FFA Moderation Thoughts - What Do You Think? (1 Viewer)

[GoBirds]

What do I think about moderation?  I think it needs to be higher.  People write a lot of nasty things that used to get people banned and the board has suffered.  In terms of the political forum, I think it's a joke.  I think it's only there because Dodds leans right and can't take the heat. 

Dodds is the problem because he leans right? Numerous mods are far left and moderate that way but Dodds is the problem? Not sure about that bud. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

For years, people have asked for a Politics Sub Forum or separate Forum. This had nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. Politics and Religion are always passionate topics. Clearly in the last couple of years, Politics have become even more passionate. So we felt giving a separate forum was the right thing. I'd resisted for years because A) I'm generally not in favor or fracturing discussion and 2) I feared the subforum of politics might be bigger than the FFA. Clearly I was wrong on the second one as it seems to be working ok. Similar to how the the Assistant Coach subforum works in the Shark Pool where people can ask specific questions about their team. 

The political threads were also where most of the over the line posting was happening where people were being uncool or trolling or attacking. A separate subforum does not mean we'll sweep the ugly political stuff aside and let them do what they want. The opposite is what we're looking for. With all the political threads consolidated, it'll hopefully be something we can better manage. 

 

[Scoresman]

JML started a draft this week about best songs about sex.

I know that's tame for the internet but that's a little over the top for what we want the boards to be. The same would apply for the Drugs category of the draft. I know that's not what you want to hear and I know the SFW / Family Friendly thing isn't what everyone wants. But it's what we're going to try and do here as best we can. Thanks.

Nobody here wants this level of conservative moderation except you. Nobody. 

And how is that not ok but yoga pants threads and who's hotter threads are? 

Draft threads are a shining example of posters here "being excellent to each other", the mantra of this place. There is no drama, just great conversation and sharing of music. But even that can't escape the puritan level of moderation in effect here. 

Your audience here and your moderation policy don't jive. 

 

[GoBirds]

Nobody here wants this level of conservative moderation except you. Nobody. 

And how is that not ok but yoga pants threads and who's hotter threads are? 

Draft threads are a shining example of posters here "being excellent to each other", the mantra of this place. There is no drama, just great conversation and sharing of music. But even that can't escape the puritan level of moderation in effect here. 

Your audience here and your moderation policy don't jive. 

Please don't ruin this for everyone. 

 

[Scoresman]

How about a Love, Pharmaceuticals and Blues-influenced music draft?

The only songs allowed are about sex after marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction. Let's keep this clean. 

 

[Scoresman]

Please don't ruin this for everyone. 

My intent is the opposite. If he starts shutting those threads down he will have a riot on his hands. Those threads and JMLs original draft thread are completely harmless. 

 

[Politician Spock]

How about a Love, Pharmaceuticals and Blues-influenced music draft?

Hugs, Aspirin, and Hanson?

 

[Da Guru]

For years, people have asked for a Politics Sub Forum or separate Forum. This had nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. Politics and Religion are always passionate topics. Clearly in the last couple of years, Politics have become even more passionate. So we felt giving a separate forum was the right thing. I'd resisted for years because A) I'm generally not in favor or fracturing discussion and 2) I feared the subforum of politics might be bigger than the FFA. Clearly I was wrong on the second one as it seems to be working ok. Similar to how the the Assistant Coach subforum works in the Shark Pool where people can ask specific questions about their team. 

The political threads were also where most of the over the line posting was happening where people were being uncool or trolling or attacking. A separate subforum does not mean we'll sweep the ugly political stuff aside and let them do what they want. The opposite is what we're looking for. With all the political threads consolidated, it'll hopefully be something we can better manage. 

I feel it is working as planned. Have not even clicked on the sub forum as it was getting so toxic.

 

[captain_amazing]

Nobody here wants this level of conservative moderation except you. Nobody. 

And how is that not ok but yoga pants threads and who's hotter threads are? 

Draft threads are a shining example of posters here "being excellent to each other", the mantra of this place. There is no drama, just great conversation and sharing of music. But even that can't escape the puritan level of moderation in effect here. 

