What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

How would you like to see the FFA moderated?

  • More heavily moderated than it is now with time outs given much more frequently for unexcellent beha

    Votes: 42 11.4%

  • A little more moderated than it is now with time outs given a little more frequently for unexcellent

    Votes: 73 19.8%

  • Keep it like it is now

    Votes: 119 32.3%

  • A little less moderated than it is now with time outs given a little less frequently for unexcellent

    Votes: 63 17.1%

  • A lot less moderated than it is now with time outs given much less frequently for unexcellent behavi

    Votes: 71 19.3%
  • Total voters
    368
fantasycurse42 said:
Suspended for any of these comments?

I feel like I would be suspended for that stuff.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you.  I can't speak for him being suspended for any of those comments--but anybody could be and should be suspended for blatantly calling out and personally attacking another member with insults.  There should be no place for that in any FBG forum.   There is private messaging on the forums--if somebody  wants to insult you--they should do it privately--and those members can iron out their differences. Insulting another member in public is A) rude B) childish and C) not a good look for the business of the FBG. If people can't understand that--they shouldn't be allowed to post at all.  Wasn't the point of forums to invite discussion?

 
Eminence said:
Well, I was given a timeout for "spamming" in the Donald Trump thread and that was actually a thread I started.

If I was given a timeout for that, I am sure there's grounds to give our boy Timmy a timeout for that. I already posted a link of not so nice things he's said about me that he received no recourse for.

I can't speak for everybody but many times Tim will find a thread I'm posting in and will start hurling insults.

Here's one where he insinuates that I'm ######ed. It's got 5+ likes. I reported it, nothing. If I said anything unprovoked like this towards him, I'd get a timeout so fast.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/731315-official-donald-trump-for-president-thread/?page=186#comment-19156460
Click to expand...
The same 3 or 4 people have spammed your TRUMP  thread for months rendering it unreadable.It's a shame ,it really is.

 
It's nearly impossible in the political threads to divorce the supporter from the candidate.  Part of what puts folks on tilt isn't so much the policies proposed by Hillary and Trump, but it is the blind, head in the sand support for the candidate, regardless of what's going on, whether it's Hillary's lying, inauthentic self or Trump being a bigoted, misogynistic blowhard.  The goal for some in engaging in dialogue is to rattle and dislodge some of this fixed, unrelenting, at-all-costs support to promote a more honest discussion.  I try (though not always, whether consciously or otherwise) to make a distinction between labeling the person versus the idea.  

For example, I don't think suspensions are warranted for saying something like "You're being obtuse" or "that belief is bigoted."  But, I do think it warrants suspension if someone says, "Stupid people like you..." or "you are a bigot."  In my mind, it makes a huge difference between invalidating an idea versus invalidating the person.

 
We've finally found a balance here, just the right amount of moderation and a good steady state. Please people don't screw this up by requesting changes. I have seen the other side. You don't want that.

 
I think the moderation here is a fine. Maybe could use a little more in the political threads, but on the whole, I have no complaints. Much better than one of the other message boards I use to visit where you would get banned for disagreeing with one of the mods or the majority.

 
Although I've never been involved with the process, one should NEVER get banned without knowing why. 

For the record, I dont know Em like you guys do so the history isnt there, but some of the things he posted that others directed towards him were ridiculous. If those didn't include bans, I'd like to see things that did. 

 
I would be curious to see some examples of what was wrote to cause a banning or even a timeout for that matter.  For example,  did what Tim write to Em cause a timeout?  

 
HellToupee said:
The same 3 or 4 people have spammed your TRUMP  thread for months rendering it unreadable.It's a shame ,it really is.
Click to expand...
Im not sure you two know what the word spamming means. Posting information and discussing the topic is not spamming simply for back and forth a lot with people.

Posting stuff like em did in here with tim quotes...with nobody asking for them or responding to them is spamming.

 
sho nuff said:
Posting stuff like em did in here with tim quotes...with nobody asking for them or responding to them is spamming.
Click to expand...
Tim stated in this very thread " Perhaps I'm still here because I don't personally insult others "

Em replied with the quotes. How you consider that spamming is beyond me.  :shrug:

 
The greatest problem with the moderation is inconsistency.  I can live with strict moderation if it's applied equally, but the moderators seem to play favorites whether it's based on who they like personally or whose views they like better.

