Whats the point (or I am a SKEPTIC)

[CalicoPenn]

Oh - and I'm sorely tempted to start a thread called "Calico" in the uniforming section to see what people think of potentially using calico cloth to make the BSA uniforms.

 

However, I also agree with OGE's reasoning, and think he's doing a great job. I would open up an OGE thread to praise him, but that would be an eponymous thread, and I respect OGE's judgment.

[NJCubScouter]

As I said in the other thread ("show me 'da' rule" or something like that), I think the moderators have exercised reasonable and appropriate discretion on this issue and have acted within the bounds of the rules explicitly set down by Terry.

 

If anybody here really thinks the moderators overstep their bounds, you need to check out some other forums on the Internet and see how people elsewhere generally behave once they are given a "title" and a little authority. You might especially want to check out Wikipedia, where there are hundreds of "administrators" and at least one-quarter of them running around on power trips and fighting with each other. Some of you just don't realize how good we have it here, when it comes to the moderators letting the discussions flow on their own and stepping in only when truly necessary. That is not to say that I have agreed with every single decision made here over the years, but those where I have disagreed have been few and far between, and in almost every case (or maybe every case) I thought it was a situation where "reasonable minds can differ." Never have I thought that any moderator was off on a rampage trying to enforce some radically different theory of what kinds of discussion should be allowed or not allowed. Again, that is hardly the case in many other places on the Internet.

[Scoutfish]

I agree with NJ!

 

A few years back, before I was involved with scouting, I used to frequent a NASCAR community website. We had foumns and we had blogs. Forums were more on the techy side , forums were just for hanging out and talking.

 

I joined the site the first week it was started. I watched it grow from 100 people to over 50,000 fans.

 

We had "pit crews" we had clubs, we had fan groups.

 

Since it was a NASCAR site, well...you knew there wasplenty of good natured driver rivalry going on. I would call your driver names and you would call mine names. We laughed and then patted each other on the back. See you tommorrow!

 

But with a site getting bigger and bigger, there weren't enough bloggers to cover the sheer mass of bloggers. Soon they hired more moderatots and administrators who used to be site bloggers. Made sense too since they were already familiar with the site, the rules and policies,etc....

 

 

But something bad started happening. If a fan of driver X wrote a less that stellar blog about driver B and wrote it in a less that favorable way about driver B..then a moderator of driver B would deleste the blog and possibly suspend the OP.

 

People were labels trouble makesr because of the driver they liked and not based on their own actions annd words.

 

The site Sr Admn would defend the mods saying they were doing the best they could and were really being understanding.

 

Whatever!

 

Used to be a time that about 25 of us would stay uyp til the wee hours lauging and joking. We pick on each other, rag each other's drivers , etc.. and we had a blast!

 

But because somebody somewhere was a bit too overwound in the emotions dept...rule after rule after rule was written and posted that specifically defined what was considered a joke, what was considered "joking around"and what constitruted humor.

 

Guess what? Almost nobody goes to that site any more. Matter of fact, the originakl site admin resigned because of the way the site just sunk.

 

So, be glad of what you have and try to realize that this site is awesome!

 

So sometimes Merlyn and I argue. Bumped heads with ScoutNut once, been misunderstood by Beavah way back when..

 

Hey, different opinions, thoughts, ideas and beliefs are what make the world go round.

 

While I may not agree with some or share their beliefs, I wholeheartedly defend their right to have, to post and to express them!

 

Even if they are wrong!

[packsaddle]

As I have said before, I tend to learn far more from people who disagree with me than from those who think in similar ways. That's not to say that conflict isn't destructive but rather that if viewed and taken the right way, it can possibly be instructive. If nothing else, I can learn how to do more first aid on my ideas, LOL. Besides, I think if I had to, I still can probably outrun most of you guys.

[BadenP]

Frank aka F-Scouter

 

I really got quite a laugh at your post demeaning Beavah, because before you became a moderator, and even after, I do recall just how down right nasty you were to anyone who disagreed with you and blasted them with a tone reminiscent of our old friend Mr. White. We are all adults here and sometimes you may have to close a thread when it gets out of hand. However those instances are few and far between and even when we disagree in here most of us do not or should not take it personally, especially in the Issues and Politics section. Anyway Frank you have a Merry Christmas and a great New Year.

[Beavah]

But because somebody somewhere was a bit too overwound in the emotions dept...rule after rule after rule was written and posted that specifically defined what was considered a joke, what was considered "joking around"and what constitruted humor.

