47 replies to this topic

[Ozidave]

havnblast, on Dec 14 2004, 05:34 PM, said:

was wondering same thing Ozidave - didn't see a need for it to be closed either

It's a catch 22 situation Kelly.There are rules for Moderators. Only they need to break most of them here because the Moderators actively involve themselves in the Threads.And without that........... Yea! may as well close up shop.But normally it takes more than ONE moderator to close a thread, and usually it's three who agree the thread needs to be closed before it is.Not including the obvious need to shut one quickly of course.But we're now bordering on "I don't like it" Rather than "WE don't like it" and that's no good for anyone who want's to post anything and have it squashed because ONE other person doesn't see eye to eye and holds ALL of the Ammunition to shut it.End of RANT!

[Jeber]

Quote

There are rules for Moderators. Only they need to break most of them here because the Moderators actively involve themselves in the Threads.

I'm a little confused by this, Ozi.  There is only one set of forum rules, and it applies to everyone equally.  As I've said before, we're human, and humans aren't perfect.  But mistakes that are made can be corrected.  And if mods are breaking the rules, I haven't seen it, but I'd sure appreciate knowing about it.

Quote

But normally it takes more than ONE moderator to close a thread, and usually it's three who agree the thread needs to be closed before it is.

Well, yeah, kinda sorta.  A thread can only be closed by one person.  But generally it's discussed first, and whatever the majority of moderators decides determines the outcome.I'm a little surprised at the aura of hostility toward the moderators (and that term includes the admins and mods both) I feel in some of the comments posted here.  I feel that overall this forum requires very little moderation, and when it is necessary, it's done in an unbiased manner.  Our only goal is to maintain the place in the way desired by Scot.  That's not to say I don't appreciate feedback, positive or not.  I'm just a little taken aback by some of the perceptions I've read.  After all, at the end of the day, we're all still, I hope, friends.

[Ozidave]

Jeber, on Dec 15 2004, 05:19 AM, said:

I'm a little confused by this, Ozi.  There is only one set of forum rules, and it applies to everyone equally.  As I've said before, we're human, and humans aren't perfect.  But mistakes that are made can be corrected.  And if mods are breaking the rules, I haven't seen it, but I'd sure appreciate knowing about it.Well, yeah, kinda sorta.  A thread can only be closed by one person.  But generally it's discussed first, and whatever the majority of moderators decides determines the outcome.I'm a little surprised at the aura of hostility toward the moderators (and that term includes the admins and mods both) I feel in some of the comments posted here.  I feel that overall this forum requires very little moderation, and when it is necessary, it's done in an unbiased manner.  Our only goal is to maintain the place in the way desired by Scot.  That's not to say I don't appreciate feedback, positive or not.  I'm just a little taken aback by some of the perceptions I've read.  After all, at the end of the day, we're all still, I hope, friends.

Hello Jeber,I will answer all of that by simply saying that:Bruno's comments at the start of the thread, and Julia's comments at the end of the thread were not helpful, or lend themselves for one to think other, than the Moderators have the right to please themselves with what they do and how they do it using their own personal opinions.All that needed to be said was... "This Thread is Closed" Providing we all understand that this is NOT a personal decision or whim as the comments "For Now" were added also.There is nothing personal in what I said... I just want to see a sense of fair play.

[SonicDragon]

I guess i'll add my 2 C.I think the admins and mods are doing a great job here. No one is perfect, but i think everyone here, members included, are doing a great job of keeping this forum a wonderful community. Thanks everyone

[NRD]

This is reference to the "They used the wrong font" Megaflicks thread in the Water cooler. I'd like to know why some anonymous member of the moderation team is pulling posts with notice.Yes, I've read the forum rules about Scots being a "family friendly forum" "Post guidelines" and the "moderators right to pull posts for any reason at any time."What I'd like to know is why the courtesy of a reason isn't given by the person who deleted the post. I'd like to know why the post was not fit for Scots.Since I have no idea who yanked the post, I'm curious, is there any consensus when a post is yanked, or is it decided based on the moral views of the moderator who just happens to be visiting the board at the time.

[LilBambi]

Actually, the member was contacted and replied. All is well.Thanks for your time and comments.

[NRD]

I understand your desire to keep things harmonious, but in my opinion all is not well.When I was refering to notfication I meant myself as well as the other board members not just the original poster.I'd like to know why posts just simply disappear. If a post does not comply with the forum rules, perhaps the offending content should be edited instead of just zapping the entire thread and hoping no one notices.

