Rules and Moderation

[packsaddle]

That's it, go ahead and have your fun. Just remember....I'm watching.

Seriously, if any moderator feels inclined to protect me from bad-name-calling, please don't. As Franklin said, I don't give a farthing. And if you moderators are inclined to protect everyone else from what someone may say about me, at least please have the courtesy to PM the offending text, unaltered, to ME.

 

FWIW, I noted that in another forum, one moderator, having given warning but leaving the offending messages untouched, was then 'one-upped' by another moderator who deleted those two posts. This practice is discourteous to the other moderators, not to mention the forum and it smacks of double- (perhaps poly-) jeopardy. It essentially places all the moderators in competition with each other to be as heavy-handed as the next guy or else get over-ruled by a moderator who thinks HIS is the 'heaviest'. In effect, it eliminates all judgements by all moderators except the last one whose judgement is harshest. If you guys don't work something out better than that, then the system of moderation is going to be more idiotic than it is already.

Edited Part: drat thsoe tpyos(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[FScouter]

"FWIW, I noted that in another forum, one moderator, having given warning but leaving the offending messages untouched, was then 'one-upped' by another moderator who deleted those two posts. This practice is discourteous ..."

 

Are you protecting the membership here? When, what posts, what forum are you referring to? How can anyone challege your assertion if you don't reveal the example?

[GernBlansten]

I think what Packsaddle is refering to is the recent moderation that involved my rather witty (if I must say) response to a typical insult by GoldWinger.

We got warned by one moderator to watch it, then deleted by another.

I don't have a problem with having my post deleted as it became irrelavent and nonsense once GWs original insult was deleted.

[packsaddle]

That's the one. Acco40 mentioned that his 'moderator' finger was twitching, or something to that effect, nope it was 'itchy', but he left the exchange intact. Then hops_scout deleted both and moderated Acco40's message to include the words, "Sorry acco, mine itched a little too much.. Hops"

I could almost hear the snickering in the background.

That was in the topic, "The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??" and the first message (now deleted) had been posted on Wednesday, 7/9/2008: 6:48:35 PM.

Edited for clarity.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[acco40]

I took no offense to hops' actions. I does not make me feel I need to be more heavy handed.

 

Moderators don't think in lock-step. In fact, when I was invited to moderate, I think one of the things that they were looking for was to get a cross section of styles & opinions.

 

Therefore, it really doesn't surprise me that the moderators all have different thesholds for moderation so to speak.

[packsaddle]

And that cross-section idea fails if the heavy-handed moderator can trump all the rest. Acco40, you claim that the reason you were asked to moderate was to get a cross section of styles & opinions and I am OK with that...diversity is good. But how does that cross section of styles & opinions become applied, especially if any one of you can do anything you want? Where is the diversity, the cross section of styles & opinions? It is more an assemblage of individuals, each with his own absolute power with oversight neither as individuals nor as a group.

Acco40, I'm glad that it is so difficult to offend you. But that fact is irrelevant to my point. The fact that hops_scout over-ruled you IS relevant. I ask, did he consult with you before he did it? If not, do you think it was a display of courtesy?

Edited for clarity.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[SR540Beaver]

Pack old buddy, I guess things are relative. I already said it once, but I'll say it again. The moderation done here is like a knat landing on you compared to the elephant of other forums. I witnessed what was close to a meltdown by a mod over at Hannity.com this week. They have all sorts of "civility rules" (read PC) which is kind of funny considering that Hannity is such a defender of free speech, accuses liberals of wanting to bring back the fairness doctrine to silence him and can be downright uncivil himself. But the name of the game there is to protect his reputation and not allow any of the posters to post something that can be used against him in a guilt by association attack. Jesse Helms died this week and some folks spoke up about what they thought about him rather than paying their respects. One of the mods had enough and started banning or giving lengthy timeouts to people who had 5 digit post counts and years of posting. Anything said against the military, Hannity, one of his friends or affiliates or the mods can get you booted. It honestly is a great board, but unfortunately they have decided to create one rule which begats another rule which begats yet another rule. Sometimes the most entertaining section of the forum is the mod forum to watch all the grown ups ratting each other out. Around here, just like in a troop, it seems that the best way to do things is to ask everyone to use the oath and law instead of create a litany of rules that constantly have to be modified for each new situation that comes up. Just like in a troop, you occasionally have the poster who steps outside the oath and law and it is determined that "something" needs to be done to rectify the situation. What you see as heavy handed isn't even a slap on the wrist compared to other places I go. All I'm suggesting is that you look at the big picture and think of what it could be like if we created a bunch of rules. I can almost guarantee you that you would like it even less. Now take that and 25 cents and get yourself a cup of coffee.

[packsaddle]

SR540Beaver, a Hannity.com forum? I couldn't be sorrier for you if I found you passed out drunk, face down in a toilet in the Port Authority bus terminal. Anyone know where that one comes from?

OGE, that's a challenge!

 

Perhaps you're right, Beav. But I remember how it was before the censors were created for this forum - we had ZERO rules other than the admonition you described. I'm a first amendment kind of guy. The forum back then was just fine with me.

Edited part: Oops, too many large toothy rodents around here to keep track of them all....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Kurt Vonnegut

[scoutldr]

To my knowledge, I've never been moderated or "ignored", except by my wife and kids.

 

I must not be doing it right.

[NJCubScouter]

On Wikipedia, where I have been (on and off) spending some of the time I used to spend here, there is a rule against one administrator (comparable to moderators on here, and there are well over 1,000 of them) undoing the actions of another, with some exceptions. On there it is called "wheel warring", on the analogy of one admin steering the boat in one direction, another admin grabbing the "wheel" and steering off in a different direction, the first one grabbing it back, and so on. "Warring" over the "wheel", in other words. Of course, the scale and complexity of Wikipedia make it much more of a problem than it is here, but from what I have seen of these discussions (while in "lurk mode" for the past few weeks) I think I agree with Packsaddle. A few of the things that have happened here do seem unnecessarily disruptive and/or confusing (to the "mere" participants), and could be remedied by better communication and cooperation among the moderators.

[Beavah]

Hannity.com??

 

Yah, I don't think "don't complain because it's worse somewhere else" is ever a convincing argument. I doubt any of us would say "don't respond to kids on outings who are swearing, some kids in other youth groups start knife fights."

 

I think feedback and respondin' to perceived bad acts is a good thing, and how good citizens preserve any community they care about.

 

I agree with pack, too. If the moderators don't consult with each other, develop a consensus, and/or respect each other's decisions, there is no diversity and balance of opinion. The thing is controlled solely by da one moderator who is the quickest on the trigger.

 

B

 

[SR540Beaver]

Pack,

 

LOL Thanks for your concern. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

[acco40]

Don't forget that the moderators, like all forum members, only sporadicly visit this forum. How do you propose that the moderators get consensus? If I take a week's vacation should all "moderation" cease until I return?

 

Get real. Yes, I understand if one has a threshold that is much, much lower than the others he wields sort of a higher authority than the others but that's life.

 

I've been moderated. Maybe, we should not feel so indignant and rethink why what we have posted has caused someone to feel the need to edit, delete or warn us about what we post.

 

I like the fact that this forum tries to be a 'cut above' other forums. Just keep the Politics & Other Issues area free for bare knuckle fighting. :;

[evmori]

Yup we have gotten out of hand. I tend to do that. And yeah some of my posts should be edited or removed. I think what most of us are asking is that when our posts are edited or removed, we should be notified by who & why. I don't think that is asking too much. And I feel the moderators should practice what they moderate!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10