Split Topic: Moderator's Responsibility — Brooklynian

Split Topic: Moderator's Responsibility

Subject: Split Topic: Moderator's Responsibility

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Flexichick]On that note, I won't be reading this Pit Bull thread any more.
:lol: :lol: LOL :lol: :lol:


Classic!
Carnivore + Steve,

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it a moderator's responsibility to quench flames, as opposed to feeding them?

Comments

  • Subject: Re: Spit Topic: Moderator's Responsibility

    quijibo wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=Flexichick]On that note, I won't be reading this Pit Bull thread any more.
    :lol: :lol: LOL :lol: :lol:


    Classic!
    Carnivore + Steve,

    Please correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it a moderator's responsibility to quench flames, as opposed to feeding them?
    It's called sarcasm, quijibo. The "I won't be reading this thread" after a flame, when you know the person is reading it and just not posting (and often actually posting) after they say that. It's hilarious.
  • Subject: Re: Spit Topic: Moderator's Responsibility

    Carnivore wrote: It's called sarcasm, quijibo. The "I won't be reading this thread" after a flame, when you know the person is reading it and just not posting (and often actually posting) after they say that. It's hilarious.
    ok.
    we disagree on what a moderator's responsibilities are then.
    cool.
  • I kind of see what you're saying, Quijibo, but I also think people need to keep in mind that the moderators are, believe it or not, human beings and that we are sometimes snarky or sarcastic. I think that's a MUCH different thing from being actively antagonistic or name-calling (both of which are not cool and are dealt with when they happen).
  • Quijibo, I'm not quite sure why you were addressing me, you only quoted Carnivore?

    I'd be curious to know what you had to say to me?
  • With all due respect to Carnivore, whose modly efforts overwhelmingly contribute to the quality-of-discussion on these boards:

    I thought his comment here was a little mean-spirited, and not well though out, especially without any of the follow-up explanation. I wasn't following the whole discussion, though.
  • dailyheights wrote: I wasn't following the whole discussion, though.
    I think if you re-examine the post in context, you'll change your opinion.
This discussion has been closed.