[Jeber]

I understand your position, but what you ask is unrealistic.  We make every effort to notify the original poster, but it's not practical to ask us to PM everyone who posted in the thread to let them know what's going on.  Yes, it was funny.  It was funny several months ago when Dave Barry had it in his blog.  But it's an obvious reference to a word that is banned from the forum.  A link to the image with a warning of the content may have been appropriate, but that doesn't matter at this point.  The fact is that it was removed and the poster notified.As to concensus, if it's possible, that's the route we usually take...not that it produces any more popular results.  Our moderators are selected after a fair amount of debate, and we've entrusted them to act on behalf of Scot and all the forum members in enforcing the forum rules.  Sometimes we have to act individually and seek concensus later.  There is no requirement from Scot that we all agree on an action before it's taken.  We can't allow forum rules to be violated or circumvented just because only one of us is around at the time.  If that were to be the case, we'd only need one mod who did what they could whenever they got the chance.I also have to take into consideration that this was a humorous piece.  Had it been a valuable bit of information, we might have edited it to make it acceptable.  But editing this would have rendered it totally pointless.

[LilBambi]

OK, now I understand where NRD was likely going on his comments. I didn't realize that was what NRD meant (removing the piece with a notation in the thread).There will definitely be some discussion on this.Thanks for your suggestion ... both of you.

[NRD]

Paracelsus hit the nail on the head. I apologize for not expressing my concern more clearly.

[LilBambi]

I am sure that there will be times when this type of moderation would come in very handy. We have used it at times in the past.Not all cases can be handled in this way but it certainly is a consideration in moderation.Thanks again!

[genaldar]

Jeber, on Mar 13 2005, 04:24 AM, said:

But it's an obvious reference to a word that is banned from the forum.

Fu*k is an obvious reference to that same word, but as far as I know it isn't banned.  Simply referencing, or looking like a banned word (phrase, topic, etc.) doesn't, or shouldn't, mean that that reference is banned.  Everyone who saw that picture knows what word it looked like, but it wasn't that word.What's next banning fudge, fudging, funk, funking, etc.?  If not let me just say that this type of censorship funking sucks.

[Jeber]

You bring up a good point, and one for which there isn't an absolute answer.  We only have a hard and fast rule regarding the use of the actual profanity, but references to a profane word may have to remain a per-incident situation.  Scot will not allow profanity in the forums.  But how close to a profane word an obvious reference is will have to be decided on at the moment, most likely.  Uncertainty abounds, absolutes are few.   Personally, I believe the use of profanity indicates an inability to think.  If one is articulate, more interesting ways to say the same thing can be found.  It's amazing how rude and insulting I can be using perfectly acceptable English words.

[genaldar]

I'm of the exact opposite mindset.  To me "profanity" is just words.  They can lend emphasis and make your points more clear.  Lets face it, if you hit your thumb with a hammer and yell f*ck people know exactly what you mean.I also disagree that using profanity means the user has an inability to think.  Richard Pryor swore a bluestreak in his act, but he had insightful, funny, observations.  Ditto Chris Rock.  I'm not saying you have to swear, but just because I do don't assume I'm some inarticulate idiot.

[greengeek]

If I hit my thumb with a hammer I'm more likely to yell "ouch, that hurt"!   Must admit I've managed to learn a lot of new words since I've been on the internet but I don't think I'll be using any of them in forums or anywhere else.

[Jeber]

The purpose of language is to convey information.  Profanity does not do that.  It does however get your attention.  If I call someone a f***ing genius, you may know I'm really impressed by that person, but you don't know why, or what qualifies them as a genius in my opinion.  Had I been more articulate, you would.  I'm not saying profanity is wrong (I use it myself, frequently), just that it has its place and purpose.  Richard Pryor, like Lenny Bruce before him, got an audience's attention with the profanity.  But it was the words in between that carried the message.  If their acts had been end-to-end profanity, they'd both be unknown today.  Here in the forum, we don't need that attention-getting function.  The forums are about the exchange of information.  That gets lost if the audience is distracted by the attention-getting language.  Like I said, profanity has its uses.  But if someone can only express themselves through the use of profanity, then I would consider them inarticulate.

[NRD]

Jeber, on Mar 15 2005, 07:56 PM, said:

The forums are about the exchange of information.  That gets lost if the audience is distracted by the attention-getting language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That statement basically destroys the idea of having a "water cooler" in the first place.Aside from who says what when hit with a hammer, or how articulate a person is, the reason I objected to the removal of the "Megaflicks" thread was not because of profanity or a profane reference.  Its all about anonymous over moderationI understand that this forum is owned by Scot, and he has the absolute right to make it as restrictive as he likes. I also understand the need for emergency moderation, especially if a post contains hardcore profanity or pornography or is in blatant disregard of the forum rules. I don't think this was the case where the "megaflicks" thread was concerned.  If a post is borderline, I believe it should be edited with a notice of why it is not fit for Scots instead of pulling a vanishing act.  I see this as plain courtesy to those of us who take the time to contribute to this community.

