Deleting Posts

[camisadelgolf]

It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse here, but this isn't intended to be the same thread that *BaseClogger* started. A lot of times, when there is a questionable post or two, instead of editing the individual posts, the entire thread will be closed. Personally, I think it makes more sense to reprimand those who made the inappropriate posts than to ruin a discussion for the entire board. That's just my two cents.

Here is the most recent example: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1988560

Instead of locking the thread, I think the posts could have been edited or deleted. Personally, I had some things I wanted to add to thread (mostly anti-sexist remarks), but now I am unable to do so.

What do you all think? How would you like to see these kinds of situations handled?

[paintmered]

If you had a problem with what I did, you should have sent me a PM like I said in the closed thread. But no, you need to continue your grandstanding.

The thread went off topic and was filled with inappropriate comments and posts when it was on topic. Of course it should have been closed, and it should have been closed sooner than it was.

If you have more that you need to say on the topic of sexism, start a new thread (one that is not attached to the Steve Phillips story or anyone involved with it).

[SunDeck]

It's not up to me how these things are handled. I'm a guest here and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this online community. The mods have consistently used a restrained and even handed approach to dealing with these situations and frankly we'd have less of this high school drama if people would simply read their posts out loud to a friend before hitting the submit button. Unfortunately that seems like a relatively dim prospect, so I'll put it more clearly:
This forum does not exist for people to exercise their first amendment rights- it's a club. Get with the program or take your ball and go to another playground.

[camisadelgolf]

If you had a problem with what I did, you should have sent me a PM like I said in the closed thread. But no, you need to continue your grandstanding.

The thread went off topic and was filled with inappropriate comments and posts when it was on topic. Of course it should have been closed, and it should have been closed sooner than it was.

If you have more that you need to say on the topic of sexism, start a new thread (one that is not attached to the Steve Phillips story or anyone involved with it).
I'm not attacking you nor your action. In fact, I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with it. I'm just saying that in my personal opinion, it generally makes more sense to modify individual posts it they're inappropriate as opposed to closing an entire thread. I'm not 'grandstanding', and it's unfair that you would accuse me of that.

Besides, what good would a PM have done? I started this thread in an effort to improve the site--not to have a personal discussion with you.

[jojo]

I think everyone should take a deep breath and relax. No one is out to delete your post and no one is out to take away your mod powers. In my opinion, we should be able to talk without anyone on either side getting hot under the collar or taking great offense.

It's clear that the people with the power to close threads/delete posts aren't always the ones with the biggest sense of humor. And I think that is ok. As long as we are all respectful to each other. Mods do an excellent 100% grade A job on dealing with the very loud, combative posters who challenge authority and make their opinions heard, but sometimes, and it's understandable why, they miss a particular brand of name calling. The best example of this is in the Steve Phillips thread when certain posters made multiple posts condemning other posters and making sweeping character judgments that, IMO, shouldn't be made. Even if a poster makes a sexist comment, I don't think other posters should be allowed to publicly label them a sexist person or cast moral judgments on them. But sometimes they are allowed to do this without any consequence. IMO, it should be the mods job to call out and deal with these posters in private. Also if a poster has a very serious problem with the tone or content of another post they should use the "report post" function rather than replying and calling that person a bigot/sexist/casting a moral judgment. To me the sexist/inappropriate comments are the first step to a good thread being unfortunately closed, and the replies making moral/character judgments are the second step.

I'd love to see Redszone move in the direction Boss-Hog mentioned of deleting posts over closing threads, and I'd also like to see less tolerance for giant character judgments from any and all parties.

I hope my point comes across without causing any offense.

:)

Just out of curiosity, how does someone with 4 posts develop such a detailed opinion of redszone posting history? You've commented on redszone posting behavior in several of your posts.

I can't help myself but ask (again this is a sincere question)...

BTW, I don't think the mods are being defensive. They are doing their job and they are right that questioning their moderation really should be done via PM IMHO (actually Boss has indicated the mechanism that we all should use when addressing a specific decision is that the individual involved should PM the mod).

There is a way that questions about procedure can be openly discussed-there are several threads in the archives where just that has been done in great detail (presumably you've already spent a great deal of time reading the archives so maybe you've seen a few such threads?). Questioning a specific action in a public fashion probably is rarely appropriate IMHO. I approach this issue with an obvious bias-I think we're extremely lucky to have the moderation that we have on redszone as I think without it, the quality of discussion we get to enjoy simply wouldn't be possible. In other words, I think they (the mods) should enjoy a certain respect in the way we question their decisions.

[paintmered]

Just out of curiosity, how does someone with 4 posts develop such a detailed opinion of redszone posting history? You've commented on redszone posting behavior in several of your posts.

I can't help myself but ask (again this is a sincere question)...

BTW, I don't think the mods are being defensive. They are doing their job and they are right that questioning their moderation really should be done via PM IMHO.

There is a way that questions about procedure can be openly discussed-there are several threads in the archives where just that has been done in great detail. Questioning a specific action in a public fashion probably is rarely appropriate IMHO. I approach this issue with an obvious bias-I think we're extremely lucky to have the moderation that we have on redszone as I think without it, the quality of discussion we get to enjoy simply wouldn't be possible.

All I ask is that we aren't put on public trial every time one of us takes an action. The job is hard enough as it is and the pay stinks. That's the reason I requested that people PM me instead. I'm actually quite willing to engage in discussion regarding any of my moderating and I have done so with many posters through the years.

[paintmered]

I'm not attacking you nor your action. In fact, I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with it. I'm just saying that in my personal opinion, it generally makes more sense to modify individual posts it they're inappropriate as opposed to closing an entire thread. I'm not 'grandstanding', and it's unfair that you would accuse me of that.

Besides, what good would a PM have done? I started this thread in an effort to improve the site--not to have a personal discussion with you.

What do you have to say that hasn't been said in the recent thread on the exact same topic? To point out that I closed another thread?