 

Yah, there's my point exactly.

 

Periodically over da years Scouter.Com has slipped toward this sort of "creeping moderator rules" stuff, often when a moderator gets emotionally wound up by some particular post or poster (as the comments directed my way on this thread by one moderator have shown, despite my PMs to the fellow ).

 

The nice level of moderation we now enjoy has in part been because of "push back" when it started headin' that way.

 

I consider this thread that kind of "push back", eh? There's no need for a "rule" that closes innocent threads along with da guilty. If a thread goes off the rails, close it. If it's a thread titled "BadenP" that talks about da celebration of the Founder's birthday, let it be. If it's a thread titled "Hey Beavah (and everyone!) look at this" to get my attention for comment on some point, let it be. If it's a thread that doesn't mention anyone by name but is obnoxious, close it.

 

Easy, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

And you don't think that having the thread "Holiday time camping in Beavah land" open is not a reflection of what you ask? That thread was started on December 11, 2010 and on December 18, 2010 you ask for something already in evidence for 7 days?

 

 

I often say I don't understand your points or logic and this is another example.

 

 

[Eamonn]

"over da years Scouter.Com has slipped toward this sort of "creeping moderator rules" stuff,"

 

Over the years there have been times when things have got a little out of hand.

At times there has been threads that have been started which seem to me to be more about "Rubbing someones nose in it." More than anything else.

As far as any kind of "Push Back"?

I know that I can put my hand on my heart and say that as far as I'm concerned this hasn't had any effect on me.

 

The site owner selected the group who now serve as moderators.

Lord knows that we are in no way perfect and we do at times mess up, both as moderators and as forum members.

Still we do what we think is best and at this time you are stuck with us.

Just as the site owner asked us to serve, he is free to ask that we step down.

 

The inmates in the jail where I work have all the time in the world to find loop holes in the rules and polices that are in place. Or push it so that they are so close to crossing the line, that even without doing so, it becomes obvious what their intent is.

While I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. I can't help but feel that is the intent of this thread.

Am I impressed about how clever it is?

NO!

From where I sit it just seems like yet another "Bash the moderator" thread. They seem to pop up every few months and serve no purpose what so ever.

Ea.

 

 

 

[Scoutfish]

Hey Eamonn,

 

Don't think that my part was meant to come off as bashing any mods. Actually, wether It came off that way or not, I am actually in suport of moderators.

 

It's gotta be tought to watch what other peole say anf think without intentionally or unintantionally taking sides, having an opinion or perdsonal thougts affecting your actions.

 

I was asked to be a moderator at nascar.com, but trurned it down because I know that - even if aI do great 99% of the time - that 1 % of the time that I might misunderstand, misconstrue or blast somebody might be my own lack of understanding of what the other person meant or intended.

 

It's got to be tough reading plain words and trying to understand the intent or tone behind them.

 

 

Thing I was trying to say is that if enough people complain, site owners either shut down a site or worse: Write another 100 rules about what constitutes humor, kidding, or fun based on either the site owners opinion or, again worse: what a bunch of lawyers think - possibly from a bunch of lawyers who have no understanding whatsoever about scouting.

[packsaddle]

"It's gotta be tought to watch what other peole say anf think without intentionally or unintantionally taking sides, having an opinion or perdsonal thougts affecting your actions."

Not to mention an instinctive desire to correct typos, heh, heh.

 

I view these forums as a scouter playground, a place for scout-related recreation that is both fun and informative. And it certainly has served both those purposes for me. So far, I think the only moderator stuff I've done is to correct a typo (sorry Eamonn) and to delete one half of a double post. I felt guilty after doing both of those and I'm not even sure why.

Moreover, I myself have taken the moderators to task on occasion for deleting posts that even today, I feel were not across the line. It was a judgment call and I accept their action (although I remember asking them to explain their justification).

 

With regard to the eponymous posts, I do remember how intense the words have been during some past exchanges, including the aforementioned examples. I participated in a few myself. While I've been supportive of the utmost freedom of expression, I also recognize that for some of us to post almost anything about certain others of us could appear to be inflamatory, especially if the other person is named in the title. In this particular case, it was a judgment call. I wasn't sure enough about it myself to make that call. OGE was. I'm OK with it either way. There's no way to know now how it would have turned out.

But the one thing that IS for sure, is that we're having what I consider to be a healthy discussion about it. So for those who agree with my instinct for complete freedom of expression (don't include that thing about typos), I ask: do you think these forums need moderators? It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer question.

