FFA Moderation Thoughts - What Do You Think? (2 Viewers)

[bueno]

In my opinion, we know a lot of the problems in these threads, and we agree that they're worse because of them.  What we don't have are a clearer set of policies/rules that help keep threads clean (as clean as they can be, which frankly is still pretty dirty - it's politics after all), and remove occasional offenders temporarily, and repeat offenders permanently.  If there was a clear list of do's and don'ts, along with punishments listed, it'd go a long way toward cleaning stuff up.  And I think it's counterproductive to delete an entire thread just because there's one personal attack.

I would tend to agree (warning the world is ending - lol). There is neither consistency in the attacks removed or in the T/O times given.

 

[MaxThreshold]

BTW, who gets to decide who is a troll and who isn't?  We have a bunch of calls of "just ban the trolls", but that seems like a very, very subjective statement.  I can almost guarantee you that there will be posters who have a vested interest in calling someone a troll just to get rid of them because they don't like their views.

 

[squistion]

BTW, who gets to decide who is a troll and who isn't?  We have a bunch of calls of "just ban the trolls", but that seems like a very, very subjective statement.  I can almost guarantee you that there will be posters who have a vested interest in calling someone a troll just to get rid of them because they don't like their views.

 

[adonis]

BTW, who gets to decide who is a troll and who isn't?  We have a bunch of calls of "just ban the trolls", but that seems like a very, very subjective statement.  I can almost guarantee you that there will be posters who have a vested interest in calling someone a troll just to get rid of them because they don't like their views.

In my opinion, there should be a clear list of rules laid out along with consequences.  Trolls would be those who are regular offenders, and as such would be banned according to the rules.  It shouldn't be subjective.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I dunno Max, maybe it's because your reputation for not being excellent preceded you...

Sorry, but calling HRC a POS is just another viewpoint.  I know you don't like, but there are literally MILLIONS of people who believe just that.  This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say there are certain posters who have a vested interested in banning other posters under the guise of "troll".  "They don't agree with my so they must be a troll !  MODS!  PERMA-BAN!"

Curious as to why you haven't posted some of the comments about Donald Trump from the posters on your side of the aisle, including the very biased Bob Magaw.  Very telling (but we know why you didn't).

 

[NotSmart]

Hey guys,  what's going on in here? 

Playing cards.

Against Humanity.

 

[adonis]

Alright I've posted enough in here, but since it's a thread on FFA moderation thoughts, here are my final comments:

The problems are pretty clear, and overwhelmingly centered around political threads for now, although the rules are common across the FFA.  Why not start a thread by a mod pinned at the top, solicit feedback on a set of updated/clearer rules that all topics should abide by, and get users to suggest rules that would add to the quality of the forum while still allowing it to be a Free For All.

I'll shamelessly plug my set of ideas as a starting point, but for a while anyone can add what they think would make things better, and the mods get together and decide what rules to accept or not, and what punishments should be attached to each, and then POST IT in a sticky, provide an example or two for each, and each time someone violates a rule, let them know which one it was and the consequence for it.

Examples of clarified/detailed rules that will help improve the quality of political discussions here, but are generally applicable to the FFA as a whole:

- Be excellent to each other: personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated and will result in a time out of no less than x days.  - It's fine to disagree with ideas and mildly attack them, but do not go overboard in attacking someone's ideas.  Doing so will result in an X day timeout.- If the goal of a post seems to be to attack another poster personally for their views on a subject, this will result in an X day timeout.- It's fair game to go after public officials, but in doing so, show some restraint.  Personal attacks even on public figures that cross the line of reasonable behavior will result in a timeout of no less than x days.- A person who gets more than X timeouts in Y amount of days will be permanently banned.  Aliai will be banned as well.- Try to keep political threads focused on topic rather than a person or individual action. Threads on similar topics will be merged.- Some other rule limiting the creation of threads focused on negative qualities of politicians they don't like (examples like Trump is such a liar, Obama is a bum, etc).  Lay out punishment.- Do not flood the FFA with political threads (some measure here to not exceed)- Do not respond to posts that are not intended as jokes with a single smiley, or laughing emoticon, or anything that simply denotes derision of the post. (guesswork)

If new mods are needed to keep up with the work, recruit folks on a volunteer basis to moderate political threads according to the rules.  If a person is given a timeout or banned for a post, copy that post in a message to the person and reference the broken rule.  Allow the moderation rules to be changed over time.