And I actually agree with you on deleting posts vs. closing threads. All of the mods do. But we also have thresholds where we consider threads to be beyond rehabilitation and I considered the thread yesterday to exceed that threshold.

[Brutus]

I have no overall complaints of the moderation of this site, so this is more of a philosophical response.

However, I'm not sure why such a thread is determined that it "should be closed." In my opinion, any thread that contains reasonable discussion by adults, even if the opinions represented might be somewhat reprehensible, should be left alone. If it's not a bunch of name-calling, personal attacks or filled with questionable language, why does such a topic need closed anyhow?

Again, overall this is no indictment of any moderator or administrator. I just don't get the rush to close a controversial thread. I didn't participate in that particular thread, as I personally had nothing to add. But while I didn't care for some of the particular opinions, it was quite honestly an adult thread with rational discussion.

Some of the opinions might be of poor taste as to how people are viewed, but moderating this forum shouldn't be about moderating personalities but rather moderating content that violates forum rules. I realize the catch-all "moderators reserve the right to delete any post at any time." But I don't understand what was so objectionable about the content in that thread. It certainly had some underlying statements as to how people might view/treat women in real life, but I tend to think it's too easy to take one's personal opinion at how people should be treated and apply that to a discussion topic. I don't agree with the stated opinions by some of the posters in that thread. But it certainly was not a thread that was causing a great deal of undo commotion.

Just my opinion. Again, I realize moderators are volunteers, and I think this forum is a good one. In that case, I tend to think it was a flex of muscle. Again, just an opinion.

[Highlifeman21]

I have no overall complaints of the moderation of this site, so this is more of a philosophical response.

However, I'm not sure why such a thread is determined that it "should be closed." In my opinion, any thread that contains reasonable discussion by adults, even if the opinions represented might be somewhat reprehensible, should be left alone. If it's not a bunch of name-calling, personal attacks or filled with questionable language, why does such a topic need closed anyhow?

Again, overall this is no indictment of any moderator or administrator. I just don't get the rush to close a controversial thread. I didn't participate in that particular thread, as I personally had nothing to add. But while I didn't care for some of the particular opinions, it was quite honestly an adult thread with rational discussion.

Some of the opinions might be of poor taste as to how people are viewed, but moderating this forum shouldn't be about moderating personalities but rather moderating content that violates forum rules. I realize the catch-all "moderators reserve the right to delete any post at any time." But I don't understand what was so objectionable about the content in that thread. It certainly had some underlying statements as to how people might view/treat women in real life, but I tend to think it's too easy to take one's personal opinion at how people should be treated and apply that to a discussion topic. I don't agree with the stated opinions by some of the posters in that thread. But it certainly was not a thread that was causing a great deal of undo commotion.

Just my opinion. Again, I realize moderators are volunteers, and I think this forum is a good one. In that case, I tend to think it was a flex of muscle. Again, just an opinion.

I have a feeling that the answer to your philosophical question is why there is a Peanut Gallery.

[Brutus]

I have a feeling that the answer to your philosophical question is why there is a Peanut Gallery.

Sure, if we're talking about politics or religion. But this topic wasn't about either of those.

[camisadelgolf]

What do you have to say that hasn't been said in the recent thread on the exact same topic? To point out that I closed another thread?

And I actually agree with you on deleting posts vs. closing threads. All of the mods do. But we also have thresholds where we consider threads to be beyond rehabilitation and I considered the thread yesterday to exceed that threshold.
Just so it's clear, I wasn't singling you out. The only reason I brought up your example is because it was the most recent one, and to be honest, it was very understandable that you did it--I might've done the same in the same scenario. I'm not criticizing the moderators. The only thing I want to bring up is that it might do the site some good if the protocol were reviewed and possibly changed.

I'm surprised to hear you say that all of the mods agree with me on the topic because I've seen a lot of threads become locked prematurely--by my estimation, of course. But again, it's not a criticism. When I bring up this topic, I have nothing but the site's best interest in mind. I think it would be great if there were more of a defined line in the guidelines, possibly something similar or identical to what Brutus the Pimp is saying.

[Highlifeman21]

Sure, if we're talking about politics or religion. But this topic wasn't about either of those.

Hey, I'm with you.

And I don't think any posts should be deleted, and as long as threads don't have blatant name-calling, is there really reason to close them if the discussion is interesting?

I mean Hell, I found it interesting that posters called me a misogynist in the Steve Phillips thread, since last time I checked I don't hate women, but I didn't want the thread closed just b/c people incorrectly judged me.

[redsfandan]

BTW, I don't think the mods are being defensive. They are doing their job and they are right that questioning their moderation really should be done via PM IMHO (actually Boss has indicated the mechanism that we all should use when addressing a specific decision is that the individual involved should PM the mod).

There is a way that questions about procedure can be openly discussed-there are several threads in the archives where just that has been done in great detail (presumably you've already spent a great deal of time reading the archives so maybe you've seen a few such threads?). Questioning a specific action in a public fashion probably is rarely appropriate IMHO. I approach this issue with an obvious bias-I think we're extremely lucky to have the moderation that we have on redszone as I think without it, the quality of discussion we get to enjoy simply wouldn't be possible. In other words, I think they (the mods) should enjoy a certain respect in the way we question their decisions.
Sometimes it's felt to me like a mod/mods was/were being defensive but since you've been around longer than I have I'll just have to take your word for it.

I don't see this as about a specific deletion/closing/etc. I see it in a broader sense of simply asking to discuss when any of those actions are really necessary.


All I ask is that we aren't put on public trial every time one of us takes an action. The job is hard enough as it is and the pay stinks. That's the reason I requested that people PM me instead. I'm actually quite willing to engage in discussion regarding any of my moderating and I have done so with many posters through the years.
That sounds fair enough to me.


And I actually agree with you on deleting posts vs. closing threads. All of the mods do. But we also have thresholds where we consider threads to be beyond rehabilitation and I considered the thread yesterday to exceed that threshold.



