GoBirds
Footballguy
With some of these aliases on the left getting exposed like this the echo makes more sense. Interesting how it’s handled though.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official PSF Moderation Thread*** (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Slapdash
- Start date
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I think Maurile has explained exactly how aliases are handled. I'm not sure what's so interesting.
apalmer
Footballguy
Maurile is clearly part of the Fake News Media, so nothing he says can be believed. It's strictly a conspiracy to ban only right-wing aliases.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Wait, how does someone "hit" on you on a message board without ever seeing you? Really odd for you to bring that up as a defense of Tanner.krista4 said:I'll name names. Me. I'm disappointed at the way the site has regressed lately and have discussed with "Tanner" the issues we see. And I'll be even more disappointed when we lose someone like him permanently while allowing - or apparently welcoming - the kind of unproductive discussion that persists in this forum.
In my more than 13 years here, I've dealt with some crap none of the constant complainers have, simply by virtue of being one of the only women participating. One person who's never been anything less than supportive and kind to me, from day one, was Tanner. And he did it without hitting on me - something many here haven't managed - or even acknowledging I was female or treating me differently in any way. He's treated me with respect and as an equal, which is not unique to him but not entirely the norm either. He's also a dedicated family man and someone who loves and contributes to his community in numerous ways. There are few people here of whom I think more highly as a person. Losing him on this site while allowing so much garbage posting is anathema to me.
ETA: And now I'mat him because I have a black dot on the "official whining" thread.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Speaking of things that are really odd: it's really odd for a man to think that a woman cannot be considered attractive unless he can see her.Wait, how does someone "hit" on you on a message board without ever seeing you? Really odd for you to bring that up as a defense of Tanner.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
I'm surprised after what seems like a personal attack on you he's treated as one of the "good posters" on the board. His attacks on others and treatment is very similar to the Bruce days but as these aliases are allowed they are probably all the same person.
I'm not an alias guy so haven't kept up on the detailed rules and thought they were not allowed as one person pretending to be multiple different people creates and fosters a fake reality beyond what a chat room already is. If it is allowed it helps explain what happens in here much better actually.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Wait, how does someone "hit" on you on a message board without ever seeing you? Really odd for you to bring that up as a defense of Tanner.
You're an odd duck.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
It's the same viewpoint that accepts Donald Trump saying "Look at her. Why would I have sexually assaulted someone who looks like that?" as proof that he's innocent.
You know I feel the same way maybe we should have a drink together and talk about it, and you know, just see where things go. No pressure toots.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Oof.Wait, how does someone "hit" on you on a message board without ever seeing you? Really odd for you to bring that up as a defense of Tanner.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Wait, is Tanner banned? One of the most entertaining and insightful posters here. The fact that he doesn't suffer fools should not be cause for banning. But I guess this is a business and m##### buy subscriptions, too.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
The post was deleted. I assume by a moderator due to the name calling.
The issue with aliases seems to mostly be about posting with an alias when you are serving a suspension. Respect the penalty instead. I'm sure people using two accounts at one time for some devious reason would also be an issue although that is probably hard to catch and probably doesn't happen very often.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Football Freak
Footballguy
What? Firstly, Tanner was banned? He is in the argument for the most entertaining person on this site, and I like his posting. I certainly hope he comes back. Secondly, I’m very sorry to hear you’ve been mistreated. You are one of the most pleasant, polite and nice people here, and it sucks to hear that some guys can’t interact with you properly. I’m sorry, Krista4.krista4 said:I'll name names. Me. I'm disappointed at the way the site has regressed lately and have discussed with "Tanner" the issues we see. And I'll be even more disappointed when we lose someone like him permanently while allowing - or apparently welcoming - the kind of unproductive discussion that persists in this forum.
In my more than 13 years here, I've dealt with some crap none of the constant complainers have, simply by virtue of being one of the only women participating. One person who's never been anything less than supportive and kind to me, from day one, was Tanner. And he did it without hitting on me - something many here haven't managed - or even acknowledging I was female or treating me differently in any way. He's treated me with respect and as an equal, which is not unique to him but not entirely the norm either. He's also a dedicated family man and someone who loves and contributes to his community in numerous ways. There are few people here of whom I think more highly as a person. Losing him on this site while allowing so much garbage posting is anathema to me.