Your audience here and your moderation policy don't jive. 

Woah woah woah.... let's not paint a bullseye on any thread just to make a point here, compadre.  

@Joe Bryant - let's pretend @Scoresman never mentioned anything about a yoga pants thread and I'll promise not to show others how to post pictures in the FFA... that's certainly an amicable agreement, amirite?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think that's likely the perfect answer for everyone DW. 

Your decisions, actions, and direction created and grew this community.  I suggest you continue to follow your instincts, thus far they have served you will.  Best wishes for continued personal and professional success.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Your decisions, actions, and direction created and grew this community.  I suggest you continue to follow your instincts, thus far they have served you will.  Best wishes for continued personal and professional success.

Thank you DW. That's a nice thing to say and it's appreciated. That's the plan for how we'll continue. Best to you. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

My intent is the opposite. If he starts shutting those threads down he will have a riot on his hands. Those threads and JMLs original draft thread are completely harmless. 

I don't think Scores is intending to ruin anything. We just have different opinions on how family friendly we should moderate. He made himself clear and I heard him. We disagree but that's ok. All good. Hats off to JML for helping us come up with a good way to have the thread with the same effect. Thanks.

 

[Scoresman]

I'd probably be the second most hated person on the FFA after cstu if the yoga pants thread got axed after this. 

 

[GoBirds]

My intent is the opposite. If he starts shutting those threads down he will have a riot on his hands. Those threads and JMLs original draft thread are completely harmless. 

Agreed. I was mostly kidding as the yoga pants thread is amazing. 

 

[Ilov80s]

This was my #1 pick btw:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry6XUsow4Vg

Category:  (all of them)

CC: @Ilov80s

My Ding-A-Ling by Chuck was my top choice. 

 

[roadkill1292]

For years, people have asked for a Politics Sub Forum or separate Forum. This had nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. Politics and Religion are always passionate topics. Clearly in the last couple of years, Politics have become even more passionate. So we felt giving a separate forum was the right thing. I'd resisted for years because A) I'm generally not in favor or fracturing discussion and 2) I feared the subforum of politics might be bigger than the FFA. Clearly I was wrong on the second one as it seems to be working ok. Similar to how the the Assistant Coach subforum works in the Shark Pool where people can ask specific questions about their team. 

The political threads were also where most of the over the line posting was happening where people were being uncool or trolling or attacking. A separate subforum does not mean we'll sweep the ugly political stuff aside and let them do what they want. The opposite is what we're looking for. With all the political threads consolidated, it'll hopefully be something we can better manage. 

With the additional moderation that's being applied, the threads in the Political Sub Forum are much improved. Real news is being discussed more frequently now that the childish bickering between the trolls and those who can't help but respond to them has been eliminated. It more closely resembles another board I frequent, where personal animosity is severely restricted to one lightly-attended forum, though that one lets us use grown-up bad words as long as we're not insulting other posters. I want to say bad words, Joe. Really bad words.

One minor quibble -- insults of the President should not be off limits. Public figures should be fair game.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With the additional moderation that's being applied, the threads in the Political Sub Forum are much improved. Real news is being discussed more frequently now that the childish bickering between the trolls and those who can't help but respond to them has been eliminated. It more closely resembles another board I frequent, where personal animosity is severely restricted to one lightly-attended forum, though that one lets us use grown-up bad words as long as we're not insulting other posters. I want to say bad words, Joe. Really bad words.

One minor quibble -- insults of the President should not be off limits. Public figures should be fair game.

That's an interesting point rk. 

I want to give you guys some more clarity as it's only fair to you to know the rules. But so much of it is gray and I know that's difficult / frustrating. I'm working on trying to get some words together for us.

My first focus is on each other. Meaning I want us to be excellent to each other first. Saying Maurie is stupid (I picked Maurile because he's the least likely candidate I know to be called stupid) is off limits. And not because he's on staff. If anything, staffers need to be above the fray. Not less. That's something else I'm focused on. Saying Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump is stupid is less offensive. Still not nice. But as far as I know, none of those people are members of the forum. So it's a scale. Does that make sense?