Maybe I'm going overboard here, but I would love to see this place maintain its openness, and improve the quality of discussions both in political threads and keep the quality good outside of them.

 

[HellToupee]

I dunno Max, maybe it's because your reputation for not being excellent preceded you...

I think you forgot about people in glass houses scooter 

 

[Juxtatarot]

Sorry, but calling HRC a POS is just another viewpoint.  I know you don't like, but there are literally MILLIONS of people who believe just that.

Literally no one believes any human being is a piece of ####.  This is an example of the type of absurd rhetoric that ruins the discussions.

 

[The Commish]

You guys all need to get more angry about what strangers are saying on the internet. 

Seriously...have we really found a way to get insulted by a lmao emoticon?  Really?

 

[[scooter]]

I dunno Max, maybe it's because your reputation for not being excellent preceded you...

Sorry, but calling HRC a POS is just another viewpoint.  I know you don't like

Here's the thing. It is a violation of this forum's terms and conditions to circumvent the language filter.

You repeatedly and deliberately did exactly that when attacking Hillary Clinton. The moderators allowed this to happen each and every time, partly because they tend to lean to the right themselves, and partly (IMO) because they did not want to agitate you and create a bunch of whining about censorship.

Nonetheless, your reputation preceded you. So when you went off-topic in the Russia thread, Bob probably thought about all those times that you called Hillary Clinton a piece of feces, and gave you an advance warning because he knew you were more likely than others to derail the thread.

Ten years ago, a person would have been given a timeout for saying what you said.

 

[squistion]

Sorry, but calling HRC a POS is just another viewpoint.  I know you don't like, but there are literally MILLIONS of people who believe just that.  This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say there are certain posters who have a vested interested in banning other posters under the guise of "troll".  "They don't agree with my so they must be a troll !  MODS!  PERMA-BAN!"

Curious as to why you haven't posted some of the comments about Donald Trump from the posters on your side of the aisle, including the very biased Bob Magaw.  Very telling.

No it isn't. It is calling her a POS. It is trolling even though it expresses an opinion.

 

[NotSmart]

BFred is right.

A separate Political forum is the answer here.

It's too bad it's come to that, but it has.

For some reason, FBGs doesn't want a separate political forum though... which I am truly :shuked: about.

Look at all the angst and anger and craziness here over the past 6 months.

Put it all in a separate forum and keep it contained there.

Imagine an FFA without politics.  It's easy if you try.

 

[msommer]

I suggest talking politics on Twitter or a political board.  These threads always end up with posts like these:

Trump (or Hillary) Supporters are...followed by a bunch of generalities that are stereotyping half of the population.

Sometimes they are disguised, but it's essentially the same.

How can anyone with an IQ over 30 support somebody so in love with Russia?

This is BAIT.  Somebody will take the bait and call that person out (or post the smiley) - It naturally escalates and then mods have to delete a ton of posts, issue timeouts, etc.  Or we can ignore and let the trolling, bait, responses continue to escalate and finally the threads find themselves deleted or people get banned.  

Or, perhaps, police the trolling?

 

[matuski]

You guys all need to get more angry about what strangers are saying on the internet. 

 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

. The moderators allowed this to happen each and every time, partly because they tend to lean to the right themselves,

Wait, what?

 

[MaxThreshold]

No it isn't. It is calling her a POS. It is trolling even though it expresses an opinion.

No, it simply isn't.

Besides, haven't you read any posts from the progressive posters on this board about Donald Trump?

 

[bueno]

Here's the thing. It is a violation of this forum's terms and conditions to circumvent the language filter.

You repeatedly and deliberately did exactly that when attacking Hillary Clinton. The moderators allowed this to happen each and every time, partly because they tend to lean to the right themselves, and partly (IMO) because they did not want to agitate you and create a bunch of whining about censorship.

Nonetheless, your reputation preceded you. So when you went off-topic in the Russia thread, Bob probably thought about all those times that you called Hillary Clinton a piece of feces, and gave you an advance warning because he knew you were more likely than others to derail the thread.

Ten years ago, a person would have been given a timeout for saying what you said.

The problem is that ten years ago, that would have happened, but during this election cycle, worse was allowed.

 

[[scooter]]

Someone asks "How's Larry Craig?" and you consider that to be a personal attack?

IMO, it served no purpose except to elicit an emotional response.

I was genuinely curious, that's all. And your response ("He's probably doing better than you are") was nothing less than an insult. Emotional response, indeed.