I'm surprised to hear you say that all of the mods agree with me on the topic because I've seen a lot of threads become locked prematurely--by my estimation, of course. But again, it's not a criticism. When I bring up this topic, I have nothing but the site's best interest in mind. I think it would be great if there were more of a defined line in the guidelines, possibly something similar or identical to what Brutus the Pimp is saying.
When I think of closed threads I think of questionable premature closings too but also mods that are more likely to do it than other mods. Which, I think, is kinda interesting (at least to me). That thread had been up for awhile and I know that at least one or two mods/admin warned people but yet it remained open until paintmered came back from vacation and he closed it. I doubt the mods/admin had stopped paying attention to the thread. This isn't meant to pick on paintmered but when he says that all of the mods are in agreement that surprised me too.

That thread started off ok but went off-topic right away on the 2nd page and never really went back to the main topic. Instead of being about Phillips too much of it was inappropriate stuff about the girl. It's not that I mind that it's closed so much as I think that it's just another example of a few posters making specific offensive remarks that result in a closed thread. Unfortunately, the warning that Chip gave just let them know that if they kept it up all that would happen would be that the thread would be closed. But they didn't care. They had their fun and that was all that they cared about.

[jojo]

Sometimes it's felt to me like a mod/mods was/were being defensive but since you've been around longer than I have I'll just have to take your word for it.

I don't see this as about a specific deletion/closing/etc. I see it in a broader sense of simply asking to discuss when any of those actions are really necessary.

Again this is just "opinion by jojo" so the mods may define it differently (and it's their definition that we should adhere to) but the issue with this thread is that it references a specific mod decision as a spring board for "discussion". Specific actions should be discussed in private with the mod and such discussion shouldn't spill over to general discussion. This has been addressed by both Boss and paintmered recently.

I view the issue like this- argue with called balls or strikes and you get tossed (it makes the ump's job much harder so its not kosher). Debating the implementation of QuesTek in the proper forum on the other hand is kosher.

[redsfandan]

Again this is just "opinion by jojo" so the mods may define it differently (and it's their definition that we should adhere to) but the issue with this thread is that it references a specific mod decision as a spring board for "discussion". Specific actions should be discussed in private with the mod and such discussion shouldn't spill over to general discussion. This has been addressed by both Boss and paintmered recently.
But how can you have a general discussion about a policy without using specific examples?

[jojo]

But how can you have a general discussion about a policy without using specific examples?

The same way a discussion can be had about QuesTek without citing Mike Everitt's call on the fifth pitch of Damon's 9th inning at-bat during last night's game....

[Ltlabner]

When I think of closed threads I think of questionable premature closings too but also mods that are more likely to do it than other mods. Which, I think, is kinda interesting (at least to me). That thread had been up for awhile and I know that at least one or two mods/admin warned people but yet it remained open until paintmered came back from vacation and he closed it. I doubt the mods/admin had stopped paying attention to the thread.

Holy crap. You mean mods are actually different people with different opinions, ideas and thresholds? Woozies. Here all this time I thought they were part of the borg with one monolithic opinion on everything.

We need a blue ribbon commission to look into this. My feelings are hurt.

If a mod makes a decision to close a thread, whether justified or not, is your life really impacted in some significant way? Really?

[Brutus]

Holy crap. You mean mods are actually different people with different opinions, ideas and thresholds? Woozies. Here all this time I thought they were part of the borg with one monolithic opinion on everything.

We need a blue ribbon commission to look into this. My feelings are hurt.

If a mod makes a decision to close a thread, whether justified or not, is your life really impacted in some significant way? Really?

I think you're reading too much into that. No one's life is impacted in significant ways.

However, why are people here? First, to discuss Cincinnati. That's clear. Second, to discuss baseball. That's also evident. But third... people are here because they want to engage in discussion.

I know a lot of people enjoy having one place to discuss things. It's easier. It's more convenient. It's more entertaining.

I think people appreciate being treated with respect. We're basically all adults or young adults here. I think the administrators here have put together a great site. And I'm all for not having profanity, slurs, name-calling and other material that is immature or rude. But if you have a conversation going that is absent of those things, why not err on the side of adults having adult conversation? There are a lot of opinions in this world. Some are going to come across as objectionable, but still meet the criteria for what is, by board rule, allowed. I don't think the moderators need to tackle those particular posts/threads because it's not necessary to moderate opinions. It can be objectionable but not be against the rules (I thought that thread was a perfect example).

If people start feeling like they're being treated like kids, they'll just go elsewhere. I'm not expecting Redszone to change their standards to accommodate people. In fact, I actually think the stated goals of this forum are probably as good as you'll find. But there's got to be some leeway to express opinions, even if some people might find them to be reprehensible, provided it's within board rules. Otherwise, I'm sure it isn't going to ruin anyone's life, but it could very much zap the fun out of the experience.

[Caveat Emperor]

.
And I don't think any posts should be deleted, and as long as threads don't have blatant name-calling, is there really reason to close them if the discussion is interesting?

Speaking for only myself as a mod, "interesting discussion" isn't the only reason to keep a thread gonig.

[Ltlabner]

Otherwise, I'm sure it isn't going to ruin anyone's life, but it could very much zap the fun out of the experience.

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

It's an internet sports forum. If a thread gets closed, guess what....there's a couple hundred other ones you could go participate in. Move on to one of those.

The first amendment simply doesn't apply at RZ.


If people start feeling like they're being treated like kids, they'll just go elsewhere..

You know, if they are acting like kids that's probably not a bad thing.

[Caveat Emperor]

But if you have a conversation going that is absent of those things, why not err on the side of adults having adult conversation?

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.

[Brutus]

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.

Well trust me, I'm not saying I find that kind of talk stimulating. As I said, some of it I find to be immature. But that said, we don't live in a vacuum. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society that many people talk and think this way. All I'm saying is that I don't see the need to bother moderating that kind of talk. The people that don't like it can tune it out and take note of the people that do it. The people that do, well, they may be showing their true colors, but so what? It says more about personal conduct than it does the quality of a forum.

