<p>Rankism-Rankist. The need to impose an order on things or people. NPR guys says it is bad learned behavior. Hmmmmmmmmm</p>
<p>Lots of that going on here....with the threads being policed so vigilantly now after the "protests" of last week. I feel like I'm walking down a street lined with riot police.....not daring to look in their direction.....but </p>
<p><em>holding up fist</em></p>
<p>Yeah, me, too, momsdream. [lifts fist back] I was the last post on a "closed" thread today. I was quite proud of myself. :-) [How DO you do the blue happy faces?]</p>
<p>Having moderators pay more attention wouldn't be a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. I was run off from the forum of the college my son will attend by a couple of disgruntled current students who decided parents shouldn't be allowed to post. No one closed the thread where they became almost abusive. It should have been closed. </p>
<p>Raise whatever body parts you please; I have no problem with that sort of "policing."</p>
<p>The problem is that threads are closed with no indication as to WHAT prompted the closing. So you could theoretically have 50 posts, one offensive one - and the thread is closed. Or it could be 10 offensive ones. It's hard to tell what is "offensive" -- its not like anyone is posting obscenities or threats. </p>
<p>Apparently there is a rather nebulous line that must not be crossed -- we can have open discussion, but not TOO open; we can challenge a statement if we do so obliquely and politely, but not if our statement is blunt. We also must be able to know that some parents who asks for help really just want emotional support and validation, in which case we are limited to posts which reassure the parent and post complimentary remarks. On the other hand, there do appear to be some parents who really do want help... I am not sure whether the current standard is that we must ignore them, or simply post any constructive criticism at our own risk.</p>
<p>I moderate a different board on my own - it's a very "clean" board -- but I rarely shut down threads. What I do is delete individual posts -- or even parts of posts -- often with an explanations. Every "explanation" has a corresponding rule in an introductory topic that pretty much states the rules of engagement for posting. </p>
<p>I also elected to segregate controversial topics -- primarily discussions of religion or politics -- they have to be posted under the "controversial" section, and readers who are likely to be offended are encouraged to refrain from going there. That seemed fairly effective for keeping the thin-skinned ones out of the path of the debaters. </p>
<p>I'm sorry. I think that some of the most consistently helpful posters are now being villified because now practical advice and honest observations are no longer welcome unless they are also "tactful". It seems to me that if posters want sympathy - it should be their responsibility to say so, and not pretend that they are looking for advice or suggestions, unless they are also comfortable with some contrary opinions.</p>
<p>Not new, but how about: Whew! Some threads around here have gotten very rank lately? Sorry, couldn't resist . . . :)</p>
<p>Rankist? I heard the NPR interview too.... but what's wrong with "snob"?</p>
<p>Am I out in left field? I didn't hear the NPR piece. But I was thinking barrons was talking about "rank" as in rank-order things. A favorite pastime on some cc threads - rank these ivies; which are the top yada-yada-yada...</p>
<p>Now some folks seem to be talking about "rank" as in "smelly" and talking about threads needing to be closed down due to rankness.</p>
<p>I was amused by the notion that we might be "rankist" ( ala sexist, ageist, etc). I am NOT amused by the rankness in some threads these days and keep hoping they will go away. I'm also not sure whether the threads and posts which are analyzing and dissecting the why's and wherefores are helping or prolonging the problem. Oh well, <em>fingers crossed</em>.</p>
<p>well said, calmom - I completely agree. Rather than shutting down an otherwise productive thread, individual posts or even parts of posts should be moderated.
That being said, I think the moderators have been much more lenient since the new boards went up than on the old ones. On the old boards, I had a post deleted in which I posted some medical information to correct a previous poster on the cafe board (i'm an EMT and complete medidork), but apparently it was too risque for the mods.</p>
<p>Please note, the CC terms of service rules clearly state:</p>
<p>"Out of respect for both moderators and policies, discussion of moderator actions and forum policies is welcomed via e-mail; these issues are off-topic for the forums."</p>
<p>Please abide by these rules. To send a message to Roger Dooley, our board administrator who makes the policies by which moderators abide, please click on the link below that says "contact us" I will leave it up to Roger as to whether he will answer the suggestions made in this thread in the public forum.</p>
<p>Members are always free to PM me if they feel a mod action has been inappropriate, or for that matter if mod INaction is a problem. Threads are closed when the general tone of the thread has degenerated or has veered off-topic from the original post. While a single problem post can be edited or deleted, our mods simply don't have the time to sort through dozens of posts, delete the bad ones, edit those that have some redeeming value, etc.</p>
<p>Overall, at CC we have an unfailing expectation of courtesy and respect for other members. We expect CC to be a fun place to learn about college admissions, where anyone from a complete newbie to an Ivy admissions director can feel comfortable and welcomed.</p>
<p>Back to the pre-hijack (which I contributed to) point of this thread: I couldn't find the NPR story referenced. I did find a story from last year that dealt with [url=<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3916547%5Drankism%5B/url">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3916547]rankism[/url</a>], but that seems to define rankism purely in terms of social status.</p>
<p>I like the term, though - certainly, there is rampant rankism (using the broader definition) in the world of college admissions... :)</p>
<p>It was on the Seattle NPR outlet which has lots of local productions . Due to a fire alarm they had to leave the building and played a show from the vault. I did not catch the date. Obviously it can be applied to the college ranking fixation and judging people by the rank of the college they attend.</p>
<p>Now that Roger has had an opportunity to comment, I am closing this thread since it does violate our terms of service. ""Out of respect for both moderators and policies, discussion of moderator actions and forum policies is welcomed via e-mail; these issues are off-topic for the forums."</p>
<p>If anyone has further comments on general moderator actions or policies, the best way to express them is to PM Roger. If there are concerns about specific posts that seem offensive, please use the "report offensive post" button to report them.</p>