Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Is this ok? POTUS
<this is a rhetorical joke>
<this is a rhetorical joke>
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
***Official PSF Moderation Thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Slapdash
- Start date
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
For clarification, is it okay to call Trump "an idiot," without the "#######" part? Because I honestly do think he's a genuinely stupid person and there is plenty of evidence to back that up.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I guess it also okay to call Obama an idiot, without the ******* of course
apalmer
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
There's no need to guess....it's obvious. Take a spin through one of his old threads.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
Keep it above the belt. Tongue and cheek is the key here. If you're a Conservative, know that on a lucky day you're still out numbered 2:1 on here. But at the end of the day, we're in power so enjoy it while it lasts.
Good luck!
Good luck!
Last edited by a moderator:
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
My actions? Sure, it’s justified that he hasn’t earned the respect of the office for the way he treats people that reside outside of his base. Sorry you can’t see it.
GoBirds
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
really wish people would stop using the term conservative as a synonym to trump supporter. It's blatantly false.
Please don't waste time trying to see if posting something here will get you suspended. If you have a question about whether it's ok, please err on the side of not posting it. Thanks.
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
what's current rule on the "rolling on the floor laughing" smiley?
suddenly i've got an itch that just can't be scratched
suddenly i've got an itch that just can't be scratched
Please don't post it just by itself. That just feels like trolling even when it's not meant to be. Thanks.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Language changes.Trump’s approval rating among registered Republicans approaches 90%. Which means the vast majority of self-identified conservatives identify a lot more with him than Bill Buckley or even Ronald Reagan.
If 90% of liberals supported Louis Farrakhan, we’d deserve to have our brand tarnished too.
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't disagree on brand, but it seems to me the brand here is "Republican" and "Democrat" not conservative/liberal which was what I was talking about
Dedfin
Footballguy
Most of us, maybe even all of us find evolving definitions of words to be annoying, but they just do and there's nothing we can do about it. A pretty cool book on this subject by John McWhorter called Words on the Move describes this and why.I don't disagree on brand, but it seems to me the brand here is "Republican" and "Democrat" not conservative/liberal which was what I was talking about
Also, the mods are bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Did Tim get a suspension or something? He was supposed to start a chess tournament yesterday in the FFA but didn't. He hasn't posted since Saturday. That's very unlike him, of course.
sho nuff
Footballguy
he and jon may have after their back and forth the other day that got a bit nasty at times.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yeah, I've noticed this site is loading faster recently and figured it was because Tim isn't posting.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Scoresman
Footballguy
What on earth does this mean:
Not everything that disagrees with your opinion is trolling. Lots of people would dismiss buzzfeed. Until it reports something you agree with.
Why is this in my profile @Joe Bryant? I have only reported posts at your direction. I have reported vulgar posts directed at myself that were ignored. WTF is this doing in my warning record?
Not everything that disagrees with your opinion is trolling. Lots of people would dismiss buzzfeed. Until it reports something you agree with.
Why is this in my profile @Joe Bryant? I have only reported posts at your direction. I have reported vulgar posts directed at myself that were ignored. WTF is this doing in my warning record?
Last edited by a moderator:
I've literally reported posts where people where telling others to go suck (including myself) themselves. Nothing happened to those members.
What am I being warned about here? Please cite the post I reported that gave me a warning point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at the report log, the post you reported was a poster who doubted the quality of a buzzfeed story. His post in entirety you reported was "Buzzfeed
"You reported the post and sent the moderators the message "Obvious trolling yet again "
This is why you received the message: "Not everything that disagrees with your opinion is trolling. Lots of people would dismiss buzzfeed. Until it reports something you agree with." You were not given any time off.
Moderators will send a note this way instead of through a PM as some people don't have PMs set to receive. The better way would have been to include words in there saying it's not a warning but a message.
We also don't want just straight up
posts. The person who did this was warned and his post was removed. Just one more thing for the moderators to do. But the reality is tons of people would dismiss a buzzfeed story. Until it agreed with their point. Thus the message. If it comes up again, we'll try to remember to include words that it's not a warning, just the best way to send a note.
