Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Been abused by a moderator 18

Journal by Chacham

Not much, just one overrated (so far). Being I posted at 1, that was an abuse.

My post was here. My assumption is, that the moderator first posted as an anonymous coward. Seems that he had an ax to grind about psychology.

The worst part about it all is that noone actually answered my post. *sniff* I was curious what other people though. Eh, oh well.

On another note, I just got five mod points again. If you've been abused I can rectify your situation.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Been abused by a moderator

Comments Filter:
  • You hit the nail on the head.
    I think had you posted that same comment without the inclusion of the first two lines/paragraphs (the part where you said "this movie sucxxors, and I have no intention of reading the book") you would have been modded up +5

    GO figure.

    BTW: the book is pretty good juvenial fiction.
    Definitely in the Young Adults section of the library. Not with the adult books.

    PPS- Am I an ENTP? I can't remember...
    • Interesting.

      Am I an ENTP?

      I have no idea. One thing about ENTPs is, they are almost always happy, and people want to be around them. They give off this aura of, "I'm doing something cool, and you want to be a part of it". Not in an exciting ESTP manner, rather in a techy interesting NT manner.

      That at least what I've noticerd about them.

      Personally, I'm an INTJ, which made it very easy to identify with the INFJ. INJs in general like to correct people. Main difference is, Ts do it because something incorrect exists, and must be fixed. Fs do it to help the person. In both cases, they come off as being aloof and are underappreciated. To make matters worse INJs are hypersensitive. Well, the INFJ is as sensitive as any NF. The INTJ is (paradoxically for an NT) very senstive to remarks made by close friends.
      • I liked your theory on the "Rawlings had a bad experiences with Extroverts". When I took the MBTI I was rated as an ENTJ. I've taken it three times and always come out the same, although the T and F were close once.

        I personally don't like the notion of Harry Potter because of the pagan/wiccan overtones.

        BTW, I just modded your post up :)

        • I liked your theory on the "Rawlings had a bad experiences with Extroverts".

          Thx. I'm going to discuss that with other people. I wonder about it.

          I personally don't like the notion of Harry Potter because of the pagan/wiccan overtones.

          Of that, I don't care. Maybe because I don't see it as a threat to true belief. Being that, true believers won't care.

          BTW, I just modded your post up :)

          Woohoo! Thanx. I just want someone to actually answer it! :P

        • Interesting observation. I would assume that she projects herself into one or more of her characters, and her kid(s) into others (since it was written for them). Friends of mine who are definitely introverts loved the books, even though they were juvenile.

          Personally, I got about 3 pages in to the first book and was distracted, and never picked it up again. The story might have been interesting, but I haven't read much fiction in the past couple of years, and couldn't just sit down with it and read it. I kinda wanted to see the movie, but not especially. I won't be seeing the second one, either.

          I am glad, though, that a series of books has sparked this generation's kids' interest in reading, and as an ISTJ myself, it's nice to know there's an introverted 'hero' for introverted kids to identify with, as usually introverts are seen as the weird ones.

          • it's nice to know there's an introverted 'hero' for introverted kids to identify with, as usually introverts are seen as the weird ones.

            Problem is, Harry himself seems to jump from introversion to extraversion in certain scenes, as well as from SP to SJ. Though, for the most part, he's an ISTP.

            Which was the real problem. ISTP's (like ISTJs) are real introverts. Difference is, ISTJs don't care much for people, can probably go longer without them, but knows how to deal with them. ISTPs, need people at times, but won't commit to any one person, spontaneousy tune people out, and doesn't know how to deal with them. That last point bothered me, becuase Harry would never have wanted to talk to anyone as freely as he did if he was an ISTP.
          • There were many problems with the beginning.
            It found it dreadfully slow. I also found much of the literary devices geared down towards a child; for example her repetition of certain dramatic irony points I found cumbersome and redudant- I got the point the first time. However I assume that is something one would want to do in writing towards youths- they need to see the patterns a bunch just to start recognizing the patterns.

            After the mid-way point it was a quickie romp. They do this, then they do this, then this happens, then this happens, then they have this set back, and then this mysterious thing happens and then the clues start coming together, then they have the final set of competitions, and then "I would have had control over the world and been all powerful, if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
      • Indeed I am an ENTP. And my wife is an INTJ.

        It works out pretty well.

        on a side note: I've always had issue with Child actors. I found "Lord of the Flies" (the original) to be a horrible experience and couldn't wait for them to get what was coming to them (oh, and the special effects of piggy screaming and then a quick cut to a giant bolder falling... lucas, eat your heart out!)

        But there have been some good ones out there. For example "Hideous Kinky" is MADE becuase the child actresses are so damn good.
        • But there have been some good ones out there. For example "Hideous Kinky" is MADE becuase the child actresses are so damn good.

          Stand By Me. River Phoenix is awesome. Wil Weaton does a pretty good job too.

          Willy Wonka and the Chocalate Factory. Peter Ostrum is very good, and Julie Dawn Cole does an amazing job of playing a brat. The other kids are good too.

          Elijah Wood was good.

          There are many movies and child actors that are good.

          I guess it matters who wrote the movie. If the writers think kids aren't real people, they are written as such. If writer thinks kids are people, they are written well.

          • I guess it matters who wrote the movie. If the writers think kids aren't real people, they are written as such. If writer thinks kids are people, they are written well.

            you mean the script matters? i thought is was just how much you spend on special effects.

            the movie industry always seems to favour spending money over a little initial effort.
          • by mekkab (133181)
            you know, yr right!