I can also understand moderating personal attacks and swears, but, for the love of God, we're grown ### men so there should be some more leeway on the lewd stuff.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Today's talk about the Baton Rouge murders has brought on some talk about how we moderate the boards.

I know some people think we moderate too much. Some not enough.

There does seem to be a general level of unexcellentness to each other that makes posting in some of the threads not fun. Not really outright attacks, just general toolishness. Some have suggested we moderate more heavily and give time outs for people being uncool. This is always a tough line to balance. People always see their posting on a different standard than the other person's posting. (Who usually seems to have have an opinion they disagree with)

So I'd throw it out here.

What would you guys like to see?

J
Click to expand...
We live in America. What you are proposing is more censorship. My issue with this, firstly, is laziness. You've give your users tools to block/hide messages from users who are being being "uncool" or "toolish".

When you start drawing arbitrary lines about behavior with words like the "uncool" and "toolish", you create an environment where people are afraid to share their opinion. Where they are being banned for a variety of things, none of which are clearly defined as being wrong. Further, I've seen instances of double standards. Certain posters getting more leeway than others, posters being banned in a thread where the person egging them on was not banned. If you want to run a forum where people will respect the rules, they need to be clearly defined and evenly enforced.

My suggestion would be to embrace free speech, let users who have problems with a users posts block that user themselves, rather than encourage a schoolyard tattling system.

 
 


How would you like to see the FFA moderated?
  • More heavily moderated than it is now with time outs given much more frequently for unexcellent behavior
  • A little more moderated than it is now with time outs given a little more frequently for unexcellent behavior
  • Keep it like it is now
  • A little less moderated than it is now with time outs given a little less frequently for unexcellent behavior
  • A lot less moderated than it is now with time outs given much less frequently for unexcellent behavior
Click to expand...
 
None of the above.

Joe - it's not the quantity.

 
Harry Manback said:
We live in America. What you are proposing is more censorship. My issue with this, firstly, is laziness. You've give your users tools to block/hide messages from users who are being being "uncool" or "toolish".

When you start drawing arbitrary lines about behavior with words like the "uncool" and "toolish", you create an environment where people are afraid to share their opinion. Where they are being banned for a variety of things, none of which are clearly defined as being wrong. Further, I've seen instances of double standards. Certain posters getting more leeway than others, posters being banned in a thread where the person egging them on was not banned. If you want to run a forum where people will respect the rules, they need to be clearly defined and evenly enforced.

My suggestion would be to embrace free speech, let users who have problems with a users posts block that user themselves, rather than encourage a schoolyard tattling system.
Click to expand...
This isn't a free speech issue.  Joe can do whatever he wants and restrict all the types of speech he wants right down to closing the forums altogether.  As a businessman, he (likely) views the forums, in large part, as a way of cultivating and maintaining a community, which ultimately should (one would assume) result in paid subscriptions.  It is his right to steer the conversation--the speech--in whatever way he sees fit.

Never understood why the "free speech" angle gets so misinterpreted and misused so frequently.

 
cobalt_27 said:
This isn't a free speech issue.  Joe can do whatever he wants and restrict all the types of speech he wants right down to closing the forums altogether.  As a businessman, he (likely) views the forums, in large part, as a way of cultivating and maintaining a community, which ultimately should (one would assume) result in paid subscriptions.  It is his right to steer the conversation--the speech--in whatever way he sees fit.

Never understood why the "free speech" angle gets so misinterpreted and misused so frequently.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how this confuses you, but I'm sorry it does. I don't really see a benefit in trying to explain the difference between general free speech and constitutional free speech.

 
cobalt_27 said:
This isn't a free speech issue.  Joe can do whatever he wants and restrict all the types of speech he wants right down to closing the forums altogether.  As a businessman, he (likely) views the forums, in large part, as a way of cultivating and maintaining a community, which ultimately should (one would assume) result in paid subscriptions.  It is his right to steer the conversation--the speech--in whatever way he sees fit.

Never understood why the "free speech" angle gets so misinterpreted and misused so frequently.
Click to expand...
Hey look, you missed the point of him asking us what we think. Nice.

