Deleting Posts

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

How do you get from site owners wanting to maintain a certain quality of discussion to "I take issue with people chiming in with their opinions". That's a heck of a leap.

If that's the impression you get then your impression is clearly inaccurate.

Why people can't fathom that site owners want to present their website in a specific manner, and maintain a certain level of discourse is beyond me. That you think a particular topic or language is acceptable has no bearing on what the site owners feel is acceptable.

I think the tone of this post speaks directly to why I believe that. It's a site discussion forum, for goodness sake. I take that to mean that, despite the site owners' philosophy, opinions on the site should be encouraged. So I think you should keep that in mind instead of rudely going after people for opining whether they agree with the philosophy or not.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

...despite the site owners' philosophy, opinions on the site should be encouraged. .

And here is the crux of the issue.

This is the home of Boss & GIK. We play by their rules. It's that simple. Suggesting that we should be able to act however we want despite their wishes for what they want RZ to be is ridiculous. There's nobody's opinion that is so incredibly important that the need to express it should overrule the wishes of site ownership.

And if you honestly think that they don't want opinions expressed there is simply no need to further discuss anything. If you can make that argument with a straight face then good luck to you.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

How do you get from site owners wanting to maintain a certain quality of discussion to "I take issue with people chiming in with their opinions". That's a heck of a leap.

Here are your our own words:

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

What zaps the fun out of the experience for me would be people moaning and complaining that they "aren't being heard".

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Why people can't fathom that site owners want to present their website in a specific manner, and maintain a certain level of discourse is beyond me. That you think a particular topic or language is acceptable has no bearing on what the site owners feel is acceptable.

I definitely don't think moderation is a bad thing. I think moderation is necessary. And I understand that there have to be standards of what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable so that a quality board can be maintained that doesn't turn people off. THAT'S not the issue imo. The issue, at least to me, is whether the focus on what the problem really is.

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

The issue, however, usually isn't with adults having adult conversation, it's with adults having fraternity-house conversation.

Adults can have an adult conversation about the proper response to joke with slightly racist overtones told on the air of a national sports broadcast. That thread was a fairly interesting read.

Adults, apparently, can't have an adult conversation about a man cheating on his wife. It devolves into comments about how "hot" the woman involved is, and uses such wonderfully adult phrase as "nail attractive women" and "the best strange he could pull." That thread was a disaster.

If you want a board where the latter of the two is fair game, RedsZone isn't the place for you. The tone can be adult without being frat. I think people confuse the two far too often.

Fwiw, weren't both of those comments by one member? Like Chip asked in that thread, would that member really say something like that to his dad about his mom while standing in front of both of them? That his fiancee said something similar is besides the point. THAT was a private conversation. The thread CAN'T be considered a private conversation. ANY member can read what you post. Time and place.

The thread could have kept discussing the legitamacy of sex addiction or how rampant cheating is in todays society but, instead, it evolved into immature, disgusting comments that closed the thread. I just think the focus should be on the few troublemakers that ruin things for the others.

[jojo]

To me the irony about the vociferous reactions to moderation that sometimes occur is that concerning the current structure of the ORG, Boss and GIK have been extremely generous in the degree that they allow us to define this community.

[jojo]

The true irony is that using the ignore function on some individuals actually helps a discussion tremendously.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by jojo

The true irony is that using the ignore function on some individuals actually helps a discussion tremendously.

That's a very good point imo. If it's the same people who bother you over and over again, it would be easy to proceed as if they're not there.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Why people can't fathom that site owners want to present their website in a specific manner, and maintain a certain level of discourse is beyond me.

Yes, this is Boss and GIK's site. I get that. But this isn't simply a website; it's an interactive discussion forum. This place wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the contributions of its members. And the site administrators don't have absolute control over how the members of RedsZone's think. If they did, we wouldn't have discussion because we would all be a representation of their beliefs and opinions.

Another thing--this isn't a blog; in fact, Boss and GIK rarely add to the discussion here. Instead, they rely on the activity of the members to keep RedsZone alive. Doing so brings a large amount of diverse individuals together in one room, and it's not the job of RedsZone posters--other than admins and mods--to tell posters what opinions are right and what are wrong. That's why we have the report-a-post and ignore features. I think that's the reason that the recently closed threads went down the wrong path. Posters started asserting their own beliefs onto other people and that isn't there job.

One last thing point--the rules at the bottom of the page are very specific. Usually, threads aren't closed because they are about a topic against site rules, although certainly politics/religion threads are wrongfully started from time to time. Rather, they are usually closed because someone disagrees with someone else's opinion and breaks on of the seven rules. Sometimes though, posts are deleted because a site admin/mod disagrees with them. The bottom of the page does not set forth that power. This is how it reads:

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines:

Certainly, Boss and GIK have the right to make whatever rules they see fit for RedsZone. But, as it reads now, the bottom of the page does not specify that they can delete whatever posts they wish. Perhaps, the rules need to be rewritten to give them that power if that is how they would like to moderate the board...

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Sometimes though, posts are deleted because a site admin/mod disagrees with them.

Really? Can you show an example of this?

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Really? Can you show an example of this?

Honestly paintmered, I would like to but the posts are deleted. I started a thread about a specific post, but I'm not inclined to get an answer about that and I don't want to start another argument...

[savafan]

Maybe we should just go back to discussing only baseball here and move everything else over to the Peanut Gallery? Not what I want, just throwing it out there.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by savafan

Maybe we should just go back to discussing only baseball here and move everything else over to the Peanut Gallery? Not what I want, just throwing it out there.

I think it would be awesome if more conversation was held over on in the Peanut Gallery and I'm sure the site admins/mods agree with me. Unfortunately, I've made an account over there and snooped around a little bit and there is very little activity...

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Honestly paintmered, I would like to but the posts are deleted. I started a thread about a specific post, but I'm not inclined to get an answer about that and I don't want to start another argument...

If they were soft deleted, I can still read them. Can you point me to the thread?

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by paintmered

If they were soft deleted, I can still read them. Can you point me to the thread?

Sure, but Boss isn't going to be too excited to see me bringing up this topic again, so let it be known I'm only doing so because a mod asked.

It was a post by The Baumer in the Steve Phillips thread...

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Sure, but Boss isn't going to be too excited to see me bringing up this topic again, so let it be known I'm only doing so because a mod asked.

It was a post by The Baumer in the Steve Phillips thread...

That's not even remotely close to the truth. It was deleted because it added nothing to the conversation other than serving to antagonize people. I'll leave the conversation about the previous posts that were made between him and I because it's not any of your, or anyone's, business other than him and I.

The ironic thing about all of this is that you've raised 10 times the stink about this relative to what the original poster has - perhaps that's because he knew what he did wasn't permissible?

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

That's not even remotely close to the truth. It was deleted because it added nothing to the conversation other than serving to antagonize people.

It was on-topic, funny, and didn't break any of the rules from the bottom of the page. I don't see any reason why it should have been deleted...