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

[Bruce Dickinson]

Yeah, I'm really not interested in arguing with you anymore Bruce.  I'm putting you on ignore, and I'd ask that you do the same.  We just aren't clicking.

I thought it was a fair question.  

Odd tactic to take for someone who just got done making disparaging statements about people taking their ball and going home, but I'm sure you've got your reasons.

 

[jon_mx]

"Don't whine!  But if you do feel like whining, here is a report button." 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think some of the people complaining think this is a courtroom with a judge or a sporting event with a ref. The purpose of moderation here isn't to make things "fair", it's to make this a better forum.

I suspect that one of the reasons Bruce Dickinson didn't get banned for his remarks towards a mod is because of the recognition that he's a quality poster.  The guy has been posting here for over a decade, with a combination of interesting, informative, and funny posts.  He's the sort of poster we want to have around here. 

By contrast, if somebody gets banned for something dumb like posting a lmao smilie, it's a signal from the mod that maybe you're not really positively contributing to the forum.

My recommendation to those that think they've been unfairly targeted by the mods is to start posting more fun and interesting things.  The mods are actually people.  They will like you if you make them laugh.

 

[beavers]

I've never seen someone be wrong as often as you yet convinced you're right.  There wasn't one single "whine" in that post. It was stating facts and then offering my opinion.  In case you've forgotten, this is a thread about moderation.  I posted about moderation. Perhaps you should find the thread about whining for your thoughts?  Or at least realize what thread you're in before you come in lobbing more and more insults?

You do the research ... you've complained about being banned for the  several times in this thread alone. 

Your #####ing and whining is over the top. 

 

[Goat Boy]

Your #####ing and whining is over the top. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You do the research ... you've complained about being banned for the  several times in this thread alone. 

Your #####ing and whining is over the top. 

Just put me on ignore. You're way too obsessed with me and have been stalking for over a month. Im sorry you're in the political bitter barn but find someone else to throw your tantrums at. I have no interest in a back and forth trading insults with you so ignore instead of stalking would be better for you. 

 

[beavers]

Show me my whine collection.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

why are you using this alias?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Show me my whine collection.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/profile/18661-beavers/

 

[Goat Boy]

why are you using this alias?

I thought it was the trendy thing to do.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I thought it was the trendy thing to do.

not sure anyone has more active alias accounts than you. what's the point?

 

[Goat Boy]

not sure anyone has more active alias accounts than you. what's the point?

Trying to keep up with Tanner?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Trying to keep up with Tanner?

he posts with one at a time. you have like 3 or 4 going with 2 active in this thread on this page alone.

 

[Goat Boy]

he posts with one at a time. you have like 3 or 4 going with 2 active in this thread on this page alone.

I'm trying to get better at multitasking.

 

[roadkill1292]

IS IT PEE(NS)?

 

[jon_mx]

I think some of the people complaining think this is a courtroom with a judge or a sporting event with a ref. The purpose of moderation here isn't to make things "fair", it's to make this a better forum.

I suspect that one of the reasons Bruce Dickinson didn't get banned for his remarks towards a mod is because of the recognition that he's a quality poster.  The guy has been posting here for over a decade, with a combination of interesting, informative, and funny posts.  He's the sort of poster we want to have around here. 

By contrast, if somebody gets banned for something dumb like posting a lmao smilie, it's a signal from the mod that maybe you're not really positively contributing to the forum.

My recommendation to those that think they've been unfairly targeted by the mods is to start posting more fun and interesting things.  The mods are actually people.  They will like you if you make them laugh.

That is the problem though.  Aaron is around here more and has a much better grip on who is who.  Sherriff Joe rides into town a few times a year and I guess in an effort to clean up the place starts banning people.  I think his impression of me is about a decade old when I first started posting here.  I had come from forums which were not really moderated and were extremely polarized.  I have changed a lot since then.   But he is not around much anymore and is not dialed in on who is causing the issues.  He may just see who gets reported, and in many cases it is the baiter who attacks first is also the one who hit the abuse button. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yup, that can be a problem when Joe or Dodds comes in.  Aaron and Maurile are around more often and know posters better.

And yes, I agree you've changed a lot since you started posting here.  If you need a libtard to vouch for the quality of your posts, let me know.

 

[The Commish]

I thought it was the trendy thing to do.

not sure anyone has more active alias accounts than you. what's the point?

You guys as moderators have brought this on yourselves by not dealing with aliases.  Not sure why it matters why people use alias accounts.  These forums would be substantially better if the moderators would simply address the alias accounts. 

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

You guys as moderators have brought this on yourselves by not dealing with aliases.  Not sure why it matters why people use alias accounts.  These forums would be substantially better if the moderators would simply address the alias accounts. 

not even sure what this means. do you have any idea how difficult it is to "address the alias acounts"?