 
Cjw_55106 said:
Tim stated in this very thread " Perhaps I'm still here because I don't personally insult others "

Em replied with the quotes. How you consider that spamming is beyond me.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
There is a report function for that.

Rapid fire posting of things he has bookmarked to keep a record of those who have wronged him like that.  Seems the very definition of spamming.

Also note...I don't condone that.  I think it was over the top and mean spirited.  Tim probably should have been given time off for that given things that others have (and he likely did get some time off for some of it if it was reported...and we know it likely was).  Though, I think there also is a history there of both of them going after each other.

Calling some of Em's posts racist is fair game Id say...but tim did go over the top.

 
Harry Manback said:
Hey look, you missed the point of him asking us what we think. Nice.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss a thing.  Joe can do whatever he wants, which in this context largely revolves around providing a forum that his community enjoys and will remain a part of.  Letting the mob rule, as you advocate, would likely diminish membership, so he doesn't want that; by the same token, heavy-handed suspension policies would have the same effect.  There's a lot of real estate in between those approaches.  Soliciting input is a good vehicle for achieving what he wants in finding the best middle ground.

 
1. There's another pretty good board out there that has a separate forum for flaming other posters. You can say anything about anyone short of making death threats. It's pretty helpful for getting something off your chest about a board ahole. The price you pay for that freedom is -- you can't make insults in any of the other forums. Those are for debate/discussion/informing/joking only and an insult will get your ### banned quick as quick.

2. Language filter has to go. Or, as someone else posted earlier, should be optional. That way we continue to think of the children.

 
cobalt_27 said:
I didn't miss a thing.  Joe can do whatever he wants, which in this context largely revolves around providing a forum that his community enjoys and will remain a part of.  Letting the mob rule, as you advocate, would likely diminish membership, so he doesn't want that; by the same token, heavy-handed suspension policies would have the same effect.  There's a lot of real estate in between those approaches.  Soliciting input is a good vehicle for achieving what he wants in finding the best middle ground.
Click to expand...
He's literally asking for our advice, and your enlightened response is "he can do what he wants". Wow. Really flexing those mental muscles today, aren't we?

 
Moderation is a lot more lax than years ago when it comes to general cursing and sexual terms.  That is a great thing. 

Biggest issue is with posters who just consistently troll, but that is very hard to moderate.  I do think it is questionable to ban one side of the equation when posters are obviously inciting those remarks by purposefully insulting people/beliefs while toeing the line.  This happens a lot in political threads.

 
sho nuff said:
Im not sure you two know what the word spamming means. Posting information and discussing the topic is not spamming simply for back and forth a lot with people.

Posting stuff like em did in here with tim quotes...with nobody asking for them or responding to them is spamming.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed them, strictly in the sense of Em backing up his point with mountains of evidence, coincidentally exactly as @Joe Bryant has been demanding out of us recently.

If action is not taken on Tim then we can all agree mods have their favorites, which is where the consistency factor comes in. When Tim addressed the situation a page back, he made no effort to back off his personal attacks, even giving himself a pat on the back. That should be plenty cause for a timeout. Otherwise again, if mods are being consistent here, why shouldn't anyone be able to throw insults at others? And don't give me the "Em set this up for himself" garbage. Are we about creating consistency or exceptions?

Right now, Tim and the clout he holds on this board reaks of the message board version of "too big to prosecute". No mod right now has the guts to punish him and his 100k post account.

 
ShamrockPride said:
I enjoyed them, strictly in the sense of Em backing up his point with mountains of evidence, coincidentally exactly as @Joe Bryant has been demanding out of us recently.

If action is not taken on Tim then we can all agree mods have their favorites, which is where the consistency factor comes in. When Tim addressed the situation a page back, he made no effort to back off his personal attacks, even giving himself a pat on the back. That should be plenty cause for a timeout. Otherwise again, if mods are being consistent here, why shouldn't anyone be able to throw insults at others? And don't give me the "Em set this up for himself" garbage. Are we about creating consistency or exceptions?