ETA: And now I'm
The Football Freak
Footballguy
Ok, phew. But part of the entertainment is the hydra aspect of his aliases.You’ve long been part of what makes the FBG community special. To be clear, you’re in no imminent danger of being banned (so you can drop the martyr shtick).
We are trying to put a foot down on aliases that are used to get around (recent) suspensions.
You’ve been suspended once or twice before. Statistically speaking, I hope you’re suspended many more times in the future (because that would mean you’ve stuck around long enough for that to happen). Just don’t use an alias to avoid serving your sentence.
The Commish
Footballguy
Dan Lambskin
Footballguy
I think what’s frustrating is getting insta banned for 30 60 90 days for posting lewd comments when people in the political forum are just awful to each other and make personal attacks or say some downright nasty stuff about a political or The Left or The Right and they get a “don’t” or “please be way cooler”
GoBirds
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Agreed
And I think people get frustrated because certain posters can say whatever they want to whoever and take a ban because they have an alias or seven that they can pull out and keep posting
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
I don’t know how you all know about who gets banned or suspended but did Officer Pete Malloy and various aliai get banned?
[scooter]
Footballguy
krista4
Footballguy
This is a really kind post, and I appreciate it. I should say that people have been way cooler in recent years and it’s much less of a problem.
Completely valid point, but also most/many people here had seen me. Early on I had a picture of myself as my profile picture (not avatar but what’s on the profile). I wasn’t experienced in message boards and was really dumb.
Also someone who knew my name Googled a pic of me and posted it either here or at the Cage (can’t remember).Yeah....that is an issue I have. Pages of snarky personal attacks is nothing. One f-bomb and it is a lengthy time out, even with the filter making it ####.
The General
Footballguy
Krista4.This is a really kind post, and I appreciate it. I should say that people have been way cooler in recent years and it’s much less of a problem.
Completely valid point, but also most/many people here had seen me. Early on I had a picture of myself as my profile picture (not avatar but what’s on the profile). I wasn’t experienced in message boards and was really dumb.
squistion
Footballguy
Probably at the Cage which had an "anything goes" mentality. It also could have been here (don't remember seeing it) but if so, the mods would have taken it down as soon as they were made aware of it (they did so when a link to one person's My Space page was maliciously posted).This is a really kind post, and I appreciate it. I should say that people have been way cooler in recent years and it’s much less of a problem.
Completely valid point, but also most/many people here had seen me. Early on I had a picture of myself as my profile picture (not avatar but what’s on the profile). I wasn’t experienced in message boards and was really dumb.
HellToupee
Footballguy
This right here is the problem with politics in America in 2019McJose said:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I want to say something about this -- with apologies to Joe if he finds it a bit embarrassing.McJose said:
I've known Joe a long time. Mostly online, but I feel like I've spent enough time with him in person by now to be pretty confident about my read on him.
If you see an episode or two of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, you might think that Fred Rogers is putting on an act. But it's not really an act. That's his real personality. Speaking to a very young audience is different in some ways from speaking to an adult audience, but the patience, the calmness, the kindness, the taking everyone seriously, that was the real Fred Rogers according to people who knew him.
With Joe, I can totally understand how a person might read a bunch of his message board posts and come away thinking that the "I'm just asking questions so I can better understand your position; I don't have a hidden agenda" stuff can seem fake, like it's just an act. But that's really him. He really does want to foster the kinds of discussions where people can better understand each other instead of scoring points against each other. He really does take people and their positions seriously even if they seem kind of stupid. He really hates the clique-like aspects of a forum that can cause some people to feel excluded or shunned or ganged-up on.
What you perceive as false naivety I think is better understood as a genuine desire to take people at their word in the hopes of understanding them rather than dismissing them out of hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
I believe you may be accurate with this statement.
Having said that, I also think it's a terrible shame that in 2019 it appears that the majority of people still "see" only physical beauty and fail to look for any further evidence of beauty within a person. This saddens me as I naively believed we as a society were making strides towards, towards,......oh, I don't know how to express my feelings other than I thought we were collectively becoming better human beings with more acceptance of, and compassion towards, our fellow man. My bad.