Preferably, by far the better way to have a discussion is not to say Bernie Sanders is stupid but to say "I disagree with Sanders and here's why and here's what I believe". That's tons better. But also takes some work. 

You guys have thoughts there?

 

[JAMES!]

Is this renewed moderation push happening now because you guys are preparing to sell the site? Just curious.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is this renewed moderation push happening now because you guys are preparing to sell the site? Just curious.

Not at all. It's a result of some of the threads boiling over and trying to salvage the FFA. There's obviously a ton of good here. But it was being drowned out. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

That's an interesting point rk. 

I want to give you guys some more clarity as it's only fair to you to know the rules. But so much of it is gray and I know that's difficult / frustrating. I'm working on trying to get some words together for us.

My first focus is on each other. Meaning I want us to be excellent to each other first. Saying Maurie is stupid (I picked Maurile because he's the least likely candidate I know to be called stupid) is off limits. And not because he's on staff. If anything, staffers need to be above the fray. Not less. That's something else I'm focused on. Saying Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump is stupid is less offensive. Still not nice. But as far as I know, none of those people are members of the forum. So it's a scale. Does that make sense?

Preferably, by far the better way to have a discussion is not to say Bernie Sanders is stupid but to say "I disagree with Sanders and here's why and here's what I believe". That's tons better. But also takes some work. 

You guys have thoughts there?

Before anyone else goes nuts I'll preface this with I'm as guilty as anyone but if people would reply to posts instead of posters it would be a lot better. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Before anyone else goes nuts I'll preface this with I'm as guilty as anyone but if people would reply to posts instead of posters it would be a lot better. 

That's a good point. 

 

[JAMES!]

Not at all. It's a result of some of the threads boiling over and trying to salvage the FFA. There's obviously a ton of good here. But it was being drowned out. 

Thanks for the response. I think why people push back on the moderation issue is because the moderation tends be super strict for stuff that's cosmetically "offensive" and not strict at all for stuff that's legitimately offensive. Like a school principal cracking down hard on students for wearing concert t-shirts showing Brittany Spears in a bikini while ignoring institutional racism. I'm not saying that exactly happens here, just trying to make an analogy. That said, the people complaining about the sex, drugs, rock&roll draft being deleted had to know the blunt & explicit descriptions used in the draft's categories put the thread in jeopardy. I agree with them that it's not actually offensive but for this forum it pushed the boundaries. It's silly in a The Newlywed Game using the word "whoopie" kind of way but that 1950's kind of tone is what the site is striving for. (But even Bob Eubanks wouldn't have a problem calling a stupid person stupid. I don't get that moderation request at all.)

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks for the response. I think why people push back on the moderation issue is because the moderation tends be super strict for stuff that's cosmetically "offensive" and not strict at all for stuff that's legitimately offensive. Like a school principal cracking down hard on students for wearing concert t-shirts showing Brittany Spears in a bikini while ignoring institutional racism. I'm not saying that exactly happens here, just trying to make an analogy. That said, the people complaining about the sex, drugs, rock&roll draft being deleted had to know the blunt & explicit descriptions used in the draft's categories put the thread in jeopardy. I agree with them that it's not actually offensive but for this forum it pushed the boundaries. It's silly in a The Newlywed Game using the word "whoopie" kind of way but that 1950's kind of tone is what the site is striving for. (But even Bob Eubanks wouldn't have a problem calling a stupid person stupid. I don't get that moderation request at all.)

Thanks James. For sure, let us know when you see something that you feel is legitmately offensive. The calling people stupid thing is all in the eye of the beholder. Bernie Sanders is stupid to one guy. To another guy he's compassionate. It's always a pretty good option I think to not directly call each other names. 