And sorry, but we don't have time to do a moderation discussion for every post. Rarely does anyone agree with a warning. I tried to answer your question as best as I could. Please leave it that. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate the explanation here. Seriously. Last time I had a warning with no points it came with a several day ban and it took me almost a year to confirm what it was for.Looking at the report log, the post you reported was a poster who doubted the quality of a buzzfeed story. His post in entirety you reported was "Buzzfeed
You reported the post and sent the moderators the message "Obvious trolling yet again "
This is why you received the message: "Not everything that disagrees with your opinion is trolling. Lots of people would dismiss buzzfeed. Until it reports something you agree with." You were not given any time off.
Moderators will send a note this way instead of through a PM as some people don't have PMs set to receive. The better way would have been to include words in there saying it's not a warning but a message.
We also don't want just straight up
If it comes up again, we'll try to remember to include words that it's not a warning, just the best way to send a note.
And sorry, but we don't have time to do a moderation discussion for every post. Let's wrap this one for now and maybe we reopen in the future if needed.
You already have me walking on eggshells here. I am not sure how to take a warning message about a reporting a post that your team removed anyways. I guess the message is not to report trolling posts anymore? I thought reporting posts that you say are something you don't want is a good thing. Lesson learned....
Thanks. It's a blurry line for sure. We need posts reported as that's the main way we see things. But the moderators only have so much time to run things down.
The post you reported was right in that gray area. Lots of people will laugh at using a Buzzfeed story as their source. But we also don't want just
posts. Use your best judgement there. Thanks. 
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Is there a way to disenable the language filter in PMs? I had just swapped some messages with slapdash and NCC earlier this week that really called for some adult f-bombs dropped into the text.
That is what I was going off of. Also, I'm trying to report things like that instead of giving them a response that gets me banned again. That is based on your guidance.Thanks. It's a blurry line for sure. We need posts reported as that's the main way we see things. But the moderators only have so much time to run things down.
The post you reported was right in that gray area. Lots of people will laugh at using a Buzzfeed story as their source. But we also don't want just
Again, I appreciate the explanation. I was shocked when I saw this last night (almost two weeks later)
Dropping it
Joe, I've said in previous threads that I don't like to second-guess you because I know from first-hand experience what a thankless task forum moderation is. So please take this as constructive criticism: The more feedback you can give people about what they did wrong, the more they can learn from the experience and better police themselves going forward, especially if the feedback is public. I think the vast majority of people on here aren't trolls and want to contribute to meaningful discussions, but we all screw up at times. I think it's better to use those screw-ups as teaching moments.Looking at the report log, the post you reported was a poster who doubted the quality of a buzzfeed story. His post in entirety you reported was "Buzzfeed
You reported the post and sent the moderators the message "Obvious trolling yet again "
This is why you received the message: "Not everything that disagrees with your opinion is trolling. Lots of people would dismiss buzzfeed. Until it reports something you agree with." You were not given any time off.
Moderators will send a note this way instead of through a PM as some people don't have PMs set to receive. The better way would have been to include words in there saying it's not a warning but a message.
We also don't want just straight up
If it comes up again, we'll try to remember to include words that it's not a warning, just the best way to send a note.
And sorry, but we don't have time to do a moderation discussion for every post. Rarely does anyone agree with a warning. I tried to answer your question as best as I could. Please leave it that. Thanks.
Here's an example of what I mean: The current practice seems to be when someone posts something that violates the TOS you pull the post and then alert them privately. The problem with that is it misses the opportunity to make an example of them for other posters. Maybe a better way to do it would be to leave the post up but remove the offending language and put in a brief note from the moderator (eg, "Removed because it directly insulted another poster" or "Easy on the
posts.")I get what you're saying about not having time to discuss every post. But I think if you invest a little more time on the front end and make those discussions public, in the long run it will save you time because people will be less likely to make the same mistakes others have made.
Thanks. I had asked the guys to do more what you're saying with the "Please don't" but then it became sort of the joke to mock those and I think the guys gave up on it. We'll see.Joe, I've said in previous threads that I don't like to second-guess you because I know from first-hand experience what a thankless task forum moderation is. So please take this as constructive criticism: The more feedback you can give people about what they did wrong, the more they can learn from the experience and better police themselves going forward, especially if the feedback is public. I think the vast majority of people on here aren't trolls and want to contribute to meaningful discussions, but we all screw up at times. I think it's better to use those screw-ups as teaching moments.