Then, regardless of the answer, what is your reasoning to support the answer?

 

For those of us who suffered through some of those really intense exchanges in the past, the answer is usually 'yes', and I'm OK with that. The problem is who decides where to 'draw the line' and how?

Scouter Terry, when he invented the 'moderators', did it in response to the tone and content of some of those exchanges. As I remember, he did it by selecting several of the respondents who seemed willing to weigh all sides before taking action. You might think of them as 'even keeled' or something like that. Most of them had really big numbers beside their names, meaning they had been here for quite a while and had ample experience with different personalities, some of whom (me for example) had firm opinions on some subjects.

Overall, I think Terry made a decent decision (as if Terry needs my support - it's his castle in which to do as he sees fit). Recently (and to my surprise) I was also made a moderator (I still am scratching my head over that) but I accept it with humility. If I ever DO make a substantial change to something I'll probably agonize over the decision afterwards.

I think I'm not that different from any of the rest of you guys in that characteristic. We all want to do what is right. We all want everyone to 'play' nice. No one has written 'the rules' on stone tablets, however.

 

So help us out. Answer my questions. Show me how to decide where to draw the line. Show me how to do this in a way that all of us will accept as the best decision. ...And thanks for taking the time to think about it.

[skeptic]

Yes, we need moderators on occasion. For the most part, I have little problem with their decisions. This thread just seemed silly to me though, thus my rambling post near the start.

[Beavah]

The inmates in the jail where I work have all the time in the world to find loop holes in the rules and polices that are in place. Or push it so that they are so close to crossing the line, that even without doing so, it becomes obvious what their intent is.

While I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. I can't help but feel that is the intent of this thread.

 

Yah, hmmm...

 

We all come at things from our own background and perspectives, eh?

 

I confess da notion of "prison guard" is not a perspective I'd choose to compare with work as a forum moderator. I think that's likely to lead to the wrong choices for this environment.

 

The intent of the thread is to critique the addition of an unnecessary (and somewhat silly) rule, and its application. That's different than "disparaging", "bashing" and all da rest. In the thread that generated this whole dust-up, there were already 6 posts on point, and the thread was goin' where it was supposed to, eh? There was no need for moderator intervention by any reading of da Oath or Law. That's worthy of criticism.

 

Yah, the title pokes fun at the new unwritten rule, because humor is one form of critique (like da threads on Brent crude and Clemency & Law and the one about Oak Trees that is no doubt coming ). Da humor shows the rule to be silly.

 

The rest of the thread makes various arguments for and against, as it should.

 

I'm sorry that critique is viewed as "bashing" "disparaging", etc. It's not, it's critique. Criticizing an official action or a point of view is just criticizing. It's directed at the choice not at the person. I confess, however, that I do feel that a moderator who can't accept debate or criticism should probably turn in his keyboard. Nuthin' personal, it's just the wrong job for the person at this point in their life.

 

Feedback, discussion, criticism, debate, they're all part of da ordinary life of a community. They work just fine for minor corrections, leastways until yeh have some goof who can't take feedback without puffin' out his chest and declaring that he is Master before God, eh? Only then do yeh have to think about makin' a change. This issue doesn't even come close.

 

I reckon I am a bit disappointed by the "because I say so" responses from da moderators, and the more personal nastiness I got from one moderator by PM. I'd pull a SM aside who took that tack with kids, and there's really no place for it in an adult community of colleagues.

 

For da rest, it's a debate about the propriety of closing a thread that was just fine based on an unwritten rule.

 

I think da forum needs moderators with a light, respectful touch. And ones that can accept criticism thoughtfully, without a knee-jerk negative response. I think for the most part we do have decent fellows, when they stop to think about things.

 

Beavah

[Scoutfish]

 

 

WOW! I must be giving you all kinds of overtime!

[SR540Beaver]

As a long time member of many, many internet forums, "call out" threads are considered extremely poor nettiquette. You can argue your points inside a thread without making an individual user the subject of the thread.

 

The moderation here is practically non-existant. If you want to see moderation, take a trip over to Sean Hannity's forums where there is a forum called Talk To The Moderator. They have "civility" rules and people actually report on each other if someone steps over the line. Even though they have a list of "rules", it isn't hard and fast and the mods get to make the call.

 

I laugh everytime I see someone get there hiking shorts twisted over the "moderation" here.(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[acco40]

I think a simple solution would be to give a raise to the moderators that the forum users like best!