Disrespect: where to draw the line here

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to Teakus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I personally think banning should be an extremely rare occurrence , reserved for such egregious acts such as severe spamming, violations of the law, EXTREME and sustained verbal abuse, etc. The banning of posters because folks might disagree with their views is simply wrong and should be condemned. Requiring conformity in speech is about as despotic as it gets, and I for one stand with the many dissidents around the world who suffer daily because they dared to speak their minds. If the views expressed here are weak, lacking in corroboration or substance, etc. The Nation will resoundingly point this out. It's what makes a great board...err...great! I'm also not a fan of post removals, unless to move to an existing thread to help with clutter, unless it is an extreme violation of the TOS. I'm also a HUGE fan of allowing off topic posts, as long as they are identified as such, and they are otherwise acceptably presented. Some of our greatest threads ever were based on off topic posts. I view this site as a big old kitchen table where the Red Sox Nation family can come to discuss things. If an alien from outer space lands on the White House lawn next week, why shouldn't we be able to discuss it here among our family? Some here post ONLY on this forum, and for some this is their primary social outlet. We have a variety of disabled folks here and this site gives them great joy. I say let them occasionally tell us all that their beloved pet passed, or that they found an awesome new way to smoke brisket on the grill, or that the doctor told them they have cancer and they're scared. Again, the thread should be clearly identified as off topic such as: **OFF TOPIC** "My cat fluffy just died today...." Then folks who never want to read an off topic post won't be bothered, but those who choose to can offer support. Just something to consider, I think it's something that would help to drive traffic and improve satisfaction with the board.

    I really liked the tone of this thread and the respectful way input was solicited. Guests who come here have many options available to them, and it's nice to see a Mod making them 

     

    I agree with much of this.  OVER-censorship, especially when it is colored by unavoidable bias is a very dangerous thing, I.e. the IRS targeting speech already deemed constitutional by the Supreme court.  

    When the targeting goes your way, it's all good.  When change inevitably comes in any forum administration, and the targeting goes the other way, suddenly it doesn't seem quite so innocuous?

    Another example....  I was at a school where a certain group was obviously favored by the principal.  Others suffered obvious and undue scrutiny.  Strangely enough, when the principal changed, so did the tables.  As is often the case, the chosen ones were pretty harshly put in their places, and subsequently had to endure some some pretty unfair scrutiny.

    Generally speaking, what goes around comes around.

    Anyway..........

    Time to ratchet it back to a 4.  Don't let billy go off on political tangents, but conversely, don't buy into those don quixote types who tilt at every political windmill in his every comnent!

    PIKE????   Zero tolerance!!!!!!   He is just a 24/7 nuisance!!!!!!!!!   ZERO TOLLERANCE!!!!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just to be clear, my concern was never that the mods were being too lenient or too strict, but rather that they were being inconsistent and biased. The bias and unfairness seems to be directed at a small handful of posters, who can't so much as sneeze without getting a warning or having a post deleted, while others can be snarky, flame, antagonize, insult, or whatever without nary a warning.

    I am not in favor of more censorship. I am not in favor of deleting posts or banning posters, except for in extreme cases. I enjoy reading most of the back and forth between posters, and I'm sure the posters involved enjoy it as well.  I find most of the snarky comments rather funny. Many posters try to stir the pot or flame. Often times, that makes for some very good baseball conversation.  

    In short, I am not asking for stricter posting policies, just for consistency.   On a scale of 1-10, I would say 2.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The ONLY poster who answered the question presented and told it like it is. Most posters come here to stir the pot, flame, annoy, troll, deceive, bash the team and its players, be sarcastic, use satire, be tongue-in-cheek, be insincere, dishonest, play devil's advocate, be a contrarian, etc.  Most regulars do that and condone it. But why is pointing out the obvious such a cardinal sin in the eyes of the moderators. Do they have a vested interest in the forum status quo? Do they own BDC stock? Are they employed by BDC as webmasters, paid moderators, or is the forum on their servers?

    Why is pointing out why posters obviously come here such an unforgiveable transgression which results in deleted posts, threads, and bannings. If everything goes then why not allow criticism of the fact that everything goes? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong.....my answer was better....

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    Like Kingface, I'm a bit late to this party, but I'd still like to put in my own $.02.

    I come here to talk Red Sox baseball and to have at least semi-civil interaction with other posters.  I try to be respectful of everyone else and their opinions and I expect the same from everyone else.  