 

[Scoresman]

Thanks for the response. I think why people push back on the moderation issue is because the moderation tends be super strict for stuff that's cosmetically "offensive" and not strict at all for stuff that's legitimately offensive. Like a school principal cracking down hard on students for wearing concert t-shirts showing Brittany Spears in a bikini while ignoring institutional racism. I'm not saying that exactly happens here, just trying to make an analogy. That said, the people complaining about the sex, drugs, rock&roll draft being deleted had to know the blunt & explicit descriptions used in the draft's categories put the thread in jeopardy. I agree with them that it's not actually offensive but for this forum it pushed the boundaries. It's silly in a The Newlywed Game using the word "whoopie" kind of way but that 1950's kind of tone is what the site is striving for. (But even Bob Eubanks wouldn't have a problem calling a stupid person stupid. I don't get that moderation request at all.)

My question is WHY does it need to be moderated like a 1950s tone.  This is a fantasy football website, predominantly male, beer drinking, sports fans and yoga pants fans. Doesn't seem to fit. I'm not talking about the personal attacks and stuff like that which should be moderated. I just can't think of anyone who actually wants this place to read like a kindergarten class outside of management. 

 

[JAMES!]

Thanks James. For sure, let us know when you see something that you feel is legitmately offensive. The calling people stupid thing is all in the eye of the beholder. Bernie Sanders is stupid to one guy. To another guy he's compassionate. It's always a pretty good option I think to not directly call each other names. 

Have you ever called somebody an "idiot"? The dictionary definition of the word idiot is "an utterly foolish or senseless person". Can we agree that people exist that fit that definition? Are you saying you prefer people to type out the definition of certain words rather than using the actual words? Is bluntness the thing you're trying to steer the board away from? "Bernie Sanders is being an idiot" is a no go but "in this case I believe Bernie Sanders to be an utterly foolish or senseless person" is OK? This is silly, right?

 

[JAMES!]

My question is WHY does it need to be moderated like a 1950s tone. 

Because he owns the website and that's how he wants it. Maybe he believes it's a slippery slope between using curse words and becoming a site like 4-chan? I don't know.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Have you ever called somebody an "idiot"? The dictionary definition of the word idiot is "an utterly foolish or senseless person". Can we agree that people exist that fit that definition? Are you saying you prefer people to type out the definition of certain words rather than using the actual words? Is bluntness the thing you're trying to steer the board away from? "Bernie Sanders is being an idiot" is a no go but "in this case I believe Bernie Sanders to be an utterly foolish or senseless person" is OK? This is silly, right?

Sure. But I do recognize doing that kills discussion. Since good discussion is what we're after here, it's always made sense I think to shy away from calling people idiots. And for sure from calling people here idiots. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

My question is WHY does it need to be moderated like a 1950s tone.  This is a fantasy football website, predominantly male, beer drinking, sports fans and yoga pants fans. Doesn't seem to fit. I'm not talking about the personal attacks and stuff like that which should be moderated. I just can't think of anyone who actually wants this place to read like a kindergarten class outside of management. 

Thanks. I think we'll just have to disagree on what we're doing here. I think most people including the original poster on the sex song thread understood the specific categories part was more than we normally do here. And we'll have to disagree if you think we're going for kindergarten. And that's cool. As Ditkaless said, we've always tried to run this sort of how I saw it. That obviously isn't for everyone. I totally get that and I'm ok with that. But we're going to keep trying it this way. 

 

[captain_amazing]

My question is WHY does it need to be moderated like a 1950s tone.  This is a fantasy football website, predominantly male, beer drinking, sports fans and yoga pants fans. Doesn't seem to fit. I'm not talking about the personal attacks and stuff like that which should be moderated. I just can't think of anyone who actually wants this place to read like a kindergarten class outside of management. 

I think that, while much of it simply may be personal preferences among JB and the rest on how things operate here, that there certainly is a sizable consideration for branding with regards to what's permitted and not permitted.  Whether we like it or not, this forum is part of the FBG branding, and if, say, JB et al. were speaking to current or prospective business clients and they happened to roam to this part of the website, they may not be fans of certain kinds things if those things were allowed here.  I don't pretend to know what they are thinking in terms of decision-making, but that certainly would be part of my thought process were I in there shoes.

