Official forum cop thread

[jwinslow]

I wasn't being sarcastic Jo, you usually offer up a lot of suggestions in threads like these, even in ones merely talking about a problem and not openly asking for your solutions
I also wasn't calling you an idiot when I pointed out that you were oblivious to private moderation about one of your examples of unchecked postings. I was illustrating that there is a lot of private moderation done here to improve the board, even if folks aren't publically warned or penalized.

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

How is trying to find what the distinction on posts citing articles whining about moderation?

because you refuse to address the topic. Clearly folks are unhappy with moderation, so we are asking you to provide your solutions to the problem.

What do you do instead? You continue to argue about when, how and why the article rule should be applied.


Yes, that's a blackberry typo, but I think it's a fitting one.

Is there a reason the wealth of advice runs out when it gets beyond critiquing the past moderation? That is fairly irrelevant to this thread, other than to show how the new approach will be different.

Bkb, brutus and akak's moderation is now on the shelf. Stop pointing out problems with it and actually provide your own approach.

Linking examples of naked article links is not relevant. Beyond that, I believe jcosu was the only other poster to link something, but I'm not risking my computer going the route of his boards by clicking on it.

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Just so I'm clear for future reference, posting an article without comment is a ban hammerable offense

Just so I'm clear, do you have no purpose in this brainstorming session (intended for your rules/approach/suggestions) other than to focus on someone else's rules... And only one rule at that?

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

my apology on the terminology. its a new thing to me.

then again assuming i checked my rep every 10 minutes i would not have been "aware" of such a situation, but you did send me a pm i think once upon a time, (i just went through the pms that havent been system deleted and it was prior to 9-22-08). then again i violated it, i deserved it...

Ya know guys, another way to look at this is that the warnings we issued weren't meant to be severe or significant things. Rather they're just intended to help get your attention to address a few momentary matters and get things back on track. They're certainly not something that should cause anyone to become defensive. At most, we usually expect a few pms to go back and forth to help clarify and confusion or the like.

If they were really significant, then we would have assigned infractions with points. Again, we're working to get the forum back to where it needs to be, and we need everyone's help.

[Deety]

I'm not sure what the point is of posting an article that even the poster does not deem worthy of commentary, but if that's a big sticking point here, maybe another solution is possible.

How about an Official Links & Quotes Only thread? Storage only, no discussion, almost no moderation (only if it should be in RR, causes us to go on an FBI list, that sort of thing), and no assumption as to the poster's support for or opposition to the article content. If someone cares enough to make it into a discussion, take the quote elsewhere and regular forum rules will apply.

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

I wasn't being sarcastic Jo, you usually offer up a lot of suggestions in threads like these, even in ones merely talking about a problem and not openly asking for your solutions
I also wasn't calling you an idiot when I pointed out that you were oblivious to private moderation about one of your examples of unchecked postings. I was illustrating that there is a lot of private moderation done here to improve the board, even if folks aren't publically warned or penalized.
because you refuse to address the topic. Clearly folks are unhappy with moderation, so we are asking you to provide your solutions to the problem.

What do you do instead? You continue to argue about when, how and why the article rule should be applied.


Yes, that's a blackberry typo, but I think it's a fitting one.

Is there a reason the wealth of advice runs out when it gets beyond critiquing the past moderation? That is fairly irrelevant to this thread, other than to show how the new approach will be different.

Bkb, brutus and akak's moderation is now on the shelf. Stop pointing out problems with it and actually provide your own approach.

Linking examples of naked article links is not relevant. Beyond that, I believe jcosu was the only other poster to link something, but I'm not risking my computer going the route of his boards by clicking on it.

My biggest piece of advice would be to clearly explain the rules to people when contacted or link to the specific rule. Avoid using profanity and anger when dealing something in a moderating/adminstrating/site management position when they haven't done the same to you. In my opinion site leadership shouldn't try to escalate issues.

The site leadership when dealing with members of the site, especially long time ones should use the cool calm and collected route. Using improper infractions and threating people isn't the route to get the best resolution inmho

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

I wasn't being sarcastic Jo, you usually offer up a lot of suggestions in threads like these, even in ones merely talking about a problem and not openly asking for your solutions
I also wasn't calling you an idiot when I pointed out that you were oblivious to private moderation about one of your examples of unchecked postings. I was illustrating that there is a lot of private moderation done here to improve the board, even if folks aren't publically warned or penalized.
because you refuse to address the topic. Clearly folks are unhappy with moderation, so we are asking you to provide your solutions to the problem.

What do you do instead? You continue to argue about when, how and why the article rule should be applied.

my idea was for some sort of panel, it seems to me that a vast majority of the issues are hot temper and heat of passion type issues, my idea was merely a few "elected" persons who could issue these sorts of things, some level of shall i say accountability and with the some level of electorate to relatively short terms. then again i see the heightened posting standard lesser than slurs, or accusations directly aimed at a person as racist, x or y...

