Over moderation

[DaveW]

I know this is going to be a touchy subject, but Bonnes and some of the others are going a little over the top with moderation these days, I know Fro was banned today and his posts were very tame. I think bans should only be handed out if a guy is actively breaking the rules, not just using some general snark in response to a ridiculous comment.

 

Again its your site so you guys can do what you want obviously, but I don't think its good for the community to be running off some of the better and longer posters around.

[Mike Sixel]

I think the petty name calling and attacking posters instead of ideas is annoying. I am coming less and less, so I do not think I would agree.

[DaveW]

Nobody is attacking posters....

[joegrzenda]

Twins way or the highway...

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

I know this is going to be a touchy subject, but Bonnes and some of the others are going a little over the top with moderation these days, I know Fro was banned today and his posts were very tame. I think bans should only be handed out if a guy is actively breaking the rules, not just using some general snark in response to a ridiculous comment.

 

Again its your site so you guys can do what you want obviously, but I don't think its good for the community to be running off some of the better and longer posters around.

 

Don't tell me Fro got banned for being an overly sarcastic smarty-pants in my OPENING DAY LINEUP thread that turned into an argument about SPEED versus OBP. Because even though I was pretty frustrated with his style of interjection, I certainly didn't feel anything he said even remotely approached deserving of being banned. Unless he posted something I never saw because it was moderated out, I felt I was just equally as smarty-pantsed. I never even got so much as a "heads up, here's a warning".

[Lesser Dali]

If the noose is pulled too tight on this site - everyone will be hanged. In most scenarios of life, you have heroes, anti-heroes. and the others.

 

Most of the folks on this site are the others, and that is not a bad thing. The truth is this - maybe uber-bullying posters should be banded, but this site needs a little bit of risque behavior.

 

Lighten up the reigns - less on policing.

 

P.S. - I have seen a few posters that I appreciate disappear from this site because of the crack down - a period of lightening up would not hurt.

[DaveW]

If the noose is pulled too tight on this site - everyone will be hanged. In most scenarios of life, you have heroes, anti-heroes. and the others.

 

Most of the folks on this site are the others, and that is not a bad thing. The truth is this - maybe uber-bullying posters should be banded, but this site needs a little bit of risque behavior.

 

Lighten up the reigns - less on policing.

 

P.S. - I have seen a few posters that I appreciate disappear from this site because of the crack down - a period of lightening up would not hurt.

 

Agreed, its the internet, people need to be allowed to blow off some steam and nobody is going over the top these days. I share the same sentiment, a lot of good posters aren't coming around much any more and its a real shame.

 

Personally I think Brock should be left in charge of all bannings/suspensions etc, the guy has been running forums successfully for years now and it prevents a possibly over sensitive mod (whoever it may be) from doling out bannings left and right. Also I know this sounds pretty hypocritical coming from me.

[Craig Arko]

When you're a guest in somebody's house, you follow their rules. If you can't respect your host(s) enough to do that, you may be shown the door.

 

It's not too fricking complicated.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Agreed, its the internet, people need to be allowed to blow off some steam and nobody is going over the top these days. I share the same sentiment, a lot of good posters aren't coming around much any more and its a real shame.

 

Personally I think Brock should be left in charge of all bannings/suspensions etc, the guy has been running forums successfully for years now and it prevents a possibly over sensitive mod (whoever it may be) from doling out bannings left and right. Also I know this sounds pretty hypocritical coming from me.

 

We are discussing this internally, to be sure.

 

But I'm not the best moderator in the world, either. I tend to be too lax on posters. Having admined several forums of varying sizes over a ten year period and noticed my stance on posting versus other mods, I'm the first to admit that. There needs to be someone sterner than me to chase after the people who continually bend the rules.

 

We're talking it over.

[Squirrel]

 

We're talking it over.

 

I think Dave has a point. The fine line is so arbitrary and in vastly different places for each of you. While I think that in the heat of discussion some can step over the line, that has to be distinguished from someone's general demeanor. It is difficult on here to determine tone and intent. And sometimes I think you just have to call out the fool. I don't think someone should be banned for calling a spade a spade but that also shouldn't be an every day occurrence.