    However, that doesn't mean that there aren't times when we all step over that line and I'm no different.  I've said a few things that I wouldn't want my kids to read and know it came from me - but that's ok with me.  It's a part of the give and take of the passionate people who post here.

    What I DO find objectionable is posters who intentionally repeatedly bait and stir the pot, and yes, IMO, Bill is the master baiter.  He even went so far as to ADMIT on Page 1 of this thread that he's intentionally and willfully baiting with his political slams and innuendos and I have no place for that.  A political discussion is something I have no objection to - but that's a discussion and I'm referring to the baiting.  I respect everyone's right to their own beliefs, but at the same time I don't want them pushed down my throat nor will I tolerate having my own political or religious beliefs insulted.  

    I'm not sure how I'd "rate" what I want for moderation but IMO the duties of the moderator are included in their title.  Their job is to "moderate".  To iron out the hills and valleys and bring the forum into "moderation".  IMHO the forums have become a better place since they took over and I'd urge them to not change a thing!

    Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

    And I have never posted here under any other names.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to Kingface12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just to be clear, my concern was never that the mods were being too lenient or too strict, but rather that they were being inconsistent and biased. The bias and unfairness seems to be directed at a small handful of posters, who can't so much as sneeze without getting a warning or having a post deleted, while others can be snarky, flame, antagonize, insult, or whatever without nary a warning.

    I am not in favor of more censorship. I am not in favor of deleting posts or banning posters, except for in extreme cases. I enjoy reading most of the back and forth between posters, and I'm sure the posters involved enjoy it as well.  I find most of the snarky comments rather funny. Many posters try to stir the pot or flame. Often times, that makes for some very good baseball conversation.  

    In short, I am not asking for stricter posting policies, just for consistency.   On a scale of 1-10, I would say 2.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The ONLY poster who answered the question presented and told it like it is. Most posters come here to stir the pot, flame, annoy, troll, deceive, bash the team and its players, be sarcastic, use satire, be tongue-in-cheek, be insincere, dishonest, play devil's advocate, be a contrarian, etc.  Most regulars do that and condone it. But why is pointing out the obvious such a cardinal sin in the eyes of the moderators. Do they have a vested interest in the forum status quo? Do they own BDC stock? Are they employed by BDC as webmasters, paid moderators, or is the forum on their servers?

    Why is pointing out why posters obviously come here such an unforgiveable transgression which results in deleted posts, threads, and bannings. If everything goes then why not allow criticism of the fact that everything goes? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong.....my answer was better....

    [/QUOTE]

    No, my answer was fantastic; wait, sorry, I'm on the wrong thread.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    So basically this thread is a soap opera? 


    I missed the days of torching newbies, hazing as some might call it. It's a Forum, in all honesty, other than some poster who's name sounds like spike, does anyone really take this stuff personally and cry to their mommies? It's a freaking Forum, who cares. Also some of the best conversations I've had on this board had nothing to do with baseball, so sue me. Why can't we just start threads, answer threads, challenge opinions, jump on posters for terrible opinions, joke, be sarcastic, have fun, be angry, have a few long-running battles between posters, and let this 1984 over-policing of boards stop. You post someone's personal info or you threaten somebody with bodily harm, then you really cross the line. Other than that, it's a freaking board. That's all. When it's all said and done, the only winners are Boston Globe columnists who stole half their columns off of intelligent threads started here. That's a win-win for the Globe in my opinion.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    8

     

    other names i have posted under:  none

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So basically this thread is a soap opera? 

    I missed the days of torching newbies, hazing as some might call it. It's a Forum, in all honesty, other than some poster who's name sounds like spike, does anyone really take this stuff personally and cry to their mommies? It's a freaking Forum, who cares. Also some of the best conversations I've had this board had nothing to do with baseball, so sue me. Why can't we just start threads, answer threads, challenge opinions, jump on posters for terrible opinions, joke, be sarcastic, have fun, be angry, have a few long-running battles between posters, and let this 1984 over-policing of boards stop. You post someone's personal info or you threaten somebody with bodily harm, then you really cross the line. Other than that, it's a freaking board. That's all. When it's all said and done, the only winners are Boston Globe columnists who stole half their columns off of intelligent threads started here. That's a win-win for the Globe in my opinion.