 

[The Commish]

You guys as moderators have brought this on yourselves by not dealing with aliases.  Not sure why it matters why people use alias accounts.  These forums would be substantially better if the moderators would simply address the alias accounts. 

not even sure what this means

What's the point in banning people if you're just going to let them come back as a different alias?  It makes as much sense as posters having multiple IDs and using them actively together  

I'm sure you understand just fine and if I'm being honest, that's really my only criticism of this place from a moderation perspective.  That should be considered a good thing in the grand scheme of this place.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

What's the point in banning people if you're just going to let them come back as a different alias?  It makes as much sense as posters having multiple IDs and using them actively together  

I'm sure you understand just fine and if I'm being honest, that's really my only criticism of this place from a moderation perspective.  That should be considered a good thing in the grand scheme of this place.

I think you overestimate how easy it is to keep people from coming back under new accounts.

you ban one, and the person comes back under a new account. what's the point of that exactly?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think you overestimate how easy it is to keep people from coming back under new accounts.

you ban one, and the person comes back under a new account. what's the point of that exactly?

Damn, they're like Hydra...... Cut off one head........... two more appear!  Hail HYDRA!

Wait, so does that make you Captain America?  Nick Fury?  The guy that paid Woody Harrelson a million bucks to sleep with Demi Moore?

 

[The Commish]

I think you overestimate how easy it is to keep people from coming back under new accounts.

you ban one, and the person comes back under a new account. what's the point of that exactly?

I do it for a living, so I get it.  Get rid of the rule    Why have the rule if you're not going to enforce it?

To your question, I'm sure that the answer is different for all of them, but in observing, the point is to come back and keep posting their pointless and disrupting drivel.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I do it for a living, so I get it.  Get rid of the rule    Why have the rule if you're not going to enforce it?

To your question, I'm sure that the answer is different for all of them, but in observing, the point is to come back and keep posting their pointless and disrupting drivel.

what rule? the one Shick put in the FFA FAQ a decade ago that hasn't been actively maintained or updated by anybody since then? that's not a rule. that's more of a guideline.

a lot has changed since then too.

every moderator has their own style, including the owners. what might be offensive or over the line to one may not be a big deal to someone else. it's all pretty subjective here.

in general, I just ask that people act like adults and try to make the place better rather than worse. if someone wants to talk about their wife having an affair using an alias account, why should I stop them? if someone posts something over the line and gets suspended/banned, hopefully they learn from that even if they come back and start posting under a new account. if they start doing the same thing over and over again, they will almost certainly get banned by somebody (repeatedly).

 

[squistion]

what rule? the one Shick put in the FFA FAQ a decade ago that hasn't been actively maintained or updated by anybody since then? that's not a rule. that's more of a guideline.

a lot has changed since then too.

every moderator has their own style, including the owners. what might be offensive or over the line to one may not be a big deal to someone else. it's all pretty subjective here.

in general, I just ask that people act like adults and try to make the place better rather than worse. if someone wants to talk about their wife having an affair using an alias account, why should I stop them? if someone posts something over the line and gets suspended/banned, hopefully they learn from that even if they come back and start posting under a new account. if they start doing the same thing over and over again, they will almost certainly get banned by somebody (repeatedly).

Then please have it deleted, because it gives a misleading impression as to the rules and attitudes towards alias accounts.

 

[The Commish]

what rule? the one Shick put in the FFA FAQ a decade ago that hasn't been actively maintained or updated by anybody since then? that's not a rule. that's more of a guideline.

a lot has changed since then too.

every moderator has their own style, including the owners. what might be offensive or over the line to one may not be a big deal to someone else. it's all pretty subjective here.

in general, I just ask that people act like adults and try to make the place better rather than worse. if someone wants to talk about their wife having an affair using an alias account, why should I stop them? if someone posts something over the line and gets suspended/banned, hopefully they learn from that even if they come back and start posting under a new account. if they start doing the same thing over and over again, they will almost certainly get banned by somebody (repeatedly).

So, I guess my final dumb question is are there any rules?  If so, where can we find them?

 

[Scoundrel]

Then please have it deleted, because it gives a misleading impression as to the rules and attitudes towards alias accounts.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

the main rule is to be excellent to one another. let's stick with that one.

 

[Scoresman]

Aaron, you're a good mod and a good dude, but every mod having their own style and interpretation of the rules is really confusing and is almost assuredly contributing to the problem.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Aaron, you're a good mod and a good dude, but every mod having their own style and interpretation of the rules is really confusing and is almost assuredly contributing to the problem.