Granted, though, I agree with your premise and overall feeling that the kinds of posts that get moderated that are not personal attacks generally does fit the culture and crowd of folks who post or browse here.  I mean, your confessions thread was blown up and my questions thread was blown up, so I think we agree on what kind of content we are OK with seeing around here.  But, I think some, if not much of the decisions regarding content are made with a strong footing in brand protection.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Thanks James. For sure, let us know when you see something that you feel is legitmately offensive. The calling people stupid thing is all in the eye of the beholder. Bernie Sanders is stupid to one guy. To another guy he's compassionate. It's always a pretty good option I think to not directly call each other names. 

Hi Joe, for what it's worth I think FBGs has made a mistake with the political sub-forum. I understand there are probably legitimate, workflow related reasons for doing it but I think it's a bad idea on a number of levels. One is the accepted or continued balkanization of our conversations, and ourselves, which we are seeing everywhere.

Personally I think this thread you started was a great idea. If mods had gotten involved then, and given feedback here in response to specific questions about policy and ensured that those policies were even and consistently applied, it would have been better.

There are other things that concern me in terms of the forum and what I (used to) enjoy about it, but I don't want to go on too long. On the whole I think it's a Loss for the FFA, FBGs and maybe all of us.

- SID.

 

[Slapdash]

For years, people have asked for a Politics Sub Forum or separate Forum. This had nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. Politics and Religion are always passionate topics. Clearly in the last couple of years, Politics have become even more passionate. So we felt giving a separate forum was the right thing. I'd resisted for years because A) I'm generally not in favor or fracturing discussion and 2) I feared the subforum of politics might be bigger than the FFA. Clearly I was wrong on the second one as it seems to be working ok. Similar to how the the Assistant Coach subforum works in the Shark Pool where people can ask specific questions about their team. 

The political threads were also where most of the over the line posting was happening where people were being uncool or trolling or attacking. A separate subforum does not mean we'll sweep the ugly political stuff aside and let them do what they want. The opposite is what we're looking for. With all the political threads consolidated, it'll hopefully be something we can better manage. 

Good to have you back participating.  I think the subforum is going well so far.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's a fair point captain. I do tend to think of more probably in a "who we are" type lens than a "brand" but in the end it's probably close to the same thing. 

One thing that's always driven me a little bit is doing something different. There are a ton of boards and platforms where anything goes and anything can be said. We wanted to have something that was a little bit more structured. And I for sure don't claim my way is the only way or right way. It's just how I've decided to do it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi Joe, for what it's worth I think FBGs has made a mistake with the political sub-forum. I understand there are probably legitimate, workflow related reasons for doing it but I think it's a bad idea on a number of levels. One is the accepted or continued balkanization of our conversations, and ourselves, which we are seeing everywhere.

Personally I think this thread you started was a great idea. If mods had gotten involved then, and given feedback here in response to specific questions about policy and ensured that those policies were even and consistently applied, it would have been better.

There are other things that concern me in terms of the forum and what I (used to) enjoy about it, but I don't want to go on too long. On the whole I think it's a Loss for the FFA, FBGs and maybe all of us.

- SID.

Thanks Saints. Like lots of thingss we try, I'm not sure yet either if it was a mistake. We'll see. I was opposed to it for a long time but have been pleased with how it's going so far. We'll see. Thanks.

 

[Scoresman]

Because he owns the website and that's how he wants it. Maybe he believes it's a slippery slope between using curse words and becoming a site like 4-chan? I don't know.

There is a huge middle ground between curse words and 4-chan level crap.  I am certainly not suggesting this place devolve to become more like the latter.  

Theres also the weird standard where I can post "Who's hottest camel toe edition" and it's ok, but then get 30 days if another post in another thread has too many ###s. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a huge middle ground between curse words and 4-chan level crap.  I am certainly not suggesting this place devolve to become more like the latter.  

Theres also the weird standard where I can post "Who's hottest camel toe edition" and it's ok, but then get 30 days if another post in another thread has too many ###s. 