    [/QUOTE]

    So there is nothing wrong in your opinion to call a troll a troll or to label someone as a contrarian, devil's advocate, insincere, dishonest, a flamer, pot stirrer, or instigator. I just want to make sure of that. If I make those accusations then I will IMO be 90 percent correct, do you agree? Call a spade a spade. Identify the chronic malcontent, perpetual wet blanket, the daily skeptic, or card carrying troll. You have no problem eith that? Then why does it bother the moderator who bans you being honest? Why not let everything go here instead of policing  those who identify trolls? It seems to me that we could give out prizes to the top ten rolls of the year. After all, a real fan on a gamethread can pretend on every post to hate everything Red Sox and when confronted about it say that it was only sarcasm or satire or that he meant the opposite, that he was really cheering on the player. Forget about thode who took him seriously and were flamed, they are the suckers. 

    How about Son of Sam Forum. Are they full of flamers and trolls and juveniles also. Or is that a BDC specialty?

    In any event, why should a poster who identifies the charade be banned. Isn't that like killing the messenger? Maybe the clowns want to fool the newbies. Maybe many of the oldtimers are gullible and keep falling for the daily charade. Maybe they believed that Softlaw was sincere for all of those years. If you fooled the elderly and took pride in it then shame on you. I never fell for it.  Never thought that Law was sincere neither. If everyone were aware of the charade then it wouldn't be any fun, would it? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hard to tell, pike. I think often you take this stuff too personally. But I doubt I would have ever banned you if I had the keys to the City. I didn't really care for Softlaw either, especially his insane dislike of Wakefield. However, it's a Forum, and other than policing very detailed certain over-the-line comments, I think the over-policing is worse than the annoying posters who stroll in and out.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So basically this thread is a soap opera? 

    I missed the days of torching newbies, hazing as some might call it. It's a Forum, in all honesty, other than some poster who's name sounds like spike, does anyone really take this stuff personally and cry to their mommies? It's a freaking Forum, who cares. Also some of the best conversations I've had this board had nothing to do with baseball, so sue me. Why can't we just start threads, answer threads, challenge opinions, jump on posters for terrible opinions, joke, be sarcastic, have fun, be angry, have a few long-running battles between posters, and let this 1984 over-policing of boards stop. You post someone's personal info or you threaten somebody with bodily harm, then you really cross the line. Other than that, it's a freaking board. That's all. When it's all said and done, the only winners are Boston Globe columnists who stole half their columns off of intelligent threads started here. That's a win-win for the Globe in my opinion.

    [/QUOTE]

    So there is nothing wrong in your opinion to call a troll a troll or to label someone as a contrarian, devil's advocate, insincere, dishonest, a flamer, pot stirrer, or instigator. I just want to make sure of that. If I make those accusations then I will IMO be 90 percent correct, do you agree? Call a spade a spade. Identify the chronic malcontent, perpetual wet blanket, the daily skeptic, or card carrying troll. You have no problem eith that? Then why does it bother the moderator who bans you being honest? Why not let everything go here instead of policing  those who identify trolls? It seems to me that we could give out prizes to the top ten rolls of the year. After all, a real fan on a gamethread can pretend on every post to hate everything Red Sox and when confronted about it say that it was only sarcasm or satire or that he meant the opposite, that he was really cheering on the player. Forget about thode who took him seriously and were flamed, they are the suckers. 

    How about Son of Sam Forum. Are they full of flamers and trolls and juveniles also. Or is that a BDC specialty?

    In any event, why should a poster who identifies the charade be banned. Isn't that like killing the messenger? Maybe the clowns want to fool the newbies. Maybe many of the oldtimers are gullible and keep falling for the daily charade. Maybe they believed that Softlaw was sincere for all of those years. If you fooled the elderly and took pride in it then shame on you. I never fell for it.  Never thought that Law was sincere neither. If everyone were aware of the charade then it wouldn't be any fun, would it? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hard to tell, pike. I think often you take this stuff too personally. But I doubt I would have ever banned you if I had the keys to the City. I didn't really care for Softlaw either, especially his insane dislike of Wakefield. However, it's a Forum, and other than policing very detailed certain over-the-line comments, I think the over-policing is worse than the annoying posters who stroll in and out.

    [/QUOTE]


    Come on now....  we're not really going to ignore the deliciously rich irony of Pike trying to "out" trolls?  Are we?