I don't think letting that kind of thing slide in any way degrades the board, nor do I think those opinions are indicative of all posters or the standards Redszone wishes to maintain. Those people don't speak for me, nor do they speak for Boss or GIK as a representation of this forum.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Obviously this wasn't my issue that was raised, I'm merely understanding where some people are coming from. I'm just a less is more kind of guy. Whether it's government, society, etiquette, etc., I just personally prefer to let people express themselves and their personalities how they see fit (within reason, and within a set of guidelines). I realize we all have differences of opinions on what is reasonable and what is fit to be seen for people of all ages and backgrounds. The locker room talk you mentioned - I've never cared for it, I don't understand it and don't really feel comfortable involved in it. I can tolerate it, though.

Thanks for listening on this. It's just my two cents.

[pedro]

nm

[Ltlabner]

All I'm saying is that I don't see the need to bother moderating that kind of talk.

Perhaps Boss and GIK, the folks who actually own and run RZ, do?

It is their website after all and certainly within reason if they want to position it as a particular "quality" of website.

[billy corgan]

the world is a vampire.

[westofyou]

the world is a vampire.

Despite all your pain you're still just a rat in a cage too eh?

[billy corgan]

just think about it.

[Sea Ray]

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 those comments turned the thread into a disaster then the thread should have been closed right then and not 50 posts later. It seems to me the locker room talk took place early on and was much worse than what was posted on the final page(s).

BTW, what's with all these newbies chiming in???

[Brutus]

Perhaps Boss and GIK, the folks who actually own and run RZ, do?

It is their website after all and certainly within reason if they want to position it as a particular "quality" of website.

I get the impression you take issue with people chiming in their opinions. It's, after all, a "site feedback" forum. I, like everyone else (and you), are just expressing opinions. I don't think any zero tolerance approach is necessary in this thread.

[Ltlabner]

I get the impression you take issue with people chiming in their opinions. It's, after all, a "site feedback" forum. I, like everyone else (and you), are just expressing opinions. I don't think any zero tolerance approach is necessary in this thread.

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.

[Brutus]

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]

...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]

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:

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



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.


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]

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*]

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]

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

Really? Can you show an example of this?

[*BaseClogger*]

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*]

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]

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*]

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]

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*]

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...

[Boss-Hog]

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...
Yeah, that's your opinion, which is far from absolute. Another poster quoted the same post and didn't find it nearly as humorous as you did - he/she found it just as snide and rude as I did.

If the user we're speaking of has questions, he/she can email me. Otherwise, since you are not privy to all the facts regarding that situation, this thread better get constructive in a hurry if it's going to remain open. I'm not going to continue to debate something that's no one's business other than the poster in question.

[*BaseClogger*]

How many posts have been deleted in this thread?

[redsfandan]

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'm curious about something that hopefully you, or any of the mods, can answer. As far as I know the only posts that were deleted were one by Baumer and at least one that quoted his post. Like Caveat Emperor pointed out earlier there were a couple posts by another member that included statements that seem to fit the above standard but nothing happened to those posts. So I was just curious why not. Those posts are still up there but I don't understand why the offensive statements in them are still there.

[Boss-Hog]

I'm curious about something that hopefully you, or any of the mods, can answer. As far as I know the only posts that were deleted were one by Baumer and at least one that quoted his post. Like Caveat Emperor pointed out earlier there were a couple posts by another member that included statements that seem to fit the above standard but nothing happened to those posts. So I was just curious why not. Those posts are still up there but I don't understand why the offensive statements in them are still there.
Did you (or anyone else) find them offensive enough to report them to the admins/moderators? The answer to that question is no.

I'm not going to speak for the other admins/moderators, so I'll have to let them chime in, but while I personally found the posts very distasteful, I didn't think they clearly violated any of the rules of the board that we have established, so I did not remove them.

[Boss-Hog]

How many posts have been deleted in this thread?
Zero from users who weren't attempting to evade a previously issued ban.

[Highlifeman21]

If those comments turned the thread into a disaster then the thread should have been closed right then and not 50 posts later. It seems to me the locker room talk took place early on and was much worse than what was posted on the final page(s).

BTW, what's with all these newbies chiming in???

My guess about the newbies is that it is probably a poster, or posters given some time off from RZ that know that they're being characterized incorrectly, or still want their point to be heard but cannot b/c the mods have silenced them due to that time off.

That would be my guess, seeing as it looks like a couple of newbie accounts have been deleted after they've posted in various forums.

[Highlifeman21]

Speaking for only myself as a mod, "interesting discussion" isn't the only reason to keep a thread gonig.

If a thread isn't breaking any of the bylaws, why not keep the discussion open?

No name calling, no bad language, just semi-civil discourse.

[Boss-Hog]

My guess about the newbies is that it is probably a poster, or posters given some time off from RZ that know that they're being characterized incorrectly, or still want their point to be heard but cannot b/c the mods have silenced them due to that time off.

That would be my guess, seeing as it looks like a couple of newbie accounts have been deleted after they've posted in various forums.
That is correct.

[Sea Ray]

My guess about the newbies is that it is probably a poster, or posters given some time off from RZ that know that they're being characterized incorrectly, or still want their point to be heard but cannot b/c the mods have silenced them due to that time off.

That would be my guess, seeing as it looks like a couple of newbie accounts have been deleted after they've posted in various forums.

That was my suspicion as well. Bush league...

[Highlifeman21]

That was my suspicion as well. Bush league...

To play devil's advocate, silencing an opinion or 1 side of the discussion is intellectually irresponsible, and does nothing more than essentially piss off the other side and possibly push them to extremes so they can make sure their voice is heard.

Sometimes it's just easier to hit a proverbial mute button, and not deal with the other side, but IMO it's really a case by case basis, as all sides of an argument should have equal time, initially.