I think you're assuming moderators see everything. You may in fact be ruining it for the other guys. Probably best to just say we disagree.

 

[Scoresman]

I think you're assuming moderators see everything. You may in fact be ruining it for the other guys. Probably best to just say we disagree.

Haha ok. I'll let it be then.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Haha ok. I'll let it be then.

 All good.

 

[Slapdash]

Hi Joe, for what it's worth I think FBGs has made a mistake with the political sub-forum. I understand there are probably legitimate, workflow related reasons for doing it but I think it's a bad idea on a number of levels. One is the accepted or continued balkanization of our conversations, and ourselves, which we are seeing everywhere.

Personally I think this thread you started was a great idea. If mods had gotten involved then, and given feedback here in response to specific questions about policy and ensured that those policies were even and consistently applied, it would have been better.

There are other things that concern me in terms of the forum and what I (used to) enjoy about it, but I don't want to go on too long. On the whole I think it's a Loss for the FFA, FBGs and maybe all of us.

- SID.

Fair points, but something had to happen.  We're 7 months removed from the other owner having a breakdown and locking every political thread on the first few pages.

 

[Koya]

Hi Joe, for what it's worth I think FBGs has made a mistake with the political sub-forum. I understand there are probably legitimate, workflow related reasons for doing it but I think it's a bad idea on a number of levels. One is the accepted or continued balkanization of our conversations, and ourselves, which we are seeing everywhere.

Personally I think this thread you started was a great idea. If mods had gotten involved then, and given feedback here in response to specific questions about policy and ensured that those policies were even and consistently applied, it would have been better.

There are other things that concern me in terms of the forum and what I (used to) enjoy about it, but I don't want to go on too long. On the whole I think it's a Loss for the FFA, FBGs and maybe all of us.

- SID.

Thanks Saints. Like lots of thingss we try, I'm not sure yet either if it was a mistake. We'll see. I was opposed to it for a long time but have been pleased with how it's going so far. We'll see. Thanks.

I totally see (and may actually agree with) SiD's perspective. With a key caveat...

The political sub forum has been pretty awesome the past few days. But to SiD's point, I don't believe that's a result of it being a "sub" forum.

The moderation and resultant tempering (if not nearly eliminating) blatant trolling for trolling sake and asking the rest of us to remember to be excellent to one another -all the while being far more even handed in ensuring moderation extends to everyone in a more consistent manner - had been nothing short of the best step I've seen these boards take in a long long time. 

I know the boards aren't a money maker and can be a drain on your energy, time, resources and most of all, patience.

Having consistent accountability is pretty much all we as guests can ask for, even if we don't agree with some of your rules. Sorta like I may like an umpire's strike zone, but if the ump calls balls and strikes consistently we can then adjust (or leave, or be legitimately given a timeout) and deal with it.  As to the specifics of those rules this thread is a chance to adjust as there is likely no "perfect" scenario. And let's be honest, some things that may have or may not have been OK in these and other boards 15-20 years ago could be different viewed through today's lens, so always a need to adjust and evolve. 

Anyway, if it helps you to moderate by segregating politics topics I can understand that. Ideally we could have them included with everything else, with the consistent moderation (and accompanying self policing by the rest of us including when we step out of line, on purpose or without intent) accorss all threads and enough civility to allow more freedom in general.  If anything, the moderation within the politics forum seems a good example and imo, generally a great success so far.

 

[Koya]

Good to have you back participating.  I think the subforum is going well so far.

Dude, spot on, 

Maybe it's just a middle aged guy nostalgic for days of old (ol yeller, ball cancer, coming together around 9/11, losing then finding blue onions to mischief at the campsite to original all time MLB, NBA and NFL drafts that were before 10 years of players who began their careers since) but it's good to chum around with @Clayton Gray and  @Joe Bryant again. 

We do know you have better things today, but we also know that many of us do not.

 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I totally see (and may actually agree with) SiD's perspective. With a key caveat...

The political sub forum has been pretty awesome the past few days. But to SiD's point, I don't believe that's a result of it being a "sub" forum.

