodded your moderation as clearly "Unfair", as it certainly wasn't a troll. You're not supposed to use moderation to push your political opinions, and I think your moderation was abusive.

The second I'd have left alone. I can handle someone thinking it's flamebait as it was unnecessarily antagonistic. I'm not sure how I'd have metamodded it.

There are many readers of Pudge's journal, many of whom are attracted to it because it's a relatively free speaking forum. I'm left of center, but I know I'll get heard out in that journal. The chances are that whoever modded the first thought (with good reason) that your moderation there was abusive and wanted to undo the damage. I'm also sure that someone who agreed with Jamie modded the second up, though I'd catagorize that moderation as abusive personally, in the absense of any further evidence.

Re:Of the two posts... (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10564642)

The moderation had nothing to do with my political opinions. I probably agree more politically with jamie than I do with pudge. I actually agree that the first of the two posts mentioned was informative, right up until the end, at which point it turned trollish as FK pointed out in a response. Actually, it was probably flamebait rather than a troll.

I wouldn't have modded either post if I hadn't thought that the juvenile attempt at an insult at the end of the first post was lowering the level of discourse.

Now I know that in m2 you have no way of knowing why I modded the way I did. It is reasonable to assume that a down-mod to a post expressing a political opinion is based on disagreement with the opinion rather than the merits of the post. When you look in context though you can see that while jamie could make useful comments in a civil way he seems to have a compulsion that won't let him post without an unneeded zinger in there.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?