Announcement: In-thread Moderator Warnings

hahah Dream on...I have never seen anything change for the better on the various message boards....they were all much better when they started out...just about every single one has gone downhill and this one if my prognostication is correct is going to make a major downward spiral with their new rules.

I will make a couple of suggestions before they pull the plug on me...do not have so many topics....maybe a few broad ones but when you try to define and single out every post as beling to a very specific topic then it creates a splintered board where one has to seek and search....limit to just a very few topics...the fewer the better in my opinion.

Specifically define that fflaming rule...most of us know that rule can be used at will by any moderator to delete something they have a personal problem with....and let us get real...we all know that mods have personal agenda.....that is why a review board is especially important...I will go so far to say as it should be made up of posters themselves...I am sure you could get a few posters willing to review situations where a poster has supposedly broken a rule and issued a warning or infraction. Seems like a simple way to assure a more just and fair moderation.

As I mentioned before....there needs to be a forum that posters can discuss these issues and confront management in a critical but positive way....arrogance by the management in the long run will destroy a board.

Also I think it would be much easier for you to get donations if the posters were made to feel more appreciated and a part of the machinery that makes a board worlk. In a nutshell posters need more input or at least ....the very least to make suggestions. These new rules are illustrative pf that...the posterts themselves should have some say so on that. You run the risk of offending a lot of posters if you come down with some heavy handed rules..which might appeal to one segment of the board population....usually those who squeak the loudest...but do not forget your potential for offending many others and driving them away.

 

WTF are you rambling on about?! Congrats on proving why these posts should be banned cause you obviously don't respect other people's opinions. Newsflash! This is a privately owned website. Not a public one. Get a clue before you start insulting someone.

 

holy cow, Hades has frozen over. TFM and I agree

 

There have been very few opportunities for posters to express their opinions with the management and the rules.

Of course this is considered private property...but it is on the internet and there is a much bigger argument to be made aka what role does freedom of speech have on the internet. I side with the founding fathers and their realization that freedom of the press is vital to America....I and many others believe that freedom of speech on the internet is most vital to America....most especially since the major media are for the most part now just propaganda machines. The internet has become a final refuge for those seeking freedom of speech....but it is gradually being eroded away.

That is why I and others have called for and are calling for congressional hearings to address freedom of speech vs. censorship on the internet. A much larger scenario than just saying oh well this site is privately owned that settles it...they can censor or do whatever they want.

 

I will just quickly make one more observation whilst I am able...I kinda think what is going on behind the scenes is a struggle between conservatives and liberals regarding what the nature of this board will be....my guess is that the liberals will win out....will create less controversy for the management to deal with...most message boards do not like having to deal with controversial issues....puts them in big brothers spotlight...in a way they can hardly be blamed. But in these times we are desperate need of patriots who will stand up for liberty and freedom of the speech, freedom of the press and freedom on the internet.

 

The site is privately owned and they can do whatever they like with it.

 

You make my point there is no place for that on this board.

 

Yes such discussions should be in public in my opinion...makes it much more democratic. Of course I do not mean anything should go aka obscene language or name calling or even non constructive personal attacks.

 

All well and good.But why NOW. Why out of the blue this New PF guideline.
You mean for some reason a Criminal Trial rates more dire than other
very important issues.Or is it the vast and inclusive interest in this current
event.Which tells me there is some pressure being put to bear.
Am I to believe that PF has to moderate according to some demand
curve.That More Posts automatically equates to more or heightened rules.
That is my original complaint.
Is not more the merrier.Or is it More the trouble in happenstance.That
Americans are being taught/instructed to Go along to get Along.
That isn't Americana.To be Moderated.I understand the need for moderation,
but not just for the sake of moderation.That is an abuse of liberty.
Which leads where.There is no definable rationale to justify MORE
moderation because of the sensitivity of a particular Trial than other
current events.That is an example of rigor mortis of the American will.
Where things are judged based soley on peer pressure and the undue influence
of places where freedom of thought isn't moderated but stifled.
Posters should be treated as they have been before.Not to
make personal attacks.But to establish moderation based on the exclusive
sensitivity of a Trial,in effect, is an attempt to not only influence the result
but also disqualify the very process that involves inclusion.
What this PF decision is attempting is to squelch dissention.
That Opposing dissent is not on par,somehow ,with what the general
consensus should be.That is Pure Peer Pressure.