[Mike Sixel]

Frankly, I don't think this community (posters and owners) really knows what it wants to be. There are some pretty serious (non humor) posters, and some posters that post a lot more humor. There are some pretty emotional posters also. It is also pretty clear there are major generational differences in the community.

 

So while I don't always love some of the tone, I can pretty much live with it, mostly. It is pretty easy to just stop going to threads that have degenerated into two people posting full page quotes yelling at each other. It is pretty easy to just not comment back to some posts. But I will say, there have been many threads that just become emotional train wrecks, and when some of us do just want to have a conversation, it can get frustrating.

 

While Fro is not my favorite poster, I've not seen a reason to ban him.....that said, there are some rules around here that he/she appears to have just ignored. I'd assume, assume, that Fro was warned before banning, and kept doing it. If you were a guest in someones' home, and they asked you to not smoke, and you smoked, it would not be unreasonable to ask them to leave.....not sur why rudeness should be accepted here, just because it is the internet.

[LimestoneBaggy]

I realize VD's post comes from a good place/intent (read in: I'm not overlooking your point), but I think the rules are pretty simply to follow. Further, I read quite a bit of what's posted on the forums (I don't post a whole lot) and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules were created to keep the forums away from the garbage you read on most comment boards. I don't think anyone wants that hot mess. Manners matter folks, and we can be civil to one another...even if we disagree. It's far better to educate than to derogate. After reading the content from these gentlemen for years, I've come to trust their judgment on passing out blocks, quite frankly, they probably passed on some bad judgment when the poster typically provides reasoned commentary. In the end, I've come to learn much more about baseball reading the forums, and that's why I come back (also the good kind of snark is hil-ar-i-ous...seriously folks there are some gems in the forums).

 

Finally, I read the likely offending comment yesterday, and while the response was probably pretty accurate, it was a clear violation of the rules. A simple response could have been. "I can't disagree with you more." I wish I would have posted the same.

[righty8383]

When you're a guest in somebody's house, you follow their rules. If you can't respect your host(s) enough to do that, you may be shown the door.

 

It's not too fricking complicated.

 

The OP already pointed out this fact.

[Nick Nelson]

Let's be clear: Fro's ban was temporary. He has apparently decided he doesn't want to come back and that's his prerogative, but he's certainly welcome to return in 3 days if he likes. We generally enjoy his posts -- I know I do. He's funny, smart and witty.

 

But a message needs to be sent in instances like this that insults and attacks toward members on the board will NOT be tolerated. I don't care how stupid you think they are. The way to increase the level of intelligence on the board is to write intelligent things, not rattle off snarky ad-hominem attacks that offend people and create a hostile environment.

 

This forum is designed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, and spirited but respectful debate. It does not exist for people to "blow off steam"; if you want to do that buy a punching bag. Don't use members of our community as a substitute.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Let's be clear: Fro's ban was temporary. He has apparently decided he doesn't want to come back and that's his prerogative, but he's certainly welcome to return in 3 days if he likes. We generally enjoy his posts -- I know I do. He's funny, smart and witty.

 

But a message needs to be sent in instances like this that insults and attacks toward members on the board will NOT be tolerated. I don't care how stupid you think they are. The way to increase the level of intelligence on the board is to write intelligent things, not rattle off snarky ad-hominem attacks that offend people and create a hostile environment.

 

This forum is designed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, and spirited but respectful debate. It does not exist for people to "blow off steam"; if you want to do that buy a punching bag. Don't use members of our community as a substitute.

 

Maybe I'm assuming too much, and Fro's ban had nothing to do with the argument he and I got into. But if it was because of our argument, I am puzzled. I went after him pretty hard too but didn't get so much as a warning. I didn't feel either of us deserved so much as a warning either, as I was happy to trade comments with him, and was confident that it was all in good fun (with a bit of tension, but far from too much). Then again, im new here and despite reading the comment standards thread, I'm still not sure how everything works around here.

