Is moderation on this site fair or bias?

[jimmer]

In one thread a poster wrote:

 

'Other than trading Span and Revere...and helping them lose lots of games so they pick earlier, how has the GM re-stocked the farm?

Sano, Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, Gibson, Hicks, all were in the system before he came back, right?'

 

Let's look at three responses:

 

#1 'Again, since Ryan played an extremely instrumental part in building the 60-person staff that's been involved with very aspect of the success of every one of the players you mentioned, you're absolutely right, Mr. Sixel. Ryan hasn't done a thing except help them lose lots of games so they pick earlier'

 

#2 Right, I forgot we don't give him credit for drafts and international signings b/c it's either something every GM would've done or it's something GMs shouldn't get credit for, depending on how you're feeling on the particular player.

I'm honestly baffled by your constant negativity, Mike.......'

 

#3 '"Just trust Ryan. All the moves he makes, and doesn't make, are the right moves. And every great prospect we have was a result of moves Ryan made. That is why our farm system (including Sano who graduated) is so good. All Ryan. Trust in Ryan!"'

 

Now, all are sarcastic for sure.  But the difference is, the first two are in defense of Ryan AND they ALSO take shots at a specific poster while doing so..

 

The other doesn't support Ryan but it also takes no specific shot at any poster.

 

The one that didn't support Ryan and didn't take a personal shot at anyone not only got deleted/hidden, but got the writer an official warning.  The other two weren't even deleted, much less either getting a warning.

 

It's my belief all three were sarcastic yet only two were personal as well (which makes them worse).  If the one that got deleted (#3) fell under 'Trolling, Flame-baiting, Thread-jacking' to the point of deserving a warning, certainly the other two do as well.

 

So why were post #1 and #2 allowed to stand while the other was not only removed but worth a warning to the poster?  Could it be because the first two defended Ryan?

 

Now, to be fair, there are some fine moderators on here for sure and this site is mostly better for it, but some go too far in their attempt to curb certain points of view and I believe this is certainly a fine example of that.

 

Posted per suggestion from another poster in another thread earlier today.

[Craig Arko]

One might equally ask 'are posters on this (or any other) site fair or biased?'

 

With the correct answer in both cases being 'yes.' It's part of that human condition thing.

[jimmer]

 

One might equally ask 'are posters on this (or any other) site fair or biased?'

With the correct answer in both cases being 'yes.' It's part of that human condition thing.

Posters who aren't moderators don't have the same abilities as posters who are also moderators. So it's not an equal comparison.

 

We don't think moderators, considering their position (and their ability to suspend and ban posters), should rise above that in their moderating duties? Can't moderate with clear bias can they? How does that encourage real debate when anything that slams the FO or certain players gets put under a microscope (by some moderators) while, at the same time, allowing much more leniency to people who defend the FO and certain players (again by certain moderators)? Chi is very unbiased in her moderation IMO.

 

 

[formerly33]

 

Posted per suggestion from another poster in another thread earlier today.

Well THANK YOU for bringing me into this discussion, sir. I hope that means you'll be open to a little more friendly advice; you obviously take it seriously, and I'd like to help.

 

Twins Daily is supposed to be a professional website, and it's the moderators duty to keep it professional. Excessive bashing of the front office isn't exactly professional. Neither are personal jabs, but you're angry with a moderator who apparently only removes front office bashing while thinking that only personal attacks should be deleted. Seems just a little conflicting....

 

And by the way, sure, different points of view are encouraged, but if I remember correctly, excessive sarcasm isn't allowed either, and your (or whoever's) post certainly fit the bill. I'm sure the mod who did it wrote to you; every time I've had a post deleted, the respective moderator has followed up with a thoughtful PM letting me know why. And concerning shots taken at a specific poster...well, everyone knows that this certain member is pretty negative. If I remember correctly, their member title is something along the line of "wants to be more positive," and the comment policy states that "casting in a negative light everything someone says and does" is not permitted, so...you get my point.

 

Oh and hey, if you had a problem with one of those posts, there's always the report button.

[jimmer]

 

Well THANK YOU for bringing me into this discussion, sir. I hope that means you'll be open to a little more friendly advice; you obviously take it seriously, and I'd like to help.

 

Twins Daily is supposed to be a professional website, and it's the moderators duty to keep it professional. Excessive bashing of the front office isn't exactly professional. Neither are personal jabs, but you're angry with a moderator who apparently only removes front office bashing while thinking that only personal attacks should be deleted. Seems just a little conflicting....