The way I've viewed this entire issue/situation is that some members of the community are looking for an explanation and based on their continued posts, haven't received an explanation. Seems like there's a lot of curiosity abound, and the answers are coming across as "b/c I(we) said so," or "if you don't like it, then leave".

While I can understand the frustration of Boss and GIK and some of the mods with having to deal with us (b/c we are an unruly and unappreciative bunch), I'd like to give some posters the benefit of the doubt of having the intellectual and cognitive capacity to view things from the POV of the site owners and the mods.

IMO, it seems like there's frustration on both sides right now, and a stalemate's on the horizon.

[jojo]

To play devil's advocate, silencing an opinion or 1 side of the discussion is intellectually irresponsible, and does nothing more than essentially piss off the other side and possibly push them to extremes so they can make sure their voice is heard.

Sometimes it's just easier to hit a proverbial mute button, and not deal with the other side, but IMO it's really a case by case basis, as all sides of an argument should have equal time, initially.

The way I've viewed this entire issue/situation is that some members of the community are looking for an explanation and based on their continued posts, haven't received an explanation. Seems like there's a lot of curiosity abound, and the answers are coming across as "b/c I(we) said so," or "if you don't like it, then leave".

While I can understand the frustration of Boss and GIK and some of the mods with having to deal with us (b/c we are an unruly and unappreciative bunch), I'd like to give some posters the benefit of the doubt of having the intellectual and cognitive capacity to view things from the POV of the site owners and the mods.

IMO, it seems like there's frustration on both sides right now, and a stalemate's on the horizon.

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.

[Sea Ray]

To play devil's advocate, silencing an opinion or 1 side of the discussion is intellectually irresponsible, and does nothing more than essentially piss off the other side and possibly push them to extremes so they can make sure their voice is heard.



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.

[*BaseClogger*]

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?

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)?

[jojo]

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.

From my standpoint, the system isn't broken.

In fact, I think the ORG is actually a little too lax if one adopts a strict interpretation of it's mission. But again, we're given a great deal of latitude in defining just how content aligns with that mission. There is zero butt kissing required to point that out for context.

[Sea Ray]

It's all up to interpretation. What one might call trolling another would call "bringing up a provocative subject". I don't agree with how this board is moderated but I don't agree with moaning about it either. When I do have a gripe I take it up with the moderator through PMs but usually I don't even do that. I just move on.

[Highlifeman21]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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*]

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*]

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]

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.

[Boss-Hog]

What would everyone think about the idea of having the ability to ban users from specific forums as opposed to the entire site?

We have that ability, though we don't often use it. Maybe we should use it more, as you suggest.

[Sea Ray]

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?

You make it sound like the Peanut Gallery is a free for all. In reality the Peanut Gallery is much more censored than RZ, but that's another issue altogether

[Boss-Hog]

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
The issue was between him and I - never once did he send me an email seeking any type of clarification as to why he was banned (though he should know since it had previously been made clear to him the previous time he posted similar material). He attempted to evade the one week ban for this on numerous different times. It was not impossible for him to raise concern about it, as you state - but he chose not to do it via email (the proper way) but instead, he insisted upon trying to evade his initial ban(s) and that led to a significantly longer suspension.

[Boss-Hog]

You make it sound like the Peanut Gallery is a free for all. In reality the Peanut Gallery is much more censored than RZ, but that's another issue altogether
If a 'censor free' board is what you want, why you are posting here? RZ never has been, and never will be, without rules and policies, so if that's the kind of site you're looking for, and from previous posts you've made, I get that impression, you need to look elsewhere.

[Boss-Hog]

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.
As you mentioned, that type of forum is not consistent with the site's ideals and values.

[GIDP]

My issue is that mods dont understand the rules of the site and when you quote it to them they act like the rules dont matter for certain people. In other words the mods are like corrupt cops.

[Raisor]

In other words the mods are like corrupt cops.

Then why stay?

Reds.com has a message board, feel free to go there.

[The Operator]

My issue is that mods dont understand the rules of the site and when you quote it to them they act like the rules dont matter for certain people. In other words the mods are like corrupt cops.

I have never seen any instance of that type of moderation. Can you cite any specific examples?

(I realize I have a relatively low amount of posts but if you look, I joined quite a while ago so I'm a long-time reader. Just haven't posted a ton.)

[Sea Ray]

If a 'censor free' board is what you want, why you are posting here? RZ never has been, and never will be, without rules and policies, so if that's the kind of site you're looking for, and from previous posts you've made, I get that impression, you need to look elsewhere.

If that's the impression you've gotten then it's incorrect. I know what the rules are here and I post accordingly. This thread is about censorship so my comment referred to the subject at hand.

If you've been following my writings then you also saw where I said my issues with Mods are dealt with through PMs and I even use that rarely. You've made it clear that PMs are the proper way to handle this stuff so it puzzles me what it is that I said that troubles you so.

[Boss-Hog]

My issue is that mods dont understand the rules of the site and when you quote it to them they act like the rules dont matter for certain people. In other words the mods are like corrupt cops.
Not touching that bait...I wouldn't suggest anyone else do it, either, because that's all it is.

[jojo]

That's a textbook example of the kind of post that leaps off of the page when ORG members discuss posting history during the voting process.

[savafan]

A completely unmoderated message board, no matter what the topic, would be a disaster.

[Brutus]

A completely unmoderated message board, no matter what the topic, would be a disaster.

Boss has already said this is not a possibility, and I respect that, so I'm not going to advocate for it. But in response to this, I will say that's surprisingly not always the case.

A friend of mine is a sports administration professor and once did a bunch of social studies on people on internet sports message boards. One of the studies he did had to do with exactly this. A poll of the boards' he did found that of the communities that had higher posting standards on the main portion of the community, but lax standards on political/religion/off-topic forums were considered by their members to be of much higher quality than those that had few, if any rules for the rest of their boards. I certainly didn't get to see the science or data he used for the experiments, but he said that he believed there was more self-policing filtered among the board members that were used to higher etiquette on other boards within that same community.