    This guy is the biggest  TROLL on this planet!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RigatoniT. Show RigatoniT's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    he did his best the past 3 days after being banned to disrupt the forum with ghost posting... only a certified troll would do that.... he is an amazing troll though - he actually fits into about 18 different categories of Troll.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So basically this thread is a soap opera? 

    I missed the days of torching newbies, hazing as some might call it. It's a Forum, in all honesty, other than some poster who's name sounds like spike, does anyone really take this stuff personally and cry to their mommies? It's a freaking Forum, who cares. Also some of the best conversations I've had this board had nothing to do with baseball, so sue me. Why can't we just start threads, answer threads, challenge opinions, jump on posters for terrible opinions, joke, be sarcastic, have fun, be angry, have a few long-running battles between posters, and let this 1984 over-policing of boards stop. You post someone's personal info or you threaten somebody with bodily harm, then you really cross the line. Other than that, it's a freaking board. That's all. When it's all said and done, the only winners are Boston Globe columnists who stole half their columns off of intelligent threads started here. That's a win-win for the Globe in my opinion.

    [/QUOTE]

    So there is nothing wrong in your opinion to call a troll a troll or to label someone as a contrarian, devil's advocate, insincere, dishonest, a flamer, pot stirrer, or instigator. I just want to make sure of that. If I make those accusations then I will IMO be 90 percent correct, do you agree? Call a spade a spade. Identify the chronic malcontent, perpetual wet blanket, the daily skeptic, or card carrying troll. You have no problem eith that? Then why does it bother the moderator who bans you being honest? Why not let everything go here instead of policing  those who identify trolls? It seems to me that we could give out prizes to the top ten rolls of the year. After all, a real fan on a gamethread can pretend on every post to hate everything Red Sox and when confronted about it say that it was only sarcasm or satire or that he meant the opposite, that he was really cheering on the player. Forget about thode who took him seriously and were flamed, they are the suckers. 

    How about Son of Sam Forum. Are they full of flamers and trolls and juveniles also. Or is that a BDC specialty?

    In any event, why should a poster who identifies the charade be banned. Isn't that like killing the messenger? Maybe the clowns want to fool the newbies. Maybe many of the oldtimers are gullible and keep falling for the daily charade. Maybe they believed that Softlaw was sincere for all of those years. If you fooled the elderly and took pride in it then shame on you. I never fell for it.  Never thought that Law was sincere neither. If everyone were aware of the charade then it wouldn't be any fun, would it? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hard to tell, pike. I think often you take this stuff too personally. But I doubt I would have ever banned you if I had the keys to the City. I didn't really care for Softlaw either, especially his insane dislike of Wakefield. However, it's a Forum, and other than policing very detailed certain over-the-line comments, I think the over-policing is worse than the annoying posters who stroll in and out.

    [/QUOTE]


    Come on now....  we're not really going to ignore the deliciously rich irony of Pike trying to "out" trolls?  Are we?

    This guy is the biggest  TROLL on this planet!

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, but banning him isn't going to make him sane.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RigatoniT. Show RigatoniT's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    I'd rather joust with him but if the Mods are going to delete my posts to or about him then that ruins it

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    I think you should have a high tolerance for personal insults ("you're ignorant", "you're boring") and zero tolerance for racist/sexist/homophobic abuse.

    Most people here claim they are big boys/girls and can take an insult so I think you should consider that.  But the abuse I mention above isn't specific and can cause collateral damage to innocent people.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    Personally, I would set the bar for deletion/banning pretty high - like serious harassment/stalking/slander/hate speech/spamming/etc. Most other stuff people should be able to handle on their own or ignore.


    I would rather post on a forum that resembles the wild west (as this one has more often than not since I first began posting here in 2005-06) than one that is too tightly moderated. Others may feel differently.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RigatoniT. Show RigatoniT's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Personally, I would set the bar for deletion/banning pretty high - like serious harassment/stalking/slander/hate speech/spamming/etc. Most other stuff people should be able to handle on their own or ignore.

     

    I would rather post on a forum that resembles the wild west (as this one has more often than not since I first began posting here in 2005-06) than one that is too tightly moderated. Others may feel differently.

    [/QUOTE]

    bingo !!!!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sycophant123. Show sycophant123's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to RigatoniT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Personally, I would set the bar for deletion/banning pretty high - like serious harassment/stalking/slander/hate speech/spamming/etc. Most other stuff people should be able to handle on their own or ignore.