Here's an example of what I mean: The current practice seems to be when someone posts something that violates the TOS you pull the post and then alert them privately. The problem with that is it misses the opportunity to make an example of them for other posters. Maybe a better way to do it would be to leave the post up but remove the offending language and put in a brief note from the moderator (eg, "Removed because it directly insulted another poster" or "Easy on the
I get what you're saying about not having time to discuss every post. But I think if you invest a little more time on the front end and make those discussions public, in the long run it will save you time because people will be less likely to make the same mistakes others have made.
I do agree it's good to let others know. Thanks.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Joe, here is a good example of why I feel the moderation is slanted in favor of the echo chamber. Slapdash reported me for laughing at Buzzfeed and not only was I warned but I was given a week long time out for "trolling". Seems a little excessive and quite frankly pretty thin skin to be crying to moderators. I have reported actual racists posts directed at Trump supporters and yet seen the member continue to post.Looking at the report log, the post you reported was a poster who doubted the quality of a buzzfeed story. His post in entirety you reported was "Buzzfeed
You reported the post and sent the moderators the message "Obvious trolling yet again "
This is why you received the message: "Not everything that disagrees with your opinion is trolling. Lots of people would dismiss buzzfeed. Until it reports something you agree with." You were not given any time off.
Moderators will send a note this way instead of through a PM as some people don't have PMs set to receive. The better way would have been to include words in there saying it's not a warning but a message.
We also don't want just straight up
If it comes up again, we'll try to remember to include words that it's not a warning, just the best way to send a note.
And sorry, but we don't have time to do a moderation discussion for every post. Rarely does anyone agree with a warning. I tried to answer your question as best as I could. Please leave it that. Thanks.
I know it sucks having to monitor the boards and I generally think you do a good job but it is clear not all moderators are the same and some have political bias.
Dickies
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yeah it was a whole...I deleted my post though as decided it’s not really worth it...facts aren’t important just the narrative of biased moderation. No matter how bogus the claim is.
I really wish I’d included a question in my survey about which direction the moderation is biased in.
I strongly suspect that most people who lean left think the moderation is stacked in favor of Trump supporters while most people who support Trump think the moderation favors the echo chamber.
It’d be nice to have more formal data about that, though.
Next year...
I strongly suspect that most people who lean left think the moderation is stacked in favor of Trump supporters while most people who support Trump think the moderation favors the echo chamber.
It’d be nice to have more formal data about that, though.
Next year...
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why we're not going to debate these here. It's always "I was suspended for nothing".
Dickies was given 10 days off for saying the NRA has a history of celebrating mass shootings. He then backpedaled it to maybe not celebrate. You don't get to say something and then it be ok when you backpedal.
A new poster would be permabanned for something that wrong. He's a good poster so he stayed.
Please let's drop and move on like Slap Dash said.
For sure. Most every poster here feels the moderation is slanted to whatever side they're not on. Same as day 1.
It's a fact of life and not much that we can do about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Trump supporters should have tried being on the side that opposed the Iraq war if they think the conditions around here are bad today 
Dickies
Footballguy
I’ve had my share of TO’s and don’t suspect a bias either way. Some have been deserved and some I don’t feel I did anything wrong. Either way, complaining about it is always a bad look.
Even if the data (which I don’t have) showed one side was banned more than the other it doesn’t necessarily mean there is bias. It just shows one side may post more things that cross the line
Dickies
Footballguy
Not saying what I said didn’t deserve something, but was a little peeved I got a TO literally while writing out an extensive explanation of why I said what I did and why it was too far. I think this would be a better place if people were more able to backtrack from things they have said and explain themselves.
It is mostly tied to the reporting. But the echo chamber reports in mass and the moderators respond to the multiple reports. It is pretty ridiculous when there are two pages of people being complete jerks but then one response back and the same people then hit the report button. The bias in moderation is definitely there but it has to do with the numbers. A single report by a conservative poster rarely triggers any action, but the multiple reports against the conservative draws immediate and harsh response.
Understood thanks. I don't doubt you were sincere but I don't want this to get to a place where people say something super banworthy and then backtrack. Once it's on the screen, it's said and people have to own it. It's great when they admit they were wrong. But the thing is still the thing. And moderators don't have time to investigate every instance and ask clarification questions and dive in and see if the person softened their stance later. Once the thing is said, most of the damage is done. But I do hear you.