Anyhow, I respect that this isn't an option, but in regard to your comment, I don't believe it's always as bad an idea as it seems. In that scenario, I'd leave it "enter at your own risk" but still allow users to self-report posts they believe are over the line, which does allow for some light moderation when necessary. It's a moot point, as Boss has made it clear that doesn't fall in line with what they want. Fair enough. Just threw it out there for sake of discussion.

[*BaseClogger*]

Boss has already said this is not a possibility, and I respect that, so I'm not going to advocate for it. But in response to this, I will say that's surprisingly not always the case.

A friend of mine is a sports administration professor and once did a bunch of social studies on people on internet sports message boards. One of the studies he did had to do with exactly this. A poll of the boards' he did found that of the communities that had higher posting standards on the main portion of the community, but lax standards on political/religion/off-topic forums were considered by their members to be of much higher quality than those that had few, if any rules for the rest of their boards. I certainly didn't get to see the science or data he used for the experiments, but he said that he believed there was more self-policing filtered among the board members that were used to higher etiquette on other boards within that same community.

Anyhow, I respect that this isn't an option, but in regard to your comment, I don't believe it's always as bad an idea as it seems. In that scenario, I'd leave it "enter at your own risk" but still allow users to self-report posts they believe are over the line, which does allow for some light moderation when necessary. It's a moot point, as Boss has made it clear that doesn't fall in line with what they want. Fair enough. Just threw it out there for sake of discussion.

BuckeyePlanet (http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/) is a great example of this...

[GIDP]

I have never seen any instance of that type of moderation. Can you cite any specific examples?

(I realize I have a relatively low amount of posts but if you look, I joined quite a while ago so I'm a long-time reader. Just haven't posted a ton.)

you clearly have never been given a warning and then exchanged pms with certain mods.

[GIDP]

That's a textbook example of the kind of post that leaps off of the page when ORG members discuss posting history during the voting process.
I didnt even mean it that badly. I mean it like a couple mods act like gods and any communication with them ends with them completely going nuts on you about something.

[paintmered]

you clearly have never been given a warning and then exchanged pms with certain mods.

Most don't shoot off profanity laced tirades in response to a warning.

[The Operator]

you clearly have never been given a warning and then exchanged pms with certain mods.

You are correct.

However, I must not have done anything warranting a warning, either. I think everyone would do well to not only remember that this site is a privilege, not a right; and then go over and look at Reds.com and similar boards to see just how fun it is at boards where everyone gets to go free-for-all.

[GIDP]

You are correct.

However, I must not have done anything warranting a warning, either. I think everyone would do well to not only remember that this site is a privilege, not a right; and then go over and look at Reds.com and similar boards to see just how fun it is at boards where everyone gets to go free-for-all.

The problem im bringing up has nothing to do with me warranting a warning. I have 2 warnings and I see post 10 times worse than my 2 warnings on a daily basis around here by prominent members and even mods and if they were given warnings every time they made the post they would have been gone months ago. I had conversations with mods so bad that if I could ignore a certain one I would. My complaint isnt about all mods its just the switch they flip from warning and unwillingness to even give you responses on why you got it are totally out of line.

[GIDP]

Most don't shoot off profanity laced tirades in response to a warning.

No they just resort to insults and more threats of future warnings if you dont just sit back and take it.

[Raisor]

GIDP,

It sounds like you'd be happier if you weren't here.

[Boss-Hog]

GIDP,

It sounds like you'd be happier if you weren't here.
Yes it does, so that makes me question why he/she would continue to hang around here if it's that miserable an experience.

[George Anderson]

No they just resort to insults and more threats of future warnings if you dont just sit back and take it.

Agreed, I have twice been personally attacked by a Mod and when I took the issue private it was basically ignored. I know the mods work for free but the same rules should apply to them also.

[Raisor]

Here's an idea, if you have problems with a mod, a) let another mod know b) let Boss know.


There's a list of mods on the bottom of the main page.

[Boss-Hog]

Here's an idea, if you have problems with a mod, a) let another mod know b) let Boss know.


There's a list of mods on the bottom of the main page.
I agree with that, though I'd add GIK, too, to your second point.

[jojo]

Maybe it should be pointed out too that since mods generally don't discuss specific actions publicly, it's essentially wild supposition to argue that there is a significant inconsistency in moderation on redszone such that some users are unfairly moderated while other individuals are given much greater latitude.

[Mario-Rijo]

Hmm, I have been kicking this around a bit as I read it and have an opinion so I'll run it up the flag pole...

About content - It's RZ's stated vision to be a family friendly site that includes minors both male and female and adult women. Now if your buddy said something provocative about the opposite sex in front of your 15 year old daughter you wouldn't take kindly to it and promptly warn him in one way or another. Perhaps less of us wouldn't mind as much if it were our son but I would guess we would still rather our buddy not talk that way in front of impressionable youth. Since none of us (I think) have been women it's also unfair to suppose it's ok to speak that way in front of them as well, just ask them how they feel about it. All in all Boss, Gik and the mods are the landlords and supers of RZ but as tenants we all have a say and a responsibility to each other and most things shouldn't be off limits to discuss in a reasonable manner. But hanging out on the stoop and objectifying women loudly and proudly with my daughter sitting in our 1st floor window isn't one of them. What kind of neighborhood/building do you want to live in?

I should probably add that this opinion comes from a guy who is guilty of objectifying women, cussing like a sailor and all around crude behavior. But I try to watch my tongue around women and children because although I do it I can see why others shouldn't have to listen to it. What Baumer said or HLM21 doesn't bother me on a personal level but I know for a fact that it would bother me if my neice just so happened to be a poster on this site but she isn't much of a baseball fan. My even younger nephew though may be a poster on here one day and i'd prefer he not walk the same path I have I'm not super proud of it but he doesn't need my hangups if it can be helped.