The moderation and resultant tempering (if not nearly eliminating) blatant trolling for trolling sake and asking the rest of us to remember to be excellent to one another -all the while being far more even handed in ensuring moderation extends to everyone in a more consistent manner - had been nothing short of the best step I've seen these boards take in a long long time. 

I know the boards aren't a money maker and can be a drain on your energy, time, resources and most of all, patience.

Having consistent accountability is pretty much all we as guests can ask for, even if we don't agree with some of your rules. Sorta like I may like an umpire's strike zone, but if the ump calls balls and strikes consistently we can then adjust (or leave, or be legitimately given a timeout) and deal with it.  As to the specifics of those rules this thread is a chance to adjust as there is likely no "perfect" scenario. And let's be honest, some things that may have or may not have been OK in these and other boards 15-20 years ago could be different viewed through today's lens, so always a need to adjust and evolve. 

Anyway, if it helps you to moderate by segregating politics topics I can understand that. Ideally we could have them included with everything else, with the consistent moderation (and accompanying self policing by the rest of us including when we step out of line, on purpose or without intent) accorss all threads and enough civility to allow more freedom in general.  If anything, the moderation within the politics forum seems a good example and imo, generally a great success so far.

There's still plenty of trolling going on in there but by people you agree with and those you disagree with aren't responding to it.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

I totally see (and may actually agree with) SiD's perspective. With a key caveat...

The political sub forum has been pretty awesome the past few days. But to SiD's point, I don't believe that's a result of it being a "sub" forum.

The moderation and resultant tempering (if not nearly eliminating) blatant trolling for trolling sake and asking the rest of us to remember to be excellent to one another -all the while being far more even handed in ensuring moderation extends to everyone in a more consistent manner - had been nothing short of the best step I've seen these boards take in a long long time. 

I know the boards aren't a money maker and can be a drain on your energy, time, resources and most of all, patience.

Having consistent accountability is pretty much all we as guests can ask for, even if we don't agree with some of your rules. Sorta like I may like an umpire's strike zone, but if the ump calls balls and strikes consistently we can then adjust (or leave, or be legitimately given a timeout) and deal with it.  As to the specifics of those rules this thread is a chance to adjust as there is likely no "perfect" scenario. And let's be honest, some things that may have or may not have been OK in these and other boards 15-20 years ago could be different viewed through today's lens, so always a need to adjust and evolve. 

Anyway, if it helps you to moderate by segregating politics topics I can understand that. Ideally we could have them included with everything else, with the consistent moderation (and accompanying self policing by the rest of us including when we step out of line, on purpose or without intent) accorss all threads and enough civility to allow more freedom in general.  If anything, the moderation within the politics forum seems a good example and imo, generally a great success so far.

Thanks Koya. I'm with you on all this. 

I think some of what we are seeing the political forum being better could have been done without a subforum. But it does seem a little easier to have it separate. 

Consistency is our #1 biggest problem. The umpire anology is spot on. People by and large will play by the rules. They just need to know the rules. And that's something I can definitely do a better job with and I'll try to put something together there.

A huge factor is we just don't see what everything. I think there's this feeling that we're all seeing and if something is posted and isn't killed, it must be ok. And I TOTALLY understand thinking that. I would too. The reality though is that it's very likely something we didn't see and it's not ok. I sometimes will get email saying, "Wow, kind of surprised you support racism." and I'll have no idea what they mean. I'll then spend time running it down and it often turns out someone has posted something racist at 1 am that's been on the site for 12 hours and we haven't deleted it. The fact we didn't see it for 12 hours equates to we agree with it. Again, I understand how that happens. But it's not accurate. 

Thanks for the help in helping us keep this going.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Dude, spot on, 

Maybe it's just a middle aged guy nostalgic for days of old (ol yeller, ball cancer, coming together around 9/11, losing then finding blue onions to mischief at the campsite to original all time MLB, NBA and NFL drafts that were before 10 years of players who began their careers since) but it's good to chum around with @Clayton Gray and  @Joe Bryant again. 