Please accept my apologies. I wanted to comment but have no desire to derail the thread from its original purpose of discussing forum moderation. Carry on.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I also want to say something about this.krista4 said:
I agree that the site has regressed over the last few years. A decade ago, there was plenty of strong disagreement, but everyone could trust that the disagreements were in good faith. Lately, it seems that a lot of posts are full of hyperbolic rhetoric that substitute overstatement (at best) for careful accuracy. And I suspect that often the inaccuracies are not merely careless, but at least reckless if not intentional -- i.e., I suspect that numerous posts these days are made in bad faith.
It's a shame.
Believe me when I say that the moderators do recognize this, but do not welcome it.
You might think we could solve the problem by simply banning the worst offenders. It's complicated, though, for two primary reasons.
First, a lot of the worst offenders don't really cross the lines too badly in terms of things like swearing, linking to porn, etc. -- the stuff that is objectively worthy of a ban. Rather, the thrust of their annoyance is just basic carelessness with facts, responding to everything too quickly and voluminously, and elevating snark above substance. That stuff is tedious, but do we really want to start banning people for it? For one thing, that sort of folly is often unintentional, and we don't really want to ban people for stuff they don't do on purpose. For another, judgments about it are pretty subjective, which is related to my second point...
Second, while I can quickly name offenders on both sides of the political aisle, the worst offenders tend to be disproportionately on the pro-Trump side. Sorry, pro-Trump people, but in my estimation, as objective as I can be about it, it's true.
But I question exactly how objective I can be about it. I'm pretty anti-Trump myself. When an anti-Trump person makes a careless post that is more rhetorical than substantive, I notice it and am annoyed by it, but I'm probably more annoyed by it when the same thing is done by a pro-Trump person. It's subconscious, but it's probably a real effect. So how do I penalize posters for being annoying while also ensuring impartiality -- recognizing that my annoyance-meter might be subconsciously calibrated differently for different groups?
In my mind, I think I probably over-correct for that effect by cutting more slack to the pro-Trump people than I do to the anti-Trump people. You might agree with me about that. And if you're right, that's a demerit against me as a moderator. But I can assure you that the pro-Trump people definitely do not agree with me about that -- they tend to think just the opposite. And if they're right, that's also a demerit against me as a moderator. From my perspective, I really don't have a good way of determining who's more likely to be right.
If the moderation is slanted either way, it's not by design.
And if the moderation is too lax about suppressing certain posters on grounds of general annoyance, that is not the goal. It's because trade-offs are hard, and recognizing and appropriately controlling for my own biases is even harder. I bet the other moderators would admit the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that little melt down and subsequent coddling should remove any doubt that the in-crowd gets special treatment around here.
krista4
Footballguy
I don't believe the moderation is slanted or biased in either direction. Instead I find it chaotic, unpredictable, and inconsistent. That's not to say any one moderator is any of those things, but perhaps it's a function of having a variety of mods with a variety of perspectives. There's one mod who hands out bans based on what he sees as unfair generalizations. There are others who do based on personal insults, or offensive language, or whatever it might be. It's a constant refrain here that the rules aren't clear, and at some point we should acknowledge that's true. Maybe the marching orders on the job aren't sufficiently clear either. Or maybe there's no possible way to make it better. And of course I don't mean to lay this all at the feet of the mods, either; we're adults who should do a better job of monitoring ourselves, to the extent we know what the boundaries are. Some boundaries are stated but not enforced. Some are enforced but not stated.
I agree with you on the suppression of "general annoyance" - tough to monitor or control without bias, and I'm not sure "general annoyance" should in any case be a grounds for a ban or a timeout. The only situation where it would be is where someone is purposefully trolling to get that reaction, and evaluating someone's intent in that regard is often impossible.