About the mods - Have had warnings, deserved them and beyond that haven't had any problems with any mod or Boss or Gik. I do believe in some degree of latitude with regards to discussion as I have previously mentioned. But it's like carpeting my apartment ultimately that's the landlords say and the super can't give me permission to change it but they can penalize me if I go ahead and do it without permission of the landlord.

[GIDP]

GIDP,

It sounds like you'd be happier if you weren't here.

I dont know why it sounds like that. I brought up one issue. I dont like the chicken wraps at gold star does that mean I should never eat a cheese coney?

[GIDP]

Maybe it should be pointed out too that since mods generally don't discuss specific actions publicly, it's essentially wild supposition to argue that there is a significant inconsistency in moderation on redszone such that some users are unfairly moderated while other individuals are given much greater latitude.

Well based on how quickly I have been reported for something before and something that was ultimately nonsense because it was for baiting by replying to a baiting/name calling post by an officer. Maybe its just mods looking the other way? or members looking the other way? I dont know I just know if everyone got reported and warned as quickly as I did there would be a lot of people banned breaking rule 6 for sure.

[GIDP]

Yes it does, so that makes me question why he/she would continue to hang around here if it's that miserable an experience.

My issue is with 1 thing about this board. I dont have a problem with the board so much that I never want to be around. Heck its a good board and if there was a better one Id go with it and deal with the things I dislike about it also. Its not so black and white and I dont know why you guys want to make it seem like this.

[jojo]

Well based on how quickly I have been reported for something before and something that was ultimately nonsense because it was for baiting by replying to a baiting/name calling post by an officer. Maybe its just mods looking the other way? or members looking the other way? I dont know I just know if everyone got reported and warned as quickly as I did there would be a lot of people banned breaking rule 6 for sure.

Jerry Hairston Jr has a career OPS in the ALCS that is .331 pts higher than Reggie Jackson's. Does that mean Jerry Hairston is the real Mr. October?

[GIDP]

Here's an idea, if you have problems with a mod, a) let another mod know b) let Boss know.


There's a list of mods on the bottom of the main page.

Not worth it considering my past experiences. Like I said its my only real complaint and I thought since we were bringing things up i would bring mine up. No harm no foul.

[GIDP]

Jerry Hairston Jr has a career OPS in the ALCS that is .331 pts higher than Reggie Jackson's. Does that mean Jerry Hairston is the real Mr. October?

I really dont see the connection to what you are saying and what I'm saying. Its more like Greg Maddux strike zone compared to a rookies maybe. Really I just want to drop the whole discussion because its probably getting me into even more trouble with mods. I know I already have one enemy among them.

[jojo]

Not worth it considering my past experiences. Like I said its my only real complaint and I thought since we were bringing things up i would bring mine up. No harm no foul.

You've basically criticized the structural soundness of a house but qualified the complaint with a "no biggie though"....

[jojo]

I really dont see the connection to what you are saying and what I'm saying. Its more like Greg Maddux strike zone compared to a rookies maybe. Really I just want to drop the whole discussion because its probably getting me into even more trouble with mods. I know I already have one enemy among them.

The point was that you're the drawing the apparent distinction between strikezones from an untenably small number of pitches.

[GIDP]

You've basically criticized the structural soundness of a house but qualified the complaint with a "no biggie though"....

I can deal with them and i already have learned how to and its by basically ignoring them when they speak to me in a simple way of putting it. The rules are a fine but the people who hand out the warnings sometimes aren't. I didn't know 1 or 2 mods are the whole foundation of the site. Like I said the issue isnt something that worth getting into this big stink about. It wasnt intended to be this big of a deal and I'm sorry that it did become that. I honestly should have known better.

[GIDP]

The point was that you're the drawing the apparent distinction between strikezones from an untenably small number of pitches.

Hey if you felt like you were getting squeezed wouldnt you get a little annoyed? I see game threads of people flipping out over our pitchers getting squeezed all the time. So what maybe I cant see how often people get reported. Maybe my issue is with the people who dont report? Heck maybe im just imagining the rules being broke and im completely off base. I'm fine with being wrong and if I am then I am so sorry.

[jojo]

I can deal with them and i already have learned how to and its by basically ignoring them when they speak to me in a simple way of putting it. The rules are a fine but the people who hand out the warnings sometimes aren't. I didn't know 1 or 2 mods are the whole foundation of the site. Like I said the issue isnt something that worth getting into this big stink about. It wasnt intended to be this big of a deal and I'm sorry that it did become that. I honestly should have known better.

In the metaphor, the site administrators frame the house, we provide the content (in other words, we make the house a home). Without the foundation, walls, roof etc, the content of the house would be much different.

[GIDP]

In the metaphor, the site administrators frame the house, we provide the content (in other words, we make the house a home). Without the foundation, walls, roof etc, the content of the house would be much different.
I dont see it that way at all.

[RBA]

Nobody's perfect and that includes the moderators. Some moderators have some biases and will let some post slide by while clamping down on others. That's the way human nature is and you can't do too much about it. For example there are a couple obvious political post in this thread: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79217 that you can see that a few moderators have read but for some reason they didn't feel the need to put the clamp down on. I can assure you, these same moderators, would be clamping down on a similar posting from the other side of the political spectrum. But as long as most of the board and Boss and GIK are happy with them, that's the way it has to be.

If it was my decision I would rotate moderators; change them out every quarter. Moderating in a burden, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to hang on to it for a long period of time and take the abuse from us. I guess you have to look in a mirror and honestly ask yourself as a moderator if you are truly being 'fair and balance'.

[Boss-Hog]

As we've always asked, please report posts you feel clearly violate the rules of the board.