 

My posts are all still there to read. Maybe he got way nastier and I never saw it because it was taken down quickly, but my God I could have probably handled it and I certainly don't want to see people that the forum values leaving because of a silly argument between one overly sarcastic dude (Fro) and one overly stubborn and argumentative dude (Me). Plus, now I am incredibly curious about what he might have said, and (deservedly or not) feel bad about the whole thing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

AFAIK, it had nothing to do with your conversation, BlueSky. Don't worry about that.

[DaveW]

 

This forum is designed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, and spirited but respectful debate. It does not exist for people to "blow off steam"; if you want to do that buy a punching bag. Don't use members of our community as a substitute.

 

Um ok, well that isn't at all what I meant.

[Badsmerf]

I'm in the same boat Dave. I know it is difficult for me coming from posting on a forum with very few rules to being warned if i call something stupid. It is what it is, I hope Fro comes back.

[DaveW]

I'm in the same boat Dave. I know it is difficult for me coming from posting on a forum with very few rules to being warned if i call something stupid. It is what it is, I hope Fro comes back.

 

Yeah, I'm not advocating flame wars or anything, but like oldladytwins fan said, sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and an idiot and idiot, hell I do it in my every day life, many times with friends of mine, which I consider some of you BYTO posters as now.

 

I sorta wonder how the board would generally react with all these rules in place if dankind or itstimetotakeit showed back up. I guess we would have to respectfully disagree with all of their drivel? (Not saying that the current poster group resembles them, but there are a couple who have gotten sorta close and honestly has kept a lot of people from coming back as often) I think some people end up just taking everything a bit to seriously and get hurt feelings to easily, hell me and Lev have been going back and forth for a better half of a decade now with several names and insults, it doesn't seem to bother us one bit.

[John Bonnes]

I'm all for this thread. Thank you VD for starting it.

 

I'll start with this: at the end of the day, we can't run/support/hustle for a site whose forums we can't stomach. That's where things were a month ago for a few of us. I was far more likely to advocate turning them off completely than continuing down that path. And I would have had support among the founders. But before we did that, we decided to try and get it back to a more civil level of discourse, even though that was a lot of work and conflict and self-examination. I think we're pretty close to that.

 

We can't have self-appointed sheriffs of this site shooting snark around to keep people in place. I think that's how it worked on BYTO to some extent. Whether it did or not, we feel it cannot work that way here and still have a growing and inclusive board.

 

It was inevitable that shift would affect some loyal members (and good people) more than others. But I think it requires an adjustment for some of those members rather than a betrayal of a personal philosophy.

 

That leaves open some issues, such as how to deal with posters who lower the level of discourse by posting dumb things. I don't know that I have a recipe for how that is going to work, but my sense is: gently at first, and then more aggressively. At some point, stupidity turns into trolling, and we've tackled that a little with a couple of members. But I'm sensitive to the concern. I share it too. We'll continue to work on it. I think we'll get there as a community.

 

We've had lots of internal debates about this and I welcome this thread to hear the community's feedback. One thing we've debated is changing rule #1 on our comment policy. I'll bold the change. It would go something like this:

 

Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, members of baseball organizations or agents. (You can be critical, but not personal.)

 

Furthermore, we expect each member to treat other members with respect. This doesn’t mean just not making personal attacks. It means giving them the benefit of the doubt. It means not being deliberately combative. It means turning the other cheek sometimes, even when you’re not being treated with respect. We expect this because we believe it encourages civil analysis and debate.

 

I understand the desire to loosen the reins. I'm sure, at some point, they will - bolts always loosen. But to be honest, I'm pretty determined to make sure they stay tight right now. That nauseous feeling that I had by coming to my own forums a month ago is still a little fresh.

[TheLeviathan]

I made my thoughts known privately on this, but since this is an open dialogue, I'll say them here. I say them with some bitterness (which I will explain) but I'm trying to make it constructive.

 

In John's last post he has a bolded area which was not previously in the rules and only later did I realize was added after I received a one week ban. For one, this bolded area is an incredibly gray/vague set of standards. I liked what John had told me at one point, "If you think it's probably the wrong thing to say, then don't say it". I think, vague though it is, it's at least understandable.