 

And by the way, sure, different points of view are encouraged, but if I remember correctly, excessive sarcasm isn't allowed either, and your (or whoever's) post certainly fit the bill. I'm sure the mod who did it wrote to you; every time I've had a post deleted, the respective moderator has followed up with a thoughtful PM letting me know why. And concerning shots taken at a specific poster...well, everyone knows that this certain member is pretty negative. If I remember correctly, their member title is something along the line of "wants to be more positive," and the comment policy states that "casting in a negative light everything someone says and does" is not permitted, so...you get my point.

 

Oh and hey, if you had a problem with one of those posts, there's always the report button.

I didn't mention your name at all.

 

And I didn't say only personal attacks should get deleted so no conflict at all. All three posts have the same sarcastic tone which I pointed out (and which is what the warning from the moderator was about), but only one doesn't take personal shots at fellow posters and that one is the only that one gets deleted AND gets a warning point for the author while the other two get nothing. The one that gets deleted is not pro-Ryan and doesn't take any shots at fellow posters.

 

Question still hasn't been answered though.  Did bias cause one post to get deleted and get a warning to it's writer while the others were left standing with no warning at all since all seemed to fall under the reasoning for the warning given?  All have the same tone overall and the warning didn't say, 'bashing the FO is unprofessional' as the reason the warning point was given.  The warning I quoted clearly applied to the other two posts as well.

 

And no, nothing but a quote was sent with the warning.  No thoughtful anything.  Just here is the warning and the quote I posted.  That's it.  And no response to my responding PM either. 

 

And, BTW, I wouldn't call any of this friendly advice, but at least it's not overly unfriendly. I guess that, like most everything is up to interpretation. At least some kind of response came.

 

[formerly33]

 

I didn't mention your name at all.

 

And I didn't say only personal attacks should get deleted so no conflict at all. All three posts have the same sarcastic tone which I pointed out (and which is what the warning from the moderator was about), but only one doesn't take personal shots at fellow posters and that one is the only that one gets deleted AND gets a warning point for the author while the other two get nothing. The one that gets deleted is not pro-Ryan and doesn't take any shots at fellow posters.

 

Question still hasn't been answered though.  Did bias cause one post to get deleted and get a warning to it's writer while the others were left standing with no warning at all since all seemed to fall under the reasoning for the warning given?  All have the same tone overall and the warning didn't say, 'bashing the FO is unprofessional' as the reason the warning point was given.  The warning I quoted clearly applied to the other two posts as well.

 

And no, nothing but a quote was sent with the warning.  No thoughtful anything.  Just here is the warning and the quote I posted.  That's it.  And no response to my responding PM either. 

 

And, BTW, I wouldn't call any of this friendly advice, but I guess that, like most everything is up to interpretation. At least some kind of response came.

Alrighty then, since the mod didn't give you the expected breakdown of your post, I will.

 

"Just trust Ryan. All the moves he makes, and doesn't make, are the right moves. And every great prospect we have was a result of moves Ryan made. That is why our farm system (including Sano who graduated) is so good. All Ryan. Trust in Ryan!"

Sarcastic, yes. Personal jabs, actually yes. You're taking jabs at the previous two posters for giving Ryan more credit than Sixel was willing to give. You're saying that because they can see a little more good out of what Ryan has done, they must think that he can do no wrong (quote: "Just trust Ryan"). And negative? Yes. So Mike's post was negative (check) and sarcastic (check). The next two were sarcastic (check) and took personal jabs (check). Two checks per post. The final (yours) was negative (check), sarcastic (check), AND took personal jabs, however subtle. Check.

 

You made a mountain out of a mole's hill, and apparently that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Now you're making the Sahara Desert out of a grain of sand with this thread. I suppose since I'm not a moderator I should stay out of it, but like I said, you seem to appreciate my advice, friendly or not. Though of course it's friendly...I'm a friendly person. I get along with people. <said in my best Trump impersonation>

 

Oh, and a gentle reminder...there's always the report button for next time.

[jimmer]

 

Alrighty then, since the mod didn't give you the expected breakdown of your post, I will.