[GolfProRM]

Editing the "Megaflicks" thread would have done absolutely no good.  The entire thread was based on a picture, and with the picture gone, there was nothing left.  Why just edit the picture and leave a useless thread?

[NRD]

GolfProRM, on Mar 15 2005, 09:00 PM, said:

Editing the "Megaflicks" thread would have done absolutely no good.  The entire thread was based on a picture, and with the picture gone, there was nothing left.  Why just edit the picture and leave a useless thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think thats true at all. It would have made perfect sense to those who replied as well as those of us who viewed it, in addition to those who wanted to see why this was unacceptable, by searching on their own. Again, we aren't talking about a post that was extreme, but borderline at best. One of our Admins (Jeber) has made a similar reference to the word in this very topic, via text. The photo  was just a reference, a visual one, not the actual word.Its as simple as removing the photo, adding a moderator comment about the forum rules then locking the thread.

Edited by NRD, 15 March 2005 - 10:35 PM.

[Jeber]

Information can be humorous.  Silliness is content.  

[Scot]

All --About the MegaFlicks/MegaF*cks fiasco: In my opinion the content in question was a lot closer to Clearly Against the Rules than many of the gray area decisions our hard-working mods make every day of the week.The problem was in an image. Removing the image and leaving the thread does NOT make sense. All the thinking that should have transpired about this post should have transpired before the post was made. And the result of that thinking should have been: "Eh, maybe not."I was not personally offended by this post. I doubt many if any members were. I thought it was mildly funny, not laugh-out-loud funny. The problem is this: It is against the rules. If you have to wonder whether it might be against the rules, it probably is against the rules. The rules are pretty darn explicit. I know, I wrote them. Bottom line: We're not allowing profanity in this place. What's not to get? Whether you read that as an L followed by an I or just a single character U, it doesn't really matter. It's close enough to the U that it trips the spirit of the rule.I sort of doubt that most of our mods agree with what I just wrote. Most of them would have preferred to look the other way. The thing is, they're just trying to do what I asked them to do. And if you have a beef about the rules, take it up with me. I'm the bad guy. I promise to listen.Now, as to how it was handled ... I would strongly prefer that any time a post must be pulled or significantly edited that a message be sent to the original posting member, and anyone else in a thread whose post is severely, directly affected. By all accounts, this *was* done. And we are not going to notify every person in a thread. The suggestions here that we edit out the photo placing a note as to our reasons why sound plausible. As LilBambi noted, this is a method we use in some cases, but it clearly was indicated in this instance. The moderators did what they were supposed to do. What they did made absolute sense based on the type of post and the posts that came after it. I know some of you don't get it, and to some of you it smacks of flagrant censorship. Until you've walked a mile in our moderators' shoes, though, I don't think you're truly in a position to judge. They did the right thing in this case, even though all of us can see why some people were upset. It happens that way sometimes. Life isn't perfect.I know that I took on an uphill battle when I decided to try to make this Web forum a cleaner, more civilized place to hang out in. I did that because there are just already way too many places that are the wild west. We are different. The problem with rules, though, is that one size doesn't fit all. This Mega-Ef thing pretty clearly breaks the rule. It also pretty clearly isn't a big deal. In fact it is so not a big deal that we're all having a tough time with it.So do we let this in, but not let the next one in? Where do you draw the line? Pursue that line of inquiry too far, and you'll quickly find yourself pulling out your hair. There is only one way to do this well, and that's to stick to the clearly stated part of the rule. The only place where there may be some leeway given is when a thing is just not covered by a clearly stated part of the rule. That isn't this example, folks.I would like to ask everyone a question, because this is the crux of the issue in the end: Do we really care all that much about this post? There was no redeeming quality or special message conveyed by this post. It was simply a yuk-yuk. This little funny forced two moderators to fuss and consider and worry. People who work for this place out of the kindness of their hearts. Couldn't we all just have the good god D*** grace to back them up when they make a tough decision, even if maybe you didn't agree with it? Is that really too much to ask?Because I don't think that's too much to ask of friends, of a community of folks, working together to figure out some things and share knowledge. I don't think that's too much to ask at all. And I'm asking.In return, we've done some soul searching around here. About this mini furor, about a few other things. We've made some changes. We're looking to improve. I've said what I have to say. For a little while, until things settle down, I'm going to close this thread. There's been all too much criticism and belly-aching and angst. You can always reach the head dude (ah, me) with any complaints you've got. Don't demand satisfaction, or expect instant gratification. But you can expect a response as soon as I get to it:webmaster@scotsnewsletter.com