 

However, I was warned for telling someone that their argument was "not making sense" and another poster that their line of argument was "obtuse". Given the above standard, I'm totally confused how I was banned. In fact, as I pointed out privately, John Bonnes had recently referred to Reusse as "unhinged" (a much more clear violation according to posted policy) and yet this was apparently ok.

 

My issue is not necessarily over-moderation - it's unclear, seemingly personal moderation. If the moderators are operating from the same page and the expectations are clear, then I can either choose to live by those rules or not. But this moderation group doesn't appear to have a clear standard nor has it enforced it clearly or fairly. I have a much bigger concern with that.

 

Also, in fairness, I certainly have been antagonistic in the past. Won't deny that. I had it out with Nick N. in private, I believe we had an understanding and I would think anyone that has looked over my posts for the last few weeks would see that I've been following the policy as closely as I can. That I would receive a one week ban for (as this board has suggested in the past is ok) attacking arguments rather than people - is baffling to me. I called an argument "clownish" and "not making sense" and I was warned. I called another one "obtuse" and received a ban. Not once did I attack the person in any of those posts. Yet I was banned.

 

I need clarity on what will not get me banned or better clarity on what is the problem. The posted policy does not match current enforcement. So I'm bitter about it being changed mid-stream and then banning me for not following a change that was neither announced nor has been clarified. I have asked (numerous times to numerous moderators) to please illuminate what I should be doing differently. The best I have gotten was to say "not makes sense to me" rather than "not makes sense". Which, not to be glib, does not make sense to me.

 

I await some actual clarification and hope to god something in here was not considered worthy of a ban. At this point I feel like I need to have eyes in the back of my head.

[TheLeviathan]

hell me and Lev have been going back and forth for a better half of a decade now with several names and insults, it doesn't seem to bother us one bit.

 

Well, other than my secret undying hatred of you and your Ponderholicness.

[DaveW]

I actually think you should let the membership police themselves for the most part, it may result in a rough moment here and there. Or just let Brock dole out all the bans, he has the most expirence running forums in the past and I can't recall one time where anyone really thought he was being unfair (and yes he did ban multiple people from BYTO when it got out of hand), I'm not saying it needs to be the wild wild west...but come on, what Lev says is completely accurate.

[DaveW]

Well, other than my secret undying hatred of you and your Ponderholicness.

 

Oh God, not to get to off topic but I am not some diehard Ponder fan, I just say let the kid have a chance, the Vikings have broken my heart enough where I almost just try to look at it as glass half full as possible, since they will inevitably do a bunch of crap that defies all logic and reason eventually.

[Shane Wahl]

Even at my most drunk, I still follow the rules around here . . .

[TheLeviathan]

Oh God, not to get to off topic but I am not some diehard Ponder fan, I just say let the kid have a chance, the Vikings have broken my heart enough where I almost just try to look at it as glass half full as possible, since they will inevitably do a bunch of crap that defies all logic and reason eventually.

 

Jesus Dave, sarcasm. Unless your post was sarcasm of my sarcasm in which case I just had a small blood vessel pop in my brain from the awesomeness......

[DaveW]

Jesus Dave, sarcasm. Unless your post was sarcasm of my sarcasm in which case I just had a small blood vessel pop in my brain from the awesomeness......

No I know it was sarcasm, I just don't want everyone else thinking I am a Ponderholic I have been in PA for 12 months now and the steps have been working!!

[DaveW]

Even at my most drunk, I still follow the rules around here . . .

 

Speaking of Drunk we REALLY need to bring back the Drunken Random Thoughts thread we had, if not for anything more then "RonGardenhire's" tales of trying to pick up chicks and failing miserably.

[LimestoneBaggy]

Dave and Lev, can we perhaps agree on a policy of "Be excellent to each other."

 

Man I hope the membership of this site is old enough to get this.

[GCTF]

DPJ--Banned

Fro--Banned

Dave--Suspended

Lev--Suspended

 

Coincidence?

 

Come to think of it, I haven't seen the Chief around lately. I hope no one stepped on his lawn.