 

Sarcastic, yes. Personal jabs, actually yes. You're taking jabs at the previous two posters for giving Ryan more credit than Sixel was willing to give. You're saying that because they can see a little more good out of what Ryan has done, they must think that he can do no wrong (quote: "Just trust Ryan"). And negative? Yes. So Mike's post was negative (check) and sarcastic (check). The next two were sarcastic (check) and took personal jabs (check). Two checks per post. The final (yours) was negative (check), sarcastic (check), AND took personal jabs, however subtle. Check.

 

You made a mountain out of a mole's hill, and apparently that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Now you're making the Sahara Desert out of a grain of sand with this thread. I suppose since I'm not a moderator I should stay out of it, but like I said, you seem to appreciate my advice, friendly or not. Though of course it's friendly...I'm a friendly person. I get along with people. <said in my best Trump impersonation>

 

Oh, and a gentle reminder...there's always the report button for next time.

Be hard to take a jab at both posters when only one had posted when I made my post :-)  And at the time there were few posts on the thread.  If the moderator read mine and deleted it and gave a warning, he read the others too and decided they were fine.

 

And I'm not making a mountain out of a mole hill.  This kind of bias moderation happens all the time here. This is just the first time I brought it up AND this is the forum to do it according to the moderators, right? It's a legitimate question/concern, cause bias moderation affects a good chunk of people.

 

This is a site that has approved and had moderators/owners participate in multiple threads that were made to slam 'negative people' (negative people being people critical of the FO).  At least one still exists.Certainly asking the TD community if there is bias is up for discussion.  

[formerly33]

 

Be hard to take a jab at both posters when only one had posted when I made my post :-)  And at the time there were few posts on the thread.  If the moderator read mine and deleted it and gave a warning, he read the others too and decided they were fine.

 

And I'm not making a mountain out of a mole hill.  This kind of bias moderation happens all the time here. This is just the first time I brought it up AND this is the place to do it right? It's a legitimate question. Cause bias moderation affects a good chunk of people.

 

This is a site that has approved and had moderators/owners participate in multiple threads that were made to slam 'negative people' (negative people being people critical of the FO).   Certainly asking the TD community if there is bias is up for discussion.  

Jimmer, you said you wanted an answer. I gave you an answer. You don't appreciate the answer because it's not the answer you wanted. You didn't want an answer; you wanted an answer stating that the mods are biased (and yes, there's an -ed at the end of that word). I give up. It's like arguing with my little brothers.

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2486515/hand-washing-o.gif

[jimmer]

 

Jimmer, you said you wanted an answer. I gave you an answer. You don't appreciate the answer because it's not the answer you wanted. You didn't want an answer; you wanted an answer stating that the mods are biased (and yes, there's an -ed at the end of that word). I give up. It's like arguing with my little brothers.

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2486515/hand-washing-o.gif

I must have missed the part where you actually answered if there is bias.  You answered why you think I got slammed by the moderator. I never actually asked why. I knew why it was deleted. I never said it shouldn't be.

 

You didn't answer whether or not there is bias or whether or not the other ones deserved any kind of punishment at all.  Those are the questions I wanted answers to.

 

Thanks anyway, especially for the parting personal jabs which I suppose were also friendly cause you're a friendly person? I feel the same way, if you are interested.

[DaveW]

Jimmer brings up a valid point, IMO the moderation is pretty fair for the most part, but there is definitely a bias amongst the owners and moderators and that is OK.

 

You have to look no further then the deleted thread last month from the season ticket holder call, the Twins asked the TD crew to remove the thread and pretty much every follow up post and they did it almost immediately, additionally the main writers are very careful to never put too much blame on the Twins org etc AGAIN this is OK. I appreciate what the writers do here, and thankfully they aren't straight up mouthpieces for the org like Souhan, but there is definitely a bias, otherwise these interviews with Terry Ryan and co would never happen (The Twins have shown to be very thin skinned in the past with any criticism put their way, "Minnesota Nice" at its best) but with that said they all are fair for the most part, however they do let personal attacks "go" when the person saying it is one of the "The Twins can do no wrong" crowd.

 

At the end of the day the mods/owners are much more CNN (or Fox News depending on your flavor) then NPR, which again is OK.

[jimmer]

 

Jimmer brings up a valid point, IMO the moderation is pretty fair for the most part, but there is definitely a bias amongst the owners and moderators and that is OK.