            I guess its a good mix of writing, directing, and casting.

            And I think for Harry Potter they were too busy trying to get a kid that looked "just like the kid on the cover of the books!"

            I heard that the first go round they had kids with a lot of interesting birth marks on their foreheads, but no lightning bolts. This gave the casting director no small amount of ire. Then the head of make-up had a small chat with the casting director. It was reported that the casting director spent the rest of the afternoon slapping his forehead repeatedly.
  • by AntiFreeze (31247)
    I was just really annoyed by the -1 Overrated to my comment here [slashdot.org]. I hate it when people do that. I'd much rather them log in and tell me why they think my comment is overrated, or wrong, or just plain stupid. Gah.

    On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I know why it happened. My post bordered on a pro-slashdot, anti-bitching-about-slashdot troll. Oh well. Read the one reply and my reply to it. I think I remained balanced. And no, I was in no way attempting to troll. I'm just pissed off at all the people who complain about the slashdot editors' spelling and grammar at every chance they get.

    • by Chacham (981)
      Amazing. And to think, it's at +4 now.
      • Yeah, thanks to whomever did that.

        I'm in the same boat as you though. I crave replies, and don't care too much about moderation. What sucks is when it feels like someone is replying to you through their moderator abilities. Damnit, write something. The only other times I am annoyed by mods is when something is modded completely inappropriately (i.e. insightful when you haven't said a damn thing, interesting to a troll full of cursewords and goatse.cx links, etc.)

        Hell, maybe my post was overrated. So what? Mod up a reply stating why it's overrated instead of modding me down.

        Maybe it's time for me to write up a journal entry on moderator ethics? Don't mod down unless it's a flagrant abuse. Don't mod based on agreeal with the post. Mod based on the content and its contribution to the discussion.

        Any thoughts?

        • by Chacham (981)
          Yeah, thanks to whomever did that.

          You're welcome. :P (I gave the fourth point.)

          Don't mod based on agreeal with the post. Mod based on the content and its contribution to the discussion

          Agreeing with a comment is a reason. It makes people who read at a higher level see it. This is good, since many (like me) want to read what other people find interesting.

          However, I think allowing funny mods to count should be a separate option.

          • Understood. I was getting more at the flipside of that, being that one shouldn't mod down a comment simply because you disagree with the poster. And if you agree, somewhere in the comment there is probably something insightful or interesting that you're agreeing with.

            And on the funny note, yeah, I'm getting sick of going to a thread and seeing 27 +5s that when I go to read, 25 are funny, and only two are actually worthwhile. Funny is useful, but I'd love a way to separate them out.

            In fact, I had submitted to Rob Malda an idea about "score profiles": one could define a scoring profile in their user preferences and then choose which profile they wanted to filter the current comment set through. So you could define a comment set such as "default except no +funny" or "only insightful less than score:3" or "+5 funny and +3-5 insightful and +3-5 interesting", etc. Then, whatever profile you wanted would be available to you at the touch of a dropdown list, just as the threshold options are now (and in case it isn't obvious, the threshold options would just become the default available "profiles"). So now, if you stroll into a discussion where the Funny comments are obscuring what you want to read, just change your score profile and click change, just as you would if you wanted to change to flat, or nested, or threaded mode on the fly.

            Rob said, and I quote:

            Its an interesting idea, but that an awful large can of worms. We have about 6 months of stuff on the TODO list already... and that without dealing with any denial of service attacks ;)

            The other issue is that I've been working to simplify things, and ideas like this are interesting, but I'm trying to focus on functionality that benefits larger groups of readers. Profiles as you describe might be used by a thousand people. Its hard to spend a lot of time on something used by less than 1% of our readers.

            I hate valid points against my ideas. Anywho, if I ever familiarize myself with slashcode, maybe I'll work it out myself and submit it as a patch. Generating the parser isn't hard, the problem is implementing it into how comments.pl displays everything. Can of worms indeed.

            But I wonder, would anyone else find score profiles helpful? Should I actually make an attempt to try and write the module myself or should I leave well enough alone?

            • by Chacham (981)
              Interesting. Though I'd keep it simple (at least at first) to keep funny separate from all the other postitive moderations. Interesting, Insightful, Underrated, etc all means "I think that you shoul read this". "Funny" means "I laughed so hard at this". Thus making a separate filter just for funny may be easier, and more acceptable.

              For a first simple step, and to keep within the current code, you needn't code at all. Just use the Reason Modifier on the comments page to give Funny a -4. But, this excludes the ability to reads funny's at will. That requires some coding, and an easy interface too.

              I'd love to help. I'm up to Chapter 8 of "Learning Perl" (excluding the excercises from chapters 4,5,6, and 7). So, I'd probably need to read some more before I could help.
  • whoever replied about the psych 101 may have an aversion to psych references because of a fear of having personality defects exposed. so being snotty makes them feel superior to the threat. and no, i am not taking psych 101 now, either. college is behind me.

    if the moderator is the same person, this is a very small person. if not there are a million reasons you got an unfair mod. could have been a hardcore potter fan. could have been anything. i choose to feel honored that my comment was offensive/challenging/whatever enough to get another person to waste mod points. the comment obviously moved the moderator somehow.

Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who, "Androids of Tara"

Working...