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Just so I'm clear for future reference, posting an article without comment is a ban hammerable offense

I don't think we'd drop the hammer for that... but every case is different. We're really hoping that the warnings and open dialog will help resolve the issue, and no infractions will be needed going forward.

Of course, I think it's also fair to let you guys know that we always have the forum-ban-hammer that we can implement whenever we need. In that case, we can simply remove someone from the poli forum for a day or two if needed to let them cool down. If it happens to often to any one poster, then we'll consider making it a permanent thing (see Taos).

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

my idea was for some sort of panel, it seems to me that a vast majority of the issues are hot temper and heat of passion type issues, my idea was merely a few "elected" persons who could issue these sorts of things, some level of shall i say accountability and with the some level of electorate to relatively short terms. then again i see the heightened posting standard lesser than slurs, or accusations directly aimed at a person as racist, x or y...

I think accountability already exists in that whenever someone receives an infraction, warning, or even a ding for that matter, the recipient always knows who sent them. If any such recipient has an issue after receiving any of those things, then they are welcome to communicate directly with person that submitted the action. And if they don't feel comfortable with discussing it directly with that person, they can always PM a different mod or admin.

Additionally, whenever a formal warning or infraction is submitted, a new thread is created in the mod/admin forum. It shows the original post that received the warning/infraction and the message that was also submitted. This can then be reviewed by other mods and admins. Such threads have started decent discussions amongst staff regarding rules going forward, actions to take with repeat offenders, and some infractions have actually been reversed.

[OSUsushichic]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

And no, this thread is not an excuse for dung whining, which has been well established as more than just complaining about rep. We don't even allow mockery of stupid reps on this website.

Your dung smells like [censored]!

[Deety]

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

Of course, I think it's also fair to let you guys know that we always have the forum-ban-hammer that we can implement whenever we need. In that case, we can simply remove someone from the poli forum for a day or two if needed to let them cool down. If it happens to often to any one poster, then we'll consider making it a permanent thing (see Taos).

Might as well expound on this a little...

Infractions all go into one system, and we don't want this forum to mess with people's ability to post in other forums. So more than likely, if someone says infraction they are going to mean forum ban of whatever length. On the face of it, a forum ban may seem harsher, but the idea there is to avoid board-wide consequences for things that are only an issue in this forum.

However, that's all sort of a what-if; I can't think of anyone whose ability to post has been altered since this latest debate began.

[muffler dragon]

I'm not sure if this thread is focused on finding infractions in the posts of others or if it's a matter of offering suggestions. If it's the latter; then I'll provide one:

Debate has a particular decorum. Within this decorum, there are manners in which to present an argument, counterpoint, etc. In my Type A way of going about discussions/debates, I try my best to eliminate any and all fallacies.

I provide the following source, because it's easy and concise:

Fallacies

If people discussed/debated arguments with points that were devoid of the above fallacies; then I believe we'd have a smoother time in PC&D.

[jwinslow]

I still don't see much advice on how to improve discourse on this site. How does that change the divisive nature of the board right now? Folks have been asked nicely quite often. There are a lot of stubborn folks on this site.


Instead, you continue to critique moderation by others... Involving multiple things you've complained about having happen to you.

It's easy to complain and critique, much harder to offer up your own approach. How are you going to help give this forum better discourse?

We don't have a naked link infraction yet because its brand new. No one has implemented that change yet on the server.

The violation was quite clear, despite the category it was placed in... Yet that's has been and is continuing to be made into an issue/argument too.

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

My biggest piece of advice would be to clearly explain the rules to people when contacted or link to the specific rule. Avoid using profanity and anger when dealing something in a moderating/adminstrating/site management position when they haven't done the same to you. In my opinion site leadership shouldn't try to escalate issues.

The site leadership when dealing with members of the site, especially long time ones should use the cool calm and collected route. Using improper infractions and threating people isn't the route to get the best resolution inmho

[OSUsushichic]

Guys, why does this have to be so hard? I mean, I admit I've violated these offenses mentioned on numerous occasions, but I'm not whining about the crackdown. The main point here is that these rules are supposed to make you think before you post. Does your post effectively contribute to a civil debate? If no, then don't hit reply/post and revise it before you do. How hard is that?

[DaytonBuck]

when you tell me that you cut me a break by not banning me over not posting a comment you're trying to stir the hornets nest

This thread doesn't exist and none of what transpired today happens if someone takes the rational approach

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

when you tell me that you cut me a break by not banning me over not posting a comment you're trying to stir the hornets nest

you've misunderstood or I did not effectively communicate the "break" I gave you. I originally intended to give you an infraction, but upon hitting "submit" I saw that it would lead to you being banned. I felt that was too harsh for the point I wanted to make, and so I changed it to a "warning" with no points, sparing you from being banned from the entire board for... I don't even know... 2 weeks?

In doing so, yes, I think I cut you a break. I could have hit "OK... ban him" and not worried about it at all.