 

You have to look no further then the deleted thread last month from the season ticket holder call, the Twins asked the TD crew to remove the thread and pretty much every follow up post and they did it almost immediately, additionally the main writers are very careful to never put too much blame on the Twins org etc AGAIN this is OK. I appreciate what the writers do here, and thankfully they aren't straight up mouthpieces for the org like Souhan, but there is definitely a bias, otherwise these interviews with Terry Ryan and co would never happen (The Twins have shown to be very thin skinned in the past with any criticism put their way, "Minnesota Nice" at its best) but with that said they all are fair for the most part, however they do let personal attacks "go" when the person saying it is one of the "The Twins can do no wrong" crowd.

 

At the end of the day the mods/owners are much more CNN (or Fox News depending on your flavor) then NPR, which again is OK.

and I did make it clear that 'Now, to be fair, there are some fine moderators on here for sure and this site is mostly better for it' and I pointed out Chi as one of the good ones (she's actually the best I've come across on any site).

[DaveW]

 

and I did make it clear that 'Now, to be fair, there are some fine moderators on here for sure and this site is mostly better for it' and I pointed out Chi as one of the good ones (she's actually the best I've come across on any site).

I think they are all great to be honest, even the couple I have had issues with in the past, I would gladly grab a beer with any of them and catch a Twins game (as long as Nick doesn't go into a 30 minute long diatribe of how Brian Buscher never got a fair shot)

[glunn]

I am the moderator who deleted jimmer's post and my reason was that it was reported as trolling and it seemed like trolling to me:

 

"Just trust Ryan.  All the moves he makes, and doesn't make, are the right moves. And every great prospect we have was a result of moves Ryan made.  That is why our farm system (including Sano who graduated) is so good.  All Ryan.  Trust in Ryan!"

 

I have not deleted the other posts that jimmer quoted, because they seem borderline to me.  On the one hand, such posts were clearly less civil than they should have been.  On the other hand they had some substance that could and did lead to intelligent discussion.

 

As for moderator bias, we have some mods who are ready for TR to go and some who seem to be in the middle.  I don't think that any moderator is a strong TR supporter.  

 

Finally, if we were bothered by attacks on TR then Dave would have been banned for life a long time ago.  Feel free to attack every decision by TR, but be please be substantive and refrain from attacking other posters, bickering and trolling.

[USAFChief]

Let me add to Glunn's excellent reply...

 

All of the mods are volunteers and we all have lives outside of TD. Between us we try to review every post, but that's a big task, and sometimes we might miss stuff.

 

Sometimes--gasp--we even disagree among ourselves on what to do, or with actions already taken or not taken.

 

But, and you'll just have to trust me on this, there is no bias for, or against, '"pro" posters or "anti" posters. For one thing, all of us mods are above average, like the children of Lake Wobegon. So we would never do that.

 

For another, Ownership wants lively, passionate, intelligent debate, but civil debate. If we were favoring one side, that would kill the debate. Quickly.

 

And if you think we messed up, let us know...here, or in a PM. We'll respond.

[jimmer]

Well, I didn't say all moderators are bias in their duties (made it clear I didn't think that more than once) and I certainly wouldn't expect any to admit they were.

[DaveW]

Attacks on Terry Ryan? I have never "attacked" him, I have repeatedly said he is a poor current GM and I wish he would step down and take St Peters current role (or another role in the org)

I think at one time he was a good to great GM, but the game has passed him by, I'm sure he is a great person and all of that as well.

Saying someone should be fired is not "attacking" them FYI, and frankly that shows a bias.

[Mike Sixel]

This is supposed to be a professional website, not a forum for people to sit around and casually talk baseball? Disagree, strongly.

 

I have told several mods that I think personal attacks are allowed from one side against posters. They disagree. Whatever....as long as you allow me to defend myself against them, I'm cool. 

 

btw, I have also told the mods that I deeply appreciate their time, deeply.

[Craig Arko]

This is supposed to be a professional website, not a forum for people to sit around and casually talk baseball? Disagree, strongly.

 

I have told several mods that I think personal attacks are allowed from one side against posters. They disagree. Whatever....as long as you allow me to defend myself against them, I'm cool. 

 

btw, I have also told the mods that I deeply appreciate their time, deeply.

Meh, I've had a few on me that were overlooked. My response is to put the poster on the ignore list they so richly deserve.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Meh, I've had a few on me that were overlooked. My response is to put the poster on the ignore list they so richly deserve.