Speaking of "trolling," one of the first changes I'd implement as queen is to bring the hammer down on the out-of-control use of that word to apply to nearly any instance of disagreement. To me, more broadly speaking, the single most important change that could be made is to deal with those who spend more of their time talking about other people than they do about issues. I hate boff sidez-ing it, but this is an area where I see plenty of egregious behavior from both sides of the aisle. Joe started a thread calling out two posters on that, and although I don't find the two he named even to be the worst offenders, I'm glad that someone acknowledged the issue. I believe you tried to address with a thread a while back dedicated just to people talking about each other, but people couldn't contain themselves to that thread. In any case, I'm sick to death of it and feel if we could cut back on that we'd have the start of some great progress. There are people here whose substantive posts I enjoy but are genuinely part of the problem. I don't mean personal attacks - those are obviously out of bounds and should be addressed as such. And I don't mean responding directly to someone to refute his points, which if done respectfully is exactly what we should have here. What I mean is the backhanded garbage. A thought: if you're speaking about another poster here in the third person, you're likely guilty of this.
The second area of potential change is what Tanner alluded to, which is that some viewpoints are simply not worthy of support and respect. That's a tougher one since people would draw lines differently, but I think reasonable minds can find some agreement on these. TobiasFunke has been doing what I think is an admirable job of calling this out, I think without attacking posters themselves (though don't hold me to having read every one of his posts so I could be wrong), but where he draws that line might not be where the mods/owners decide to. But there does need to be a line.
The final and most difficult area is the "general annoyance" one. On these, I don't think bans are in order unless it is unequivocal trolling. But maybe deletion of posts with a reminder to bring substance. There is a new poster here who seems to respond to a ton of posts with just the word "Wow." Is that bannable or worthy of a timeout? Not in my opinion. But the posts bring nothing, and the poster could be reminded to try to engage on substance instead. He might very well have something interesting to bring to the table but just needs to know that. I generally am optimistic about people, though.
I don't know. I just typed a lot but clearly don't have the answers, either. I very much appreciate your thoughtful response above, though, as well as the explanation of Joe's character. I met him only once but know he's a swell guy.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's definitely true. Probably each of us individually is inconsistent in some ways. Together, we're sometimes wildly inconsistent. That's a consequence of our having enough discretion to make judgment calls ... which is probably better than trying to enforce procrustean rules mechanically without any such discretion -- but the result is inevitable inconsistency.
I very much agree with you about this. I fear it's an insoluble problem. We've tried to address it specifically with certain identifiable posters, and they'd agreed to try to do better, and then within that same page they were back at it again. Impulse control is another thing that's hard.
I did once have a thread that ended up being dedicated as the destination to move posts of that nature to from their original threads. But moving a post on Invision takes about 60-120 seconds and succeeds before timing out only about half the time. The chore was far more annoying than the posts themselves.In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that (a) accusations of trolling are way overdone and are as annoying as trolling itself, and (b) posts about other posters are horrible, terrible, and bad. Unfortunately, they are also too numerous for mortal moderators to make a dent in.
Maybe we could use peer pressure to discourage such posts by always giving them the
I favor giving a lot of leeway to people on substance as long as they are stating their position honestly.
While I agree that some people are occasionally putting themselves in a position analogous to that of the people holding anti-integration signs in black-and-white photos, I think they should be allowed to do so.
John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, states my rationale better than I could:
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Last edited by a moderator:
krista4
Footballguy
I love this idea.
You make a compelling argument here. Please consider my thoughts on this aspect officially under reconsideration.
I seen too much bias to be convinced it does not exist. But I believe eliminating bias is a near impossible task. Similar to what MT mentioned above, things that get under my skin may not even register as offensive to mods. I don't like it when posters flat out make up stuff I never said which attempts to make me look dumb or racist. Hyperboles which I find offensive, do not register as offensive.
My posts are reflective of the posts I respond to. If they are respectful, so are mine. If they are snarky and personal, I usually point it out. And if they continue, I get snarky back. The difference is, my post gets reported 8 times. It is frustrating when I endure multiple snarky attacks, but then I get singled out by the mods.
There was an incident just last week where a mod was clearly being bias against me. A poster made a vulgar attack against me. Instead of a timeout or even a warning, the vulgar part was removed by a mod without any trace of the edit and the post which still contained an offensive personal attack remained. The posters just pretended it never happened, but Joe did stop by and properly addressed and corrected things. I can mention a half dozen other cases.