     

    I would rather post on a forum that resembles the wild west (as this one has more often than not since I first began posting here in 2005-06) than one that is too tightly moderated. Others may feel differently.

    [/QUOTE]

    bingo !!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    I am with that a hundred percent. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    Let me guess, that "random post deletion" thing is happening again. LOL

     

     

    I love the smell of asphalt in the morning.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mod2. Show Mod2's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Let me guess, that "random post deletion" thing is happening again. LOL

     

     Check your private messages.

     

     

    I love the smell of asphalt in the morning.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mod2. Show Mod2's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    OK, I have tried to sift through all these comments (yes, all of them) to try to come up with a summary of where we are now. I sincerely appreciate the input and over the next few days I am sure that some modifications in the way the forum is moderated will occur, based on your feedback, after I have had a chance to discuss this with Modd1.

    Of those who submitted actual numbers (1=anything goes to 10=gestapo) there were four 2's, one 3-4, and one 8. Most of the comments were in favor of less censorship, and here are some cuts from them (ie not full quotes):

    "I like arguing and throwing crap" "there should be less censorship" "censorship is a slippery slope" "posters should be able to deal with minor annoyances" "banning should be kept to a minimum"" too much censorship" "no one should be banned" "banning should be reserved for threats or racism" "posts should be deleted only in extreme cases" "banning should be extremely rare/I am not in favor of removing posts" "the overpolicing should stop" "there should be a high tolerance for personal insults and zero tolerance for racism/sexism/homophobia" "the bar should be set high for (post) deletion/I like the wild west approach"

    On the other hand, there were several calls for a more civil board: 

    "prefer civil discussions" "call for common courtesy" "I dislike the snark and trash talk" "a pattern of disrespect deserves a warning" "a call for semi-civil interactions-no changes in the current level of moderation"

    There were also several requests that the moderators be "less biased" and some calls for us to reveal our other screen name. For the record, there is a reason we are doing it this way: its tough to switch hats quickly and put on a mod hat where there is an expectation that we will at least attempt to be fair, a requirement that is not present when you all post under your screen names (examples of this abound in this thread). 

    I will need to discuss the specific changes that should be made with Modd1, but I think its fair to say that an effort will be made on our part to do the following: 

    1. Take a less vigorous approach to moderating while taking into consideration the views of the minority here who would like a more civil forum.

    2. Renew our efforts to be less biased in our approach. You can help by citing specific examples that you think reveal bias and we will certainly endeavor to correct it going forward (it would be too time consuming to go back and try to correct all the previous errors)

    Still to be decided are the following issues: 

    1. How to handle posters who have already been permanently banned

    2. How to handle Bill's political one liners- which some here find very objectionable

    3. How to handle our two usernames: should we simply have one

    If I have left something out or if you have other suggestions let me know. Personally, I have no vested interest in pushing the forum one way or another. I gave up that power trip years ago. I will be in contact with Modd1 over the next few days to try to iron out the remaining issues and make a plan going forward based on what you have told us.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to Mod2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OK, I have tried to sift through all these comments (yes, all of them) to try to come up with a summary of where we are now. I sincerely appreciate the input and over the next few days I am sure that some modifications in the way the forum is moderated will occur, based on your feedback, after I have had a chance to discuss this with Modd1.

    Of those who submitted actual numbers (1=anything goes to 10=gestapo) there were four 2's, one 3-4, and one 8. Most of the comments were in favor of less censorship, and here are some cuts from them (ie not full quotes):

    "I like arguing and throwing crap" "there should be less censorship" "censorship is a slippery slope" "posters should be able to deal with minor annoyances" "banning should be kept to a minimum"" too much censorship" "no one should be banned" "banning should be reserved for threats or racism" "posts should be deleted only in extreme cases" "banning should be extremely rare/I am not in favor of removing posts" "the overpolicing should stop" "there should be a high tolerance for personal insults and zero tolerance for racism/sexism/homophobia" "the bar should be set high for (post) deletion/I like the wild west approach"

    On the other hand, there were several calls for a more civil board: 

    "prefer civil discussions" "call for common courtesy" "I dislike the snark and trash talk" "a pattern of disrespect deserves a warning" "a call for semi-civil interactions-no changes in the current level of moderation"

    There were also several requests that the moderators be "less biased" and some calls for us to reveal our other screen name. For the record, there is a reason we are doing it this way: its tough to switch hats quickly and put on a mod hat where there is an expectation that we will at least attempt to be fair, a requirement that is not present when you all post under your screen names (examples of this abound in this thread). 