We do know you have better things today, but we also know that many of us do not.

 

Thanks Koya. I get the nostalgic stuff too. It's what's kept me fighting what sometimes feels like a foolish fight to keep the FFA on some level of what I remember. 

Best to you. 

 

[FishTacoTuesday]

Dodds is the problem because he leans right? Numerous mods are far left and moderate that way but Dodds is the problem? Not sure about that bud. 

Dodds has some "interesting" theories for sure but what he was discussing was well within the established guidelines we've had since the yellow boards. Not sure why he or Joe felt the need to apologize, Dodds just has some different views on things than most people do. 

I think the bottom line is that he got people spun up because he's an owner and the guys heavy on the report button had a field day in his threads. 

Dodds explains himself and sticks to his guns, he's also someone that consistently seeks more information from all contributors. Whether you agree or disagree with his theories is a matter of debate. You know, because this is an internet message board and all. 

 

[dkp993]

Dodds has some "interesting" theories for sure but what he was discussing was well within the established guidelines we've had since the yellow boards. Not sure why he or Joe felt the need to apologize, Dodds just has some different views on things than most people do. 

I think the bottom line is that he got people spun up because he's an owner and the guys heavy on the report button had a field day in his threads. 

Dodds explains himself and sticks to his guns, he's also someone that consistently seeks more information from all contributors. Whether you agree or disagree with his theories is a matter of debate. You know, because this is an internet message board and all. 

Agreed.   But probably most importantly, despite Dodds having some "interesting" theories he never attacked anyone (even in the face of being attacked).   This is where the line needs to be IMO.  The freedom to speak your beliefs, even passionately debate them, but never attack someone or make it personal.   There's far to many keyboard tough guys out there who say things in here they never would in person with someone else.

The golden rule of treat someone as you'd want to be treated shouldn't be that tough to live by.....

 

[Steve]

Agreed.   But probably most importantly, despite Dodds having some "interesting" theories he never attacked anyone (even in the face of being attacked).   This is where the line needs to be IMO.  The freedom to speak your beliefs, even passionately debate them, but never attack someone or make it personal.   There's far to many keyboard tough guys out there who say things in here they never would in person with someone else.

The golden rule of treat someone as you'd want to be treated shouldn't be that tough to live by.....

Exactly and those here complaining about trolls were the ones blatantly attacking Dodds.

 

[waterworld]

Preferably, by far the better way to have a discussion is not to say Bernie Sanders is stupid but to say "I disagree with Sanders and here's why and here's what I believe". That's tons better. But also takes some work. 

You guys have thoughts there?

Think this is a well intended idea but I can't imagine it will ever come to fruition when it comes to our president. The sub forum has not changed anything in this regard. 

 

[Koya]

Thanks Koya. I get the nostalgic stuff too. It's what's kept me fighting what sometimes feels like a foolish fight to keep the FFA on some level of what I remember. 

Best to you. 

And best to you! And everyone for that matter. 

 

[GoBirds]

There's still plenty of trolling going on in there but by people you agree with and those you disagree with aren't responding to it.  

Very True. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

A huge factor is we just don't see what everything. I think there's this feeling that we're all seeing and if something is posted and isn't killed, it must be ok. And I TOTALLY understand thinking that. I would too. The reality though is that it's very likely something we didn't see and it's not ok. I sometimes will get email saying, "Wow, kind of surprised you support racism." and I'll have no idea what they mean. I'll then spend time running it down and it often turns out someone has posted something racist at 1 am that's been on the site for 12 hours and we haven't deleted it. The fact we didn't see it for 12 hours equates to we agree with it. Again, I understand how that happens. But it's not accurate. 

To this point, have you considered recruiting volunteer moderators from the posters?  I might be wrong here, but I think the mods are all staff members who have additional FBG responsibilities.  There are a lot of decent, level-headed folks here who have an interest in keeping these boards running well.  I assume some of them would be willing to help the moderating efforts.  I've seen that model work well on another board.  It seems the moderators to posters ratio here is quite low which must be tasking for you guys.