Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal John Harrison's Journal: Does jamie mod his own posts? 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.

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?

This discussion has been archived.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

Does jamie mod his own posts?

Comments Filter:
  • 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 re
    • 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.
      • 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 moderati
        • 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.

  • 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
    • 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 discour

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye