Deleting Posts

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by jojo

In my view this issue has partly been an attempt to publicly discuss something that should have been addressed via PM and partly it has been more advocacy for a friend than an effort at understanding and partly its been discussion about community standards though this part has been the smallest part.

All of that said, the original post that precipitated this current theme deserved the action the mods took IMHO and this notion has only been reinforced in my mind by the subsequent thumbing of the rules apparently by the moderated individual (though really none of this is our business). I only say this to point out that it's an interesting launching board for a discussion of the perceived flaws in the moderation system here (again IMHO).

Avenues exist for those that receive moderation to communicate with the mods and to make their case. I doubt decisions are overturned very often but my best guess is that's because the mods don't have hair triggers (i.e. actions are usually deserved). Finally, I think the clearest point that has been made in the several threads that have now addressed this issue is that Boss (and several mods now) have indicated the public discussion of specific decisions isn't an acceptable avenue to communicate.

That's my take on things anyway.

I don't know The Baumer personally, and this isn't an advocacy for a friend.

Personally, I want to understand what's going on. I'm trying to understand how individual post deletion helps keeps threads open, which IMO is an interesting topic b/c it's selective censorship. In the Steve Phillips thread, I wanted to hear more about how I'm a misogynist b/c I think Steve Phillips nailed a very ugly girl who happens to be overweight. I really wanted to see how other posters were going to, and had judged me b/c I think Steve Phillips needs and should have better standards concerning what and who he nails.

Avenues may exist for those with the slap on the wrist to plead their case with the mods, but what about those with the slap on the wrist not having the ability to clear the air as to why they received the slap on the wrist, and then the subsequent judging from the community that ensues b/c that poster cannot defend themselves?

I don't want to discuss a decision to ban a poster, but rather I want to make sure that there is a standard for all of the community, rather than a case by case basis. This goes back to my point which I've voiced a couple times that moderation is not uniform, and it seems that some mods do so more heavy-handed than others.

My goal with my posts in this thread is to gain more clarity of my role in the community to make sure I'm doing what I need to do in order to avoid more slaps on the wrist. That's my self-serving purpose. Am I also curious as to what happened to The Baumer and why? Sure, but that's a PM discussion.

[The Operator]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Steve Phillips nailed a very ugly girl who happens to be overweight. I really wanted to see how other posters were going to, and had judged me b/c I think Steve Phillips needs and should have better standards concerning what and who he nails.

You just can't let it go, can you?

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

You make some good points but I still think it's bush league and deceptive to handle it in such a way as to start a new user name and act like you're an innocent bystander. I'd have a lot more respect for the person if they admitted who they were in their post and their reasons for handling it that way. Personally I'd handle it with PMs.

On the other side of the coin, the butt kissing going on in this thread is nauseating. It reminds me of the rep days and the behavior such a system elicited. I'm no "buddy" of some of the folks complaining about the moderation in this thread but I respect their letting it all hang out approach to the teacher's pet stuff.

You're right that it's more so bush league to start a new user name and try and fly under the radar. If you want to get your point back out there, create that new user name and say "This is who I used to be, and this is why I'm posting under this name now". At least that gives a frame of reference to the newbie, as opposed to wondering "why is this thread really popular with newbies?"

I guess some posters feel the need to align themselves with the mods, which is obviously their choice. IMO, the quality of a community stems from the variety of well articulated opinions in a civil and respectful manner. What's the point if the entire community agrees with the mods and follows every rule to a T?

[joshnky]

NM, off-topic.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

How can this be true if the person in question has made additional accounts and attempted to post in this thread (which have subsequently been deleted)?

Because the person who is banned has a link to "Contact Us" on every page - including the one he/she is shown that states the user is banned. It happens all the time that a user that's been suspended uses this method to seek clarification, but in this particular instance, the user handled it extremely poorly by attempting to evade the ban and pretending to be new users (when it was clear that wasn't the case). Had he sent me an email from the page I described above, which he did not do, much of that could have been avoided.

[Eric_the_Red]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

What's the point if the entire community agrees with the mods and follows every rule to a T?

Agreeing on every rule and agreeing on every topic presented are two very different things. This message board is primarily for discussion of the Reds and baseball, not for the board rules. I think it is kind of silly for guests (which is what we all are except for the site owners) to debate the rules.

If you are invited to somebody's house do you get to decide if they have cable or satellite? Can you tell them they have to have a cat even if they are allergic? No.

This isn't your place, you are a guest. Act like it before the homeowners stop inviting the rest of us over for dinner.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

You're right that it's more so bush league to start a new user name and try and fly under the radar. If you want to get your point back out there, create that new user name and say "This is who I used to be, and this is why I'm posting under this name now". At least that gives a frame of reference to the newbie, as opposed to wondering "why is this thread really popular with newbies?"

I guess some posters feel the need to align themselves with the mods, which is obviously their choice. IMO, the quality of a community stems from the variety of well articulated opinions in a civil and respectful manner. What's the point if the entire community agrees with the mods and follows every rule to a T?

It's really this simple for me (and I'm sure many others agree).

The extent that high quality baseball discussion occurs as consistently as it does on this site is in large part due to the fact that this site is moderated.

I'm a huge fan of high quality baseball discussion. It then follows that I'm a fan of the rules that promote such discussion too.

BTW, creating multiple user accounts is blatantly against the rules of this site and from experience on unmoderated sites, I can say there is excellent reasons for the rule. As a corollary, there is good reason why those who create such accounts don't announce their new identities....

[Eric_the_Red]

Originally Posted by jojo

BTW, creating multiple user accounts is blatantly against the rules of this site and from experience on unmoderated sites, I can say there is excellent reasons for the rule. As a corollary, there is good reason why those who create such accounts don't announce their new identities....

Agreed. On another message board I frequent, this would get you permanently banned.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Eric_the_Red

Agreeing on every rule and agreeing on every topic presented are two very different things. This message board is primarily for discussion of the Reds and baseball, not for the board rules. I think it is kind of silly for guests (which is what we all are except for the site owners) to debate the rules.

If you are invited to somebody's house do you get to decide if they have cable or satellite? Can you tell them they have to have a cat even if they are allergic? No.

This isn't your place, you are a guest. Act like it before the homeowners stop inviting the rest of us over for dinner.

Well said.

[savafan]

After careful consideration, I'm feeling that maybe this site should exist just for baseball discussion, and everything else should take place on the Peanut Gallery. JMHO

[reds1869]

Originally Posted by savafan

After careful consideration, I'm feeling that maybe this site should exist just for baseball discussion, and everything else should take place on the Peanut Gallery. JMHO

I don't really see the need for that. If people stay within the established boundaries--as enforced by the mods and admins--there will be very few problems. In "real life" I'm as big an opponent of censorship as you will find. But I don't feel similarly about RZ. This site is special largely because of the stringent rules and moderation, and I hope it stays that way.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by savafan

After careful consideration, I'm feeling that maybe this site should exist just for baseball discussion, and everything else should take place on the Peanut Gallery. JMHO

Personally, I feel like I've done a good job of providing pertinent, appropriate, friendly discussion in tORG. However, when it comes to the other forums (General Discussion in particular), I (apparently) have a tendency to toe the line when it comes to the site's rules. What would everyone think about the idea of having the ability to ban users from specific forums as opposed to the entire site?

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Because the person who is banned has a link to "Contact Us" on every page - including the one he/she is shown that states the user is banned. It happens all the time that a user that's been suspended uses this method to seek clarification, but in this particular instance, the user handled it extremely poorly by attempting to evade the ban and pretending to be new users (when it was clear that wasn't the case). Had he sent me an email from the page I described above, which he did not do, much of that could have been avoided.

I agree with what you are saying; making multiple accounts is wrong, especially if you don't first identify yourself. I understand that The Baumer deserved what he received once he made his second account.

What I was questioning is how it was possible I raised 10 times the stink compared to the original poster when:

A) He was banned so it was impossible for him to raise a stink
B) Obviously he tried to raise a stink because he made multiple new accounts in an attempt to communicate his message
C) Insinuating he understood he knew his actions were not permissible considering he has made multiple new accounts in attempt to communicate said message

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Personally, I feel like I've done a good job of providing pertinent, appropriate, friendly discussion in tORG. However, when it comes to the other forums (General Discussion in particular), I (apparently) have a tendency to toe the line when it comes to the site's rules. What would everyone think about the idea of having the ability to ban users from specific forums as opposed to the entire site?

I feel like my posting history is similar. However, rather than being banned from a specific forum, wouldn't you prefer the discussion just be moved over to the Peanut Gallery?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Personally, I feel like I've done a good job of providing pertinent, appropriate, friendly discussion in tORG. However, when it comes to the other forums (General Discussion in particular), I (apparently) have a tendency to toe the line when it comes to the site's rules. What would everyone think about the idea of having the ability to ban users from specific forums as opposed to the entire site?

I completely respect if the site would not want to do this, but I've always wondered by not let the off-topic forums be "enter at your own risk."

I realize that because of the family-friendly nature the admins want to carry on, it might be a detriment to that concept. However, I've always figured by doing it that way you let people speak their minds on the controversial things, without the moderators needing to worry about it, but keep the same parameters for the sports forums. It's just an idea, and one that I understand might not work, but it's been something I've thought about.