My posts are reflective of the posts I respond to. If they are respectful, so are mine. If they are snarky and personal, I usually point it out. And if they continue, I get snarky back. The difference is, my post gets reported 8 times. It is frustrating when I endure multiple snarky attacks, but then I get singled out by the mods.
There was an incident just last week where a mod was clearly being bias against me. A poster made a vulgar attack against me. Instead of a timeout or even a warning, the vulgar part was removed by a mod without any trace of the edit and the post which still contained an offensive personal attack remained. The posters just pretended it never happened, but Joe did stop by and properly addressed and corrected things. I can mention a half dozen other cases.
My infallibility aside - I agree with MT - I don't consider anyone here who puts forth a contrarian opinion to be trolling. There are many posters I disagree with - but recognize an honest difference of opinion. I even empathize from time to time when they feel ganged up on - I think that is a real issue.
And I whole heartedly agree that the back-and-forth between/among posters about who is trolling whom is tiresome - and really detracts from many topics I find interesting. When you post something designed to generate a reaction from someone (or a group of someones) lets not act surprised or offended when they react...
And I whole heartedly agree that the back-and-forth between/among posters about who is trolling whom is tiresome - and really detracts from many topics I find interesting. When you post something designed to generate a reaction from someone (or a group of someones) lets not act surprised or offended when they react...
[scooter]
Footballguy
Nail...
...head.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
The last few posts by Maurile have been great, and I like all the thoughtful discussion. I wish I wasn’t on my phone and running around right now or I’d say more.
But the only perspective I’d add is that mods aren’t judges, people aren’t entitled to due process, and the goal shouldn’t be to do justice or be fair. The goal should be to have an awesome board where people want to spend their time. So if there’s some poster that consistently makes the board worse over a long period of time, the mods should feel perfectly fine about banning that person, even if he doesn’t post naughty pics or use swear words or anything that violates the terms of service. You can be arbitrary and capricious. People don’t have any legal right to post here. Embrace your absolute power. I know that may feel wrong as someone in a position of authority but the rest of us are at your mercy. Often being fair to one poster by allowing him to keep posting garbage is actually punishing all the rest of the posters who are here to have good conversation.
But the only perspective I’d add is that mods aren’t judges, people aren’t entitled to due process, and the goal shouldn’t be to do justice or be fair. The goal should be to have an awesome board where people want to spend their time. So if there’s some poster that consistently makes the board worse over a long period of time, the mods should feel perfectly fine about banning that person, even if he doesn’t post naughty pics or use swear words or anything that violates the terms of service. You can be arbitrary and capricious. People don’t have any legal right to post here. Embrace your absolute power. I know that may feel wrong as someone in a position of authority but the rest of us are at your mercy. Often being fair to one poster by allowing him to keep posting garbage is actually punishing all the rest of the posters who are here to have good conversation.
The Commish
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Wait.krista4 said:I'll name names. Me. I'm disappointed at the way the site has regressed lately and have discussed with "Tanner" the issues we see. And I'll be even more disappointed when we lose someone like him permanently while allowing - or apparently welcoming - the kind of unproductive discussion that persists in this forum.
In my more than 13 years here, I've dealt with some crap none of the constant complainers have, simply by virtue of being one of the only women participating. One person who's never been anything less than supportive and kind to me, from day one, was Tanner. And he did it without hitting on me - something many here haven't managed - or even acknowledging I was female or treating me differently in any way. He's treated me with respect and as an equal, which is not unique to him but not entirely the norm either. He's also a dedicated family man and someone who loves and contributes to his community in numerous ways. There are few people here of whom I think more highly as a person. Losing him on this site while allowing so much garbage posting is anathema to me.
ETA: And now I'm
You really are a woman?
GoBirds
Footballguy
It’s really too bad there isn’t more of @David Dodds around so not all in control are so far to one point of view. When everyone has strong opinions on one side and want to hear those that support what they think it’s not realistic that moderation will be fair. But to their credit Joe was honest back when Bruce D (who I’m sure is still around and was one of multiple aliases) was personally attacking anyone not on the left that those considered good posters by mods are ok to be treated different. Like posted upstream, it’s their board and nothing saying it had to be fair which is true.