[Brutus]

Nobody's perfect and that includes the moderators. Some moderators have some biases and will let some post slide by while clamping down on others. That's the way human nature is and you can't do too much about it. For example there are a couple obvious political post in this thread: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79217 that you can see that a few moderators have read but for some reason they didn't feel the need to put the clamp down on. I can assure you, these same moderators, would be clamping down on a similar posting from the other side of the political spectrum. But as long as most of the board and Boss and GIK are happy with them, that's the way it has to be.

If it was my decision I would rotate moderators; change them out every quarter. Moderating in a burden, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to hang on to it for a long period of time and take the abuse from us. I guess you have to look in a mirror and honestly ask yourself as a moderator if you are truly being 'fair and balance'.

How are those posts obviously political? Not to derail the thread, but I'm certain you're referring to my post in there and it's not political, it's about my disdain for Baldwin. I'm not sure how that's construed as a political reference.

[RBA]

How are those posts obviously political? Not to derail the thread, but I'm certain you're referring to my post in there and it's not political, it's about my disdain for Baldwin. I'm not sure how that's construed as a political reference.

"Allow me to express my complete and utter disdain for everything Baldwin. I believe those brothers (but Alec more than any of them) to be the most ignorant, closed-minded individual(s) in the world."

Maybe because Baldwin is a KNOWN for his liberal views and we have the Canada crack later down in the thread.

Now why should he have moved to Canada?

You guys are pretty good in talking in code, I'll grant that.

Similar post stated about a personality on the right would be immediately removed.

[jojo]

"Allow me to express my complete and utter disdain for everything Baldwin. I believe those brothers (but Alec more than any of them) to be the most ignorant, closed-minded individual(s) in the world."

Maybe because Baldwin is a KNOWN for his liberal views and we have the Canada crack later down in the thread.

Now why should he have moved to Canada?

You guys are pretty good in talking in code, I'll grant that.

Similar post stated about a personality on the right would be immediately removed.

I dunno, Rush Limbaugh has taken his fair share of pounding in the archives....

http://www.redszone.com/forums/search.php?searchid=394329

Rather than speaking in code, I think sometimes people can squint real hard to see the code they're looking for on certain topics....

[Brutus]

"Allow me to express my complete and utter disdain for everything Baldwin. I believe those brothers (but Alec more than any of them) to be the most ignorant, closed-minded individual(s) in the world."

Maybe because Baldwin is a KNOWN for his liberal views and we have the Canada crack later down in the thread.

Now why should he have moved to Canada?

You guys are pretty good in talking in code, I'll grant that.

Similar post stated about a personality on the right would be immediately removed.

I dislike Baldwin because I believe he's a disgusting human being. I know you might find this hard to believe, but there are people that dislike other people because of things beyond political affiliation. I don't care if he's an (R), (D), (L) or something in between or radically either direction... in this particular case, I think he's a bumbling idiot regardless of his political beliefs. Most entertainers have the same political leanings as he and I don't say a word about them. I hate Baldwin for things beyond his political stance. I think he's (as I said in my original post) closed-minded. You're trying to read more into the post then was meant to be there. Saying you dislike someone is hardly a political post.

[Razor Shines]

"Allow me to express my complete and utter disdain for everything Baldwin. I believe those brothers (but Alec more than any of them) to be the most ignorant, closed-minded individual(s) in the world."

Maybe because Baldwin is a KNOWN for his liberal views and we have the Canada crack later down in the thread.

Now why should he have moved to Canada?

You guys are pretty good in talking in code, I'll grant that.

Similar post stated about a personality on the right would be immediately removed.

One of the Baldwins is a conservative and he did say "those brothers". Seemed like a pretty nonpartisan bash to me.

[RBA]

I dunno, Rush Limbaugh has taken his fair share of pounding in the archives....

http://www.redszone.com/forums/search.php?searchid=394329

Rather than speaking in code, I think sometimes people can squint real hard to see the code they're looking for on certain topics....

I see a couple. Other post praising Limbaugh. If you want to play games and go back a couple years, go for it. I'm talking the here and now.

[RBA]

One of the Baldwins is a conservative and he did say "those brothers". Seemed like a pretty nonpartisan bash to me.

"but Alec more than any of them" I don't believe it to be nonpartisan at all. But explain the Canada crack down the thread? That was nonpartisan too?

[jojo]

I see a couple.

I guess they mustve fallen through the cracks...

[jojo]

"but Alec more than any of them" I don't believe it to be nonpartisan at all. But explain the Canada crack down the thread? That was nonpartisan too?

Maybe you should PM Blimpie for clarification?

[Razor Shines]

"but Alec more than any of them" I don't believe it to be nonpartisan at all. But explain the Canada crack down the thread? That was nonpartisan too?

Well he did say he was going to move there. I don't think that statement is any more political than asking why GAC hasn't swtiched his allegiance to the Indians yet. :D

[RBA]

Oh, I get it, Baldwin said he was going to move to Canada if Dusty Baker remains the Reds manager. Now, it's so obvious.

[RBA]

I'm dropping this now, because all I'm doing is pissing people off right now and I'm sorry for doing that. I don't see it your guys way, but that's just me. But I freely admit I have a bias.

[*BaseClogger*]

Maybe it was a South Park movie reference? :dunno:

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/blg_blame_canada.jpg

[RBA]

Maybe it was a South Park movie reference? :dunno:

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/blg_blame_canada.jpg

That must be it.

[Razor Shines]

I'm dropping this now, because all I'm doing is pissing people off right now and I'm sorry for doing that. I don't see it your guys way, but that's just me. But I freely admit I have a bias.

Hey sorry, by no means was I pissed off. I was mostly kidding with the GAC comment. I have a bias too and I agree that there were probably some political undertones in those posts, but very slight IMH and biased O.

[Boss-Hog]

The previous ~20 posts belong in the Peanut Gallery - they have no place here.

As for RBA's original allegations, they're ridiculous. As you've seen from the above posts, not even everyone agrees with him the original posts were political in nature, yet we're (supposedly) purposely allowing them because they support "our" viewpoint. How convenient for all the admins/moderators to share the identical political views. Right.