 

I have only done that to 1 poster, but there are 2 others I have considered. It's a site to talk about the Twins, and the FO, not about other posters.......Defend and admire Ryan all you want, I won't rip you as a person....I will probably disagree with your opinion/statement, but that's not like saying you are bad/wrong/evil.

 

But again, the mods here are great overall. It's a nit. Overall, the site is great, and well run.

[jimmer]

 

I have only done that to 1 poster, but there are 2 others I have considered. It's a site to talk about the Twins, and the FO, not about other posters.......Defend and admire Ryan all you want, I won't rip you as a person....I will probably disagree with your opinion/statement, but that's not like saying you are bad/wrong/evil.

 

But again, the mods here are great overall. It's a nit. Overall, the site is great, and well run.

I have zero problem with my post being deleted.  I don't think it was worth a warning point, but whatever.  My real issue is that not only did I get it deleted, it got deleted AND it went right to an official warning point while supposedly borderline posts weren't deleted at all. Mine, IMO, wasn't worse and even if it was, it wasn't so much.  

 

The thing is though, MINE was critical of Ryan.  The others weren't. Mine didn't slam any poster by names, it was a generalization.  The others did slam a poster by name. So it made me wonder why mine was dealt with so harshly while the others were left alone.

 

The owners and moderators have said that if we have issues with things on this site we should address them in this forum.  Others have done so in regards to moderation, and I did as well, yet I've endured personal insults both here and in PMs because I did so.

 

I appreciate the work these moderators do to, I just stated what I feel happens a lot around here and I thought I gave a good example of why I think the way I do.  That's not to say this is a horrible site or that all the moderators are just flinging warnings and deleting posts like it's the wild west.I just think sometimes the moderation isn't doled out evenly and I finally decided to say something as we've been encouraged to do and give examples.

 

We've had a moderator come right out and say he will purposely thread-jack/flame bait a thread if certain stats are brought up that he doesn't like and that's been allowed even though that is against the rules. This is a place that allowed multiple threads to be posted for the sole purpose for slamming 'negative people' (and at least one still exists) and some of the people who run this site and some of the moderators joined in.  Those seem in direct conflict to the stated rules here, but they are allowed.  

 

So when I see stuff like that being allowed, and I see what happened in the example I gave, I think it's fair to ask the questions I did and I certainly feel that doing so isn't deserving of personal attacks here or in PMs especially since we've been told to voice our complaints here.

[twinsnorth49]

Well, I didn't say all moderators are bias in their duties (made it clear I didn't think that more than once) and I certainly wouldn't expect any to admit they were.

He didn't say you did. I think it might help if you were less defensive, I really do.

 

If you feel there is bias, that's your prerogative, I honestly don't think it's our job to convince you otherwise but I find your opinion unfortunate.

 

I honestly don't care if people take shots at Ryan as long as it remains respectful, I'm completely indifferent towards the man, he's not as bad as some people portray and he's not as good as others portray, I have no stake in the matter. What I do care about is when members here are personally attacked for their views or trolled for something they may have posted.

 

I do think some people have a higher sensitivity towards that type of thing though, whether they be supporters or detractors. There is certainly an element of " can dish it out but refuse to take it" that occurs.

 

We try our best, I think we have a good idea of the line and there is enough of us to come to a fair decision on things, although not everybody will always agree with it, that's just the way it goes. I hear what you're saying, I just can't apply it to how I think or what I know of my fellow moderators.

 

Thanks

[jimmer]

I would like to let people know that Glunn responded to my PM and told me that he could have handled that thread better and that in hindsight he could have edited or deleted the others I mentioned.  He reminded me he thought mine was easier to decide on, which is fine cause I didn't complain about it being deleted anyway.  Perhaps he saw where I was coming from.

[gunnarthor]

Just saw this thread but for all the deleted threads, warning posts and bans I've gotten, I've never had the sense that the mods were pro-TR.

[Squirrel]

 

Just saw this thread but for all the deleted threads, warning posts and bans I've gotten, I've never had the sense that the mods were pro-TR.

Because some of us aren't.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I would like to let people know that Glunn responded to my PM and told me that he could have handled that thread better and that in hindsight he could have edited or deleted the others I mentioned. He reminded me he thought mine was easier to decide on, which is fine cause I didn't complain about it being deleted anyway. Perhaps he saw where I was coming from.

thanks Jimmer for brining this up a year ago. It asked questions that I have once in a while. TR isn't here anymore, but things will continue to arise as we are all human beings.