There's no problem if you don't be a ##### to someone. And if you have a history of being a #####, then your leash will probably be shorter than someone who doesn't. You know, just like real life.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

There's no problem if you don't be a ##### to someone. And if you have a history of being a #####, then your leash will probably be shorter than someone who doesn't. You know, just like real life.

Disagree. Plenty of people are ####s every day with no moderation. Others are and get banned. 

 

[Scoresman]

There's no problem if you don't be a ##### to someone. And if you have a history of being a #####, then your leash will probably be shorter than someone who doesn't. You know, just like real life.

No, there is a problem because that is not the only rule that is being enforced or not enforced inconsistently.  When Father Bryant comes around, for example, you'd better be on your best Sunday behavior and not say anything that the language filter picks up or you'll get some random timeout anywhere from 3 days to 6 months.

Maybe they could have the forum software sound a bell or something when Joe logs in so we know the forums are being monitored like a kindergarten class.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Maybe I should have been clearer:

Don't be a #### AND don't look for consistency. Don't get consistency from cops. Don't get it from salespeople. Don't get it from bosses or referees. 

You're not gonna get a one-size-fits-all algorithm here, no matter how long anyone brays/whines/filibusters for one. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Maybe I should have been clearer:

Don't be a #### AND don't look for consistency. Don't get consistency from cops. Don't get it from salespeople. Don't get it from bosses or referees. 

You're not gonna get a one-size-fits-all algorithm here, no matter how long anyone brays/whines/filibusters for one. 

Agree with that but it's still ridiculous for magaw to ban someone when two other people do the exact same thing as the banned person within two minutes of each other.  That's magaw bringing his political views into his moderation job. It's not like someone got nailed for driving 80 last week and someone else got away with 80 today. 

 

[bostonfred]

A whole forum where you.guys could continue these scintillating arguments

 

[squistion]

A whole forum where you.guys could continue these scintillating arguments

So a thread about moderation is now considered talking about politics?

 

[NotSmart]

What do we want?

A Political Forum!

When do we want it?

NOW!

 

[Slapdash]

That is the problem though.  Aaron is around here more and has a much better grip on who is who.  Sherriff Joe rides into town a few times a year and I guess in an effort to clean up the place starts banning people.  I think his impression of me is about a decade old when I first started posting here.  I had come from forums which were not really moderated and were extremely polarized.  I have changed a lot since then.   But he is not around much anymore and is not dialed in on who is causing the issues.  He may just see who gets reported, and in many cases it is the baiter who attacks first is also the one who hit the abuse button. 

Yeah, I think I had you on ignore at one point to stop responding to your polarizing posts.  Then I realized you're a funny dude and a much less contentious political poster than ten years ago/good poster overall.

 

[GoBirds]

What do we want?

A Political Forum!

When do we want it?

NOW!

Who's going to pay for it?

They are!

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, I think I had you on ignore at one point to stop responding to your polarizing posts.  Then I realized you're a funny dude and a much less contentious political poster than ten years ago/good poster overall.

I guess it did not help I had one poster cyberstalk me and attack me on a daily basis.  He went thru four aliases in the process, all eventually permabanned.  Each aliases lasted nearly a year during which I recieved numerous bannings for responding even though it was obvious who started what.  

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I think you overestimate how easy it is to keep people from coming back under new accounts.

you ban one, and the person comes back under a new account. what's the point of that exactly?

This really happens? Weird.

 

[HellToupee]

Then please have it deleted, because it gives a misleading impression as to the rules and attitudes towards alias accounts.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Then please have it deleted, because it gives a misleading impression as to the rules and attitudes towards alias accounts.

Too bad we don't live in Soviet Russia where thread deletes you! 

 

[Slapdash]

I guess it did not help I had one poster cyberstalk me and attack me on a daily basis.  He went thru four aliases in the process, all eventually permabanned.  Each aliases lasted nearly a year during which I recieved numerous bannings for responding even though it was obvious who started what.  

Drawing a blank on that one.  Yeah, the bold is one of my big issues particularly when it is an obvious alias too.

 

[the rover]

Then please have it deleted, because it gives a misleading impression as to the rules and attitudes towards alias accounts.

Zomg!1! What good is reporting people for insulting me if there aren't rules that I can use to my benefit?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Then please have it deleted, because it gives a misleading impression as to the rules and attitudes towards alias accounts.

Zomg!1! What good is reporting people for insulting me if there aren't rules that I can use to my benefit?

He's so LHUCKSIAN

 

[bentley]

Yes. A separate political forum and stern regulation to keep that #### over there would make this place infinitely better and cause these arguments to go away. It happens on other boards all across the Internet.

 

[bentley]

Oh, and #### the police.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Unreadable. So much political trash on the first page there isn't a point looking any more. The downward spiral is real folks.

 

[bueno]

Can we just all agree that moderation is at best inconsistent, at worst, biased and just move on?