 

[The Commish]

I'll say it again....I don't think they need new rules.  They just need to enforce the ones they have and they can start with the alias rules.  Cleaning that portion up will make a significant difference.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

No it isn't. It is calling her a POS. It is trolling even though it expresses an opinion.

It's no more trolling than Trumpets, Orange Cheeto, and the numerous names Trump is called or the so-called Trump supporters.  Not trying to attack you here but is that trolling to you because you are a huge HRC fan?

 

[squistion]

No, it simply isn't.

Besides, haven't you read any posts from the progressive posters on this board about Donald Trump?

If they call him a POS, then they should be suspended or banned too as that terminology adds nothing to any discussion.

 

[bueno]

BTW, who gets to decide who is a troll and who isn't?  We have a bunch of calls of "just ban the trolls", but that seems like a very, very subjective statement.  I can almost guarantee you that there will be posters who have a vested interest in calling someone a troll just to get rid of them because they don't like their views.

Me. I have a troll meter.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Here's the thing. It is a violation of this forum's terms and conditions to circumvent the language filter.

You repeatedly and deliberately did exactly that when attacking Hillary Clinton. The moderators allowed this to happen each and every time, partly because they tend to lean to the right themselves, and partly (IMO) because they did not want to agitate you and create a bunch of whining about censorship.

Nonetheless, your reputation preceded you. So when you went off-topic in the Russia thread, Bob probably thought about all those times that you called Hillary Clinton a piece of feces, and gave you an advance warning because he knew you were more likely than others to derail the thread.

Ten years ago, a person would have been given a timeout for saying what you said.

Sorry, but this is nonsense and nothing but spin.  All I have to do in my defense is point to all of you constantly disparaging Donald Trump and the much harsher language you guys use and yet you're still able to post without threat of suspension.  It's nice having a mod protect you, I guess.

HT earlier talked about glass houses.  I think he was on to something.  anyways, I don't want to get into it with you because we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[bueno]

I was genuinely curious, that's all. And your response ("He's probably doing better than you are") was nothing less than an insult. Emotional response, indeed.

See, you got the emotional response you were hoping for!

 

[[scooter]]

Here's the thing. It is a violation of this forum's terms and conditions to circumvent the language filter.

You repeatedly and deliberately did exactly that when attacking Hillary Clinton. The moderators allowed this to happen each and every time, partly because they tend to lean to the right themselves, and partly (IMO) because they did not want to agitate you and create a bunch of whining about censorship.

Nonetheless, your reputation preceded you. So when you went off-topic in the Russia thread, Bob probably thought about all those times that you called Hillary Clinton a piece of feces, and gave you an advance warning because he knew you were more likely than others to derail the thread.

Ten years ago, a person would have been given a timeout for saying what you said.

The problem is that ten years ago, that would have happened, but during this election cycle, worse was allowed.

Max was calling people "POS" long before the election cycle

(but it was just Tim so I guess it was OK back then)

 

[squistion]

It's no more trolling than Trumpets, Orange Cheeto, and the numerous names Trump is called or the so-called Trump supporters.  Not trying to attack you here but is that trolling to you because you are a huge HRC fan?

Yes, that too is trolling and I don't approve of cutesy names applied to any political figure or his/her supporters as it diminishes any argument one is trying to make.

 

[[scooter]]

Here's the thing. It is a violation of this forum's terms and conditions to circumvent the language filter.

You repeatedly and deliberately did exactly that when attacking Hillary Clinton. The moderators allowed this to happen each and every time, partly because they tend to lean to the right themselves, and partly (IMO) because they did not want to agitate you and create a bunch of whining about censorship.

Nonetheless, your reputation preceded you. So when you went off-topic in the Russia thread, Bob probably thought about all those times that you called Hillary Clinton a piece of feces, and gave you an advance warning because he knew you were more likely than others to derail the thread.

Ten years ago, a person would have been given a timeout for saying what you said.

Sorry, but this is nonsense and nothing but spin.  All I have to do in my defense is point to all of you constantly disparaging Donald Trump and the much harsher language you guys use and yet you're still able to post without threat of suspension.

I've never used one of George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words to describe Donald Trump.

I don't think I've ever typed anything that is more harsh than when you called Hillary a piece of feces. But I'm open to be proven wrong.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Max was calling people "POS" long before the election cycle

(but it was just Tim so I guess it was OK back then)

Hmmm...Did I actually call him a POS?  Or did I just agree with someone else who did?