Right now, Tim and the clout he holds on this board reaks of the message board version of "too big to prosecute". No mod right now has the guts to punish him and his 100k post account.
Click to expand...
Depends...none of us know for sure if Tim was ever given a timeout for any of those posts.

If he was...punishing him again would not be right either.

and I don't think Joe has been demanding flooding a thread with links of posts that have apparently already been reported to mods.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harry Manback said:
We live in America. What you are proposing is more censorship. My issue with this, firstly, is laziness. You've give your users tools to block/hide messages from users who are being being "uncool" or "toolish".

When you start drawing arbitrary lines about behavior with words like the "uncool" and "toolish", you create an environment where people are afraid to share their opinion. Where they are being banned for a variety of things, none of which are clearly defined as being wrong. Further, I've seen instances of double standards. Certain posters getting more leeway than others, posters being banned in a thread where the person egging them on was not banned. If you want to run a forum where people will respect the rules, they need to be clearly defined and evenly enforced.

My suggestion would be to embrace free speech, let users who have problems with a users posts block that user themselves, rather than encourage a schoolyard tattling system.
Click to expand...
"Free speech" is not an entitlement within the confines of a private business.  The types of comments, attitudes, posts that are in these forums can effect how potential customers view the FBG as a whole.  It could effect ones decision to sign up for a subscription. I can tell you that in my business--if I saw one potential customer speak to another one of my potential  customers the way Tim spoke to Em--I'd kick him out of my business.    This is not Reddit--nor is it "public ground" where you should be allowed to say what you want.  The way we communicate with each other here easily has a way of reflecting either very poorly or very positively on the FBGs and their business.  We all need to mindful and respectful to that.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, I haven't read this thread and generally stay out of politics threads....but IMO, FBG does a great job of moderation of the board.  If I feel comfortable visiting this board from my work computer, then I think that's a very good litmus test.

Keep it up :thumbup:

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
"Free speech" is not an entitlement within the confines of a private business.  The types of comments, attitudes, posts that are in these forums can effect how potential customers view the FBG as a whole.  It could effect ones decision to sign up for a subscription. I can tell you that in my business--if I saw one potential customer speak to another one of my potential  customers the way Tim spoke to Em--I'd kick him out of my business.    This is not Reddit--nor is it "public ground" where you should be allowed to say what you want.  The way we communicate with each other here easily has a way of reflecting either very poorly or very positively on the FBGs and their business.  We all need to mindful and respectful to that.   
Click to expand...
So, you think Joe asked what our opinions are hoping we'd say "it's your board do what you want"?

 
Harry Manback said:
So, you think Joe asked what our opinions are hoping we'd say "it's your board do what you want"?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're asking me this question as I've never said anything close to what you are asking.  Joe asking for feedback is no different than a business giving his clients a customer service survey.  Joe probably knows if subscriptions are up or down, he probably knows if the volume of traffic on these forums is up or down--and he probably gets emails from people saying both positive/negative things about his business--and is taking things a step further by asking for mass feedback here.    The fact that Joe asked for feedback is proof that these forums are a part of a business and are not just a "random" platform for people to say what they want and to be as rude as they want to.   We are all guests in the business of the FBG here and should act that way.  

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
I'm not sure why you're asking me this question as I've never said anything close to what you are asking.  Joe asking for feedback is no different than a business giving his clients a customer service survey.  Joe probably knows if subscriptions are up or down, he probably knows if the volume of traffic on these forums is up or down--and he probably gets emails from people saying both positive/negative things about his business--and is taking things a step further by asking for mass feedback here.    The fact that Joe asked for feedback is proof that these forums are a part of a business and are not just a "random" platform for people to say what they want and to be as rude as they want to.   We are all guests in the business of the FBG here and should act that way.  
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you don't understand what a suggestion is.

You seem too eager to get father's approval, and impress Big Joe. Sad. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Clickbaity vs Boring Subject Lines - What do you think?
Replies
32
Views
432
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott
GordonGekko
What Do You Believe Happens To You After You Die? (29/30)
Replies
38
Views
2K
Leroy Hoard
Leroy Hoard
GordonGekko
What Are Harsh Truths About Real Life That You Would Prefer To Just Ignore ? (8/30)
Replies
5
Views
878
bigbottom
bigbottom

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top