 

I suggested a while ago that the quickest way to clean up the board is to leave up the offending post instead of deleting it, and within the offending post, a mod writing something like;

MEMBER WAS THREAD BANNED FOR THIS trolling / personally insulting / inflammatory POST

or

MEMBER RECEIVED AN INFRACTION FOR THIS trolling / personally insulting / inflammatory POST

or

MEMBER WAS TEMPORARILY / PERMANENTLY BANNED FOR THIS POST

I still hold that the more concrete information one has to work with, the less difficulty they'll have dissecting any vagueness in the rules or arbitrariness in rules terminology.

questions newer members may ask themselves like; what is "trolling", exactly? or "inflammatory"? what represents a "personal insult"? could be easily answered by specific examples littered throughout threads....vis, "hmmm, I see what webrockk wrote in this post, and the MODs deemed it a personal insult, and thread banned him for it....maybe I shouldn't write something like that"

 

Absolutely!
I think it's great that the mods try to work out issues that create unnecessary tension and infighting among members.

I am more than willing to try it.

 

"not putting these LIBERALS down for being VULGAR?"

You must be kidding? I think I might send you some example of REAL vulgarity who came out of the keyboard of some very extreme "conservatives!"

But that doesn't mean I blame ALL Conservatives for it!

Generalities are usually filled with accuracy problems!

 

I'm again glad to hear you say this. Also, I share Yosh's concern about reporting posts and not seeing any action taken. I've been there as well. To be honest with you, because of getting no feedback about my complaints I took it as a sign to loosen my own leash, or turn off my internal editor, and post with more flame. I figured I was free to lash out more than I should and stretch the rules a bit. Childish, I know, but I can only take so much of liberals run amuk.

On a better note, some of my favorite posters later became mods and I don't hear from them much any more. I figured they spend so much time being a mod that they have little time to post. I miss them.

 

I could live with that. Great idea web.

Some people just don't get it so you have to go the extra mile. By keeping the post up for all to see (provided it does not have unsuitable language) it gives a bonafide example of what not to do. Plus, it would offer some sense of protection to the person or people the offensive post was directed at. It would provide satisfaction that something is done when the line is crossed.

 

Good point. There IS an unmistakable air of mystery to what goes on with reported posts....seeing it in big red letters from time to time might alleviate some of the vagaries.

 

The Bear has a dream about this. I like the idea of clamping down on posters who constantly trample the rule. Yes, I'll dream on. That's how things get better.

I don't think your idea would work because you can't have the customers running the business. It takes hard choices made by responsible people who have skin in the game.

Heavy handed rules? Enforcing civility shouldn't be considered heavy handed rules.

 

There's a trend.Salon used to have their - Letters - .It was not moderated.
I was a amazed at the Flaming as a fellow - Letters - poster.
I wasn't used to that.But I thought,maybe it's a San Fransico thing.
I never used Flame cuss words ... ever.I used sardonic humor and
Satire.I was helpful in changing the way Salon attuned their approach
to - Letters -. It was simple and dynamic.Regular Salon posters weren't
used to being taken to task.They were used to Flaming and having their
way c/o Joan Walsh,the queen diva of smear for the sake of expediency.
I was instrumental in helping take down Joan Walsh.She lost her
editorship and was relegated to being a contributing editor and used
as excuse her intention of penning a book.Of course she used that as
excuse.Under her tutelage as Editor,Salon was bleeding viewership,
due entirely to her " ridiculous " ability to impact fact vs. fiction. Walsh
was simply, a little bratty liar.Which her faithful thought cutesy and motivating.
Andrew Breitbart exposed Walsh for the cheap,tawdry hoodwinker she was.
I did my part with - Letters -.
Joanie does the Cha Cha Cha.

 

This looks like a good idea, actually. It would certainly eliminate a number of people posting for hours about a banned member after s/he was banned resulting in more posts getting deleted.

 

A nice heads up for this privelege to be here in this forum site.

 

I'm not opposed to increased moderation on the forum, and there are some good ideas in the OP, but the problem I'm seeing is that the individual biases of certain mods are now being fully enforced in the moderation procedure. Case in point:

This thread was moved from the Current Events section of the site to "Law & Justice", a subforum that receives very little traffic by comparison. The events in this thread occurred just over the weekend, and are described in a Foxnews article, so there is really no reason why this thread should have been banished to a rarely frequented section of the site. If one really wanted to, nearly every other thread in the "Current Events" section of the site can be moved to another forum. Take this one, for example. This one could have been moved to the "Gay & Lesbian Rights" section, yet it is allowed to remain in Current Events. This one could have gone to the "Abortion" section, yet it is allowed to stay in "Current Events".

What is the site's policy on why these crime threads are being targeted in this way? This has been increasing in recent weeks, and it seems like only a few posters are being singled out by moderators.

 

I'm sure you can post some real vulgar statements from this board from Conservatives, along with Liberals. But these statements weren't used by any poster on these boards, who we really don't know. But by famous talk show hosts. You expect more from people like that.

I don't know why people have to be so vulgar anyway. You can disagree with their views and policies, without being nasty. I have disagreed with Obama many times and don't hesitate to point them out. But I have never called the man a derogatory name.