 

[Northern Voice]

Need moderators with better judgment. Anyone who can't tell fact from fiction with pizzagate, probably isn't up to determining what is or isn't trolling and probably shouldn't be the one determining what is and isn't acceptable political discussion.

 

[[scooter]]

I was genuinely curious, that's all. And your response ("He's probably doing better than you are") was nothing less than an insult. Emotional response, indeed.

See, you got the emotional response you were hoping for!

No, I was just hoping for an honest answer. I was not hoping to be personally attacked by you.

 

[bueno]

No, I was just hoping for an honest answer. I was not hoping to be personally attacked by you.

Well, I interpreted it poking the bear. If that was not your intent, I'm sorry. I'm just not sure I believe it, but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I've never used one of George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words to describe Donald Trump.

I don't think I've ever typed anything that is more harsh than when you called Hillary a piece of feces. But I'm open to be proven wrong.

You seem to be hung up on the word "POS".  It doesn't have to be that to be un-excellent.  Lots of un-excellence going on with anti-Trump people - and that's my point.  You seem to conveniently leave ALL of those comments out.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, I interpreted it poking the bear. If that was not your intent, I'm sorry. I'm just not sure I believe it, but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

Would that we could all do the same for our fellow posters.  

 

[HellToupee]

Need moderators with better judgment. Anyone who can't tell fact from fiction with pizzagate, probably isn't up to determining what is or isn't trolling and probably shouldn't be the one determining what is and isn't acceptable political discussion.

what about people that beg mods who they happen to be Facebook friends with to take action against someone 

 

[knowledge dropper]

So the Russian Connection thread got deleted?   I was surprised it lasted as long as it did.   

 

[HellToupee]

Would that we could all do the same for our fellow posters.  

I wish we all could do this in 2017 or at least until the 1st scandal 

 

[[scooter]]

I've never used one of George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words to describe Donald Trump.

I don't think I've ever typed anything that is more harsh than when you called Hillary a piece of feces. But I'm open to be proven wrong.

You seem to be hung up on the word "POS".  It doesn't have to be that to be un-excellent.  Lots of un-excellence going on with anti-Trump people - and that's my point.  You seem to conveniently leave ALL of those comments out.

It's not an exact science to determine if a post is un-excellent. As we saw above, bueno misinterpreted a simple, honest inquiry as a personal attack. You may consider it to be un-excellent when Saints posts about connections between Russia and Donald Trump, while other people consider those posts to be informative, valuable, and not un-excellent at all.
 

 

[Henry Ford]

I wish we all could do this in 2017 or at least until the 1st scandal 

Until well after.  I hope to live up to this ideal this year.

 

[Northern Voice]

what about people that beg mods who they happen to be Facebook friends with to take action against someone 

I have no idea what you're referencing here but it has nothing to do with the poor judgment shown by DD the past few months. You're just using the same tired false equivalency trope that ruins every political discussion.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I have no idea what you're referencing here but it has nothing to do with the poor judgment shown by DD the past few months. You're just using the same tired false equivalency trope that ruins every political discussion.

 You find a way to attack DD again when HT isn't even talking about DD.

 

[Northern Voice]

 You find a way to attack DD again when HT isn't even talking about DD.

No, I'm saying my point was about DD's judgment, so what the he'll does HT's response that like you say isn't even about DD have to do with it.

 

[scoobus]

Pretty excited about this Political Forum finally happening.

 

[bueno]

No, I'm saying my point was about DD's judgment, so what the he'll does HT's response that like you say isn't even about DD have to do with it.

I'm confused - what are we drinking tonight?

 

[HellToupee]

No, I'm saying my point was about DD's judgment, so what the he'll does HT's response that like you say isn't even about DD have to do with it.

Leave @Doctor Detroit out of this

 

[NotSmart]

Pretty excited about this Political Forum finally happening.

Amen.

It's time.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Leave @Doctor Detroit out of this

Real nice, HT.  That's like saying "BeetleJuice" 3 times.  Now you've reigned hell down on all of us.

 

[HellToupee]

 You find a way to attack DD again when HT isn't even talking about DD.

Canadians

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have no complaints but I have to say that given what is about to happen politics wise a sub forum might not be a bad idea.   This election is going to be ugly and no matter who wins it won't get better.

 

[bueno]

Canadians

We need a wall......

Just kidding.