In which even LJ's character limits cause wank.
Over at </a></b></a>metaquotes, the sun is shining, the quotes are flowing, the slash is fountaining, and the mods are rolling out that ever-popular creator of drama: rule expansions.

</a></b></a>shaysday posts about Rule 9, and what's going to become of it:

Well, some folks have been rightly asking:
What's too long? Where's the line between setup and explanation? What if some explanation is needed? Why are you asking me to edit but not them? Who decides what's bothersome? Why does it seem arbitrary?

Well, the simple answer is that it seems arbitrary because until now, we couldn't figure out a way to make it simple and across the board.

[...]

Rule 9 is being amended to : Any explanation, set-up, or exposition goes in the title slot only.

Wouldn't it have been really surprising if that didn't produce wank?

After a tantalizing hint at some past drama that may have lead to this, the mods remind people that this decision isn't up for a vote--and make a new post just to make sure everybody gets it:

Secondly, while we do appreciate feedback and do take that into consideration, metaquotes is not a democracy. When the newly clarified Rule 9 was rolled out, it had already been discussed extensively by the team of moderators on the modcom; as a result, while thoughtful feedback may very well be taken into consideration if and when the unlikely circumstance arises that we decide to revise Rule 9 yet again, this is not something on which people get to vote.

They also somewhat belatedly take the time to remind people where the power lies, and not to be such irritating pretend modders about the rule change:

If you check the comm info, you will see that we have a team of moderators; while we do have some long-standing posters who often like to act as though they are backseat moderators -- and to a certain extent, we appreciate the self-moderating qualities of this community -- jumping on a poster and telling someone to FIX THIS (especially in accordance with the newly clarified Rule 9) when there are plenty of mods who are around to do that job is not appreciated and will not be tolerated. If you're on the mod team, you know it. If you're not on the mod team, don't act like it, because not only do we not appreciate that, if the behavior continues, your ability to continue in that behavior will disappear.

</a></b></a>david_decon gets immediate bonus points for pointing out that anything phrased with "this is not a democracy" is probably going to just get people angry. But this might be reading the writing on the wall, especially considering his comment is below the following one from </a></b></a>dawning_star:

"As I said on my own journal, I'd like my humor without the side of unnecessary bitching. Might be asking a lot, considering this is LiveJournal."

How right she is. Back on the original post, </a></b></a>lannamichaels wants to know why they don't just put the community on moderated, rather than deleting posts. </a></b></a>jaie initially invokes the 'nobody could argue with a dead founding father, right?' principle and answers:

"Because that's not the way it was set up to begin with and we are trying to for the most part to keep [info]metaquotes as close to the way as [info]kielle had it set up in honor of her memory. She didn't have it that way and we won't either. That's the terse answer."

However, she very quickly follows this up by admitting that really, it's just because the mods are all too busy. And also are being a lot nicer than they have to be over this. The thread is, of course, subsequently frozen.


</a></b></a>lisacharly still thinks that 100 characters is a bit too limiting, and wants to know why they went with that. </a></b></a>banshea thinks... well, that should become fairly clear:

banshea: "Ask the LJ crew, not the community mods."

lisacharly: "What do they have to do with that? It's a community mod-imposed ruled."

banshea: "Surely reading the rest of the comments will enlighten you."

lisacharly: "It's enlightened me to the fact that this sounds like bullshit, sure. Why does it have to go in the subject bar anyway?"

banshea: "Clearly, your reading comprehension is lacking."

lisacharly: "Clearly, you need to get a grip."

Eventually, banshea comes up with a new plan:

"My boyfriend says I should start responding to all of these questions with "Because you're not funny." Can I? Can I please?"

And of course, we get our obligatory mention-of-the-wank, from </a></b></a>punk_rock_nerd:

"Of course, if you think they're being sucky, there is a community for that.

[info]bad_mods_suck

Slightly less drama than Fandom Wank."

It's so sweet when they think of us, isn't it?