    I will need to discuss the specific changes that should be made with Modd1, but I think its fair to say that an effort will be made on our part to do the following: 

    1. Take a less vigorous approach to moderating while taking into consideration the views of the minority here who would like a more civil forum.

    2. Renew our efforts to be less biased in our approach. You can help by citing specific examples that you think reveal bias and we will certainly endeavor to correct it going forward (it would be too time consuming to go back and try to correct all the previous errors)

    Still to be decided are the following issues: 

    1. How to handle posters who have already been permanently banned

    2. How to handle Bill's political one liners- which some here find very objectionable

    3. How to handle our two usernames: should we simply have one

    If I have left something out or if you have other suggestions let me know. Personally, I have no vested interest in pushing the forum one way or another. I gave up that power trip years ago. I will be in contact with Modd1 over the next few days to try to iron out the remaining issues and make a plan going forward based on what you have told us.

    [/QUOTE]


    1) Permanent means permanent.....

    2) Bill has been warned several times.  If he does it again then he's gone....  I don't come here to discuss my love of Golf or anything Mopar.....so why should I listen to somebody talk about politics.....

    3) For the love of everything Holy...being a Mod and posting under another name is simply silly.  There is no reason why you can't post under your screen name and have "mod" under it.  EVERY forum does this.....no idea why this one (which is VERY SMALL compared to others) should be any different.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to Kingface12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Mod2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OK, I have tried to sift through all these comments (yes, all of them) to try to come up with a summary of where we are now. I sincerely appreciate the input and over the next few days I am sure that some modifications in the way the forum is moderated will occur, based on your feedback, after I have had a chance to discuss this with Modd1.

    Of those who submitted actual numbers (1=anything goes to 10=gestapo) there were four 2's, one 3-4, and one 8. Most of the comments were in favor of less censorship, and here are some cuts from them (ie not full quotes):

    "I like arguing and throwing crap" "there should be less censorship" "censorship is a slippery slope" "posters should be able to deal with minor annoyances" "banning should be kept to a minimum"" too much censorship" "no one should be banned" "banning should be reserved for threats or racism" "posts should be deleted only in extreme cases" "banning should be extremely rare/I am not in favor of removing posts" "the overpolicing should stop" "there should be a high tolerance for personal insults and zero tolerance for racism/sexism/homophobia" "the bar should be set high for (post) deletion/I like the wild west approach"

    On the other hand, there were several calls for a more civil board: 

    "prefer civil discussions" "call for common courtesy" "I dislike the snark and trash talk" "a pattern of disrespect deserves a warning" "a call for semi-civil interactions-no changes in the current level of moderation"

    There were also several requests that the moderators be "less biased" and some calls for us to reveal our other screen name. For the record, there is a reason we are doing it this way: its tough to switch hats quickly and put on a mod hat where there is an expectation that we will at least attempt to be fair, a requirement that is not present when you all post under your screen names (examples of this abound in this thread). 

    I will need to discuss the specific changes that should be made with Modd1, but I think its fair to say that an effort will be made on our part to do the following: 

    1. Take a less vigorous approach to moderating while taking into consideration the views of the minority here who would like a more civil forum.

    2. Renew our efforts to be less biased in our approach. You can help by citing specific examples that you think reveal bias and we will certainly endeavor to correct it going forward (it would be too time consuming to go back and try to correct all the previous errors)

    Still to be decided are the following issues: 

    1. How to handle posters who have already been permanently banned

    2. How to handle Bill's political one liners- which some here find very objectionable

    3. How to handle our two usernames: should we simply have one

    If I have left something out or if you have other suggestions let me know. Personally, I have no vested interest in pushing the forum one way or another. I gave up that power trip years ago. I will be in contact with Modd1 over the next few days to try to iron out the remaining issues and make a plan going forward based on what you have told us.

    [/QUOTE]


    1) Permanent means permanent.....

    2) Bill has been warned several times.  If he does it again then he's gone....  I don't come here to discuss my love of Golf or anything Mopar.....so why should I listen to somebody talk about politics.....

    3) For the love of everything Holy...being a Mod and posting under another name is simply silly.  There is no reason why you can't post under your screen name and have "mod" under it.  EVERY forum does this.....no idea why this one (which is VERY SMALL compared to others) should be any different.

    [/QUOTE]There ya go again !!!    Crying, we,we,we all the way home !!!!


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    Kimmie with all due respect, are you forgetting what Pike, and Babe, who you've also defend, did on this forum? Neither one of them attacked you, but they did others. That's why. You seem to have gone after a certain poster here too, who I can only assume you've had issues with, also. To question and be critical of someone else, seems a bit disingenuous to me.

     

    This is just another example of the bias and inconsistency I am talking about.  Pike made a very good and valid baseball post.  Two posters, unprovoked, jumped on him.  If/when Pike responds in kind, he will be banned. The other two posters will still be posting away, with not so much as a warning.

    It's not about whether a poster has attacked me or not.  There have been posters who have attacked me.  I have never reported them, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned.

    As far as me attacking a certain poster, I will admit that I have occasionally responded to him in a snarky manner.  I have never claimed to be above reproach.   Two differences, as I see them, not that it excuses my snarky replies:

    1.  I do not follow this poster around, waiting to pounce on his every post, be it baseball related or not.

    2.  This poster is in no danger of being banned.  He is not on the 'hit' list.  I am not trying to bait him so that he will give the mods a reason to ban him.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Disrespect: where to draw the line here

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Kingface12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Mod2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OK, I have tried to sift through all these comments (yes, all of them) to try to come up with a summary of where we are now. I sincerely appreciate the input and over the next few days I am sure that some modifications in the way the forum is moderated will occur, based on your feedback, after I have had a chance to discuss this with Modd1.

    Of those who submitted actual numbers (1=anything goes to 10=gestapo) there were four 2's, one 3-4, and one 8. Most of the comments were in favor of less censorship, and here are some cuts from them (ie not full quotes):

    "I like arguing and throwing crap" "there should be less censorship" "censorship is a slippery slope" "posters should be able to deal with minor annoyances" "banning should be kept to a minimum"" too much censorship" "no one should be banned" "banning should be reserved for threats or racism" "posts should be deleted only in extreme cases" "banning should be extremely rare/I am not in favor of removing posts" "the overpolicing should stop" "there should be a high tolerance for personal insults and zero tolerance for racism/sexism/homophobia" "the bar should be set high for (post) deletion/I like the wild west approach"

    On the other hand, there were several calls for a more civil board: 

    "prefer civil discussions" "call for common courtesy" "I dislike the snark and trash talk" "a pattern of disrespect deserves a warning" "a call for semi-civil interactions-no changes in the current level of moderation"

    There were also several requests that the moderators be "less biased" and some calls for us to reveal our other screen name. For the record, there is a reason we are doing it this way: its tough to switch hats quickly and put on a mod hat where there is an expectation that we will at least attempt to be fair, a requirement that is not present when you all post under your screen names (examples of this abound in this thread). 

    I will need to discuss the specific changes that should be made with Modd1, but I think its fair to say that an effort will be made on our part to do the following: 

    1. Take a less vigorous approach to moderating while taking into consideration the views of the minority here who would like a more civil forum.

    2. Renew our efforts to be less biased in our approach. You can help by citing specific examples that you think reveal bias and we will certainly endeavor to correct it going forward (it would be too time consuming to go back and try to correct all the previous errors)

    Still to be decided are the following issues: 

    1. How to handle posters who have already been permanently banned

    2. How to handle Bill's political one liners- which some here find very objectionable

    3. How to handle our two usernames: should we simply have one

    If I have left something out or if you have other suggestions let me know. Personally, I have no vested interest in pushing the forum one way or another. I gave up that power trip years ago. I will be in contact with Modd1 over the next few days to try to iron out the remaining issues and make a plan going forward based on what you have told us.

    [/QUOTE]


    1) Permanent means permanent.....

    2) Bill has been warned several times.  If he does it again then he's gone....  I don't come here to discuss my love of Golf or anything Mopar.....so why should I listen to somebody talk about politics.....

    3) For the love of everything Holy...being a Mod and posting under another name is simply silly.  There is no reason why you can't post under your screen name and have "mod" under it.  EVERY forum does this.....no idea why this one (which is VERY SMALL compared to others) should be any different.

    [/QUOTE]There ya go again !!!    Crying, we,we,we all the way home !!!!


    [/QUOTE]


    So I take you disagree with 'opinion #3'?

    BTW....leave my bathroom habits out of this discussion Bill......

    AWKWARD!!!!!!!

     

Share