Over moderation

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Except under current rules being rude without naming names would in fact be a violation. As I continue to try and make clear - my issue is not their intent to foster better dialogue, my issue is inconsistent execution, refusal to elaborate and clarify, hypocrisy, and changing expectations. None of which your condescending post seems to have acknowledged. Please don't oversimplify my point to belittle it.

 

 

 

I did acknowledge your charges of hypocrisy and inconsistent execution, at least in the case of my interaction with Fro that you mentioned. In regards to inconsistency, I discussed why my post might have been let to slide while his wasn't. Maybe I'm wrong about why it was handled that way, but I did attempt to address the aspects of it that involved me.

 

I also addressed hypocrisy with my speculation regarding the reason an admin might have Liked my post.

 

So, my condescending post did acknowledge at least some of your concerns. Dont know why you would pretend I didn't, unless you were trying to over simplify my point--something which you clearly disapprove of doing.

 

Also, I don't think I oversimplified your post at all. If anything, one could argue that I gave it more consideration than it possibly deserved based on the somewhat absurd nature of somebody being SO FRUSTRATED by an entirely voluntary message board. I do appreciate that you care about how your fellow posters are treated. Well, you seem to care about how some of them are treated, at least.

 

Condescending and belittling? I'll admit to condescension in my "generalized comments", but that was the point--to illustrate how to avoid attacking somebody directly. I think I succeeded, based on you getting the message despite the fact that in no way did I criticize you directly. As far as belittling you, I apologize that you felt offended. The intention was to illuminate the point while at the same time needling you for being so frustrated about something that I'm sure even you would admit is a bit silly. I thought it was funny and that you would probably think the same and dish it back out the same way you got it.

 

Instead you seemed to get sensitive and cried foul, an approach that some people in this thread have recently spoken out against.

[Brock Beauchamp]

DEEP BREATHS.

 

There is absolutely no reason to be combative about this, folks. This is one of the problems we're trying to stop with the new rules in place. There is absolutely no damned reason to turn this into an inane argument over semantics.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

DEEP BREATHS.

 

There is absolutely no reason to be combative about this, folks. This is one of the problems we're trying to stop with the new rules in place. There is absolutely no damned reason to turn this into an inane argument over semantics.

 

 

I just explained what I meant with my post, and I think I did a good job of it.

 

I even offered an apology.

 

I think a lot of the problem is that other people don't just say they're sorry when somebody lets them know they've been offended. To me, that's self-policing in a positive and beneficial way.

 

Not sure how that counts as semantics, but I'll take the deep breaths anyway, just for the yoga benefit.

[CDog]

I played in a basketball league for years. The same core of guys on eight teams played for pretty much a decade, with each team obviously having some turnover here and there on the fringes. There were no referees, just a gym supervisor and an assistant that rolled out the balls and kept score and ran the clock, etc. So we were essentially self-policed with a "moderator" around for if/when things got testy. Things only got past the point of typical bickering on occasion. These almost always involved one particular player on my team. He'd get into it with some guy. Then he'd get into it with some other guy. Then someone else. He was the constant, but he just couldn't figure out why everyone was "out to get him." Eventually the gym supervisor said he couldn't play anymore, and he couldn't figure out why he had been singled out over his most recent altercation, which hadn't really been all that bad.

 

Anyway, I can't think of a single instance where the conversation was hurt here by "over moderation." And even if I could, I'm pretty sure the "It's their house and they can run it how they see fit" line of reasoning trumps almost any complaints to the contrary. This site is amazing compared to others I've seen that strive for similar content. Keep up the good work. The combination of restraint and firmness, along with some moments of extremely impressive objectivity have impressed me greatly.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't need a deep breath I'm sharing honestly, openly, and respectfully. I am frustrated by inconsistencies that others share and I now know are being worked through. That's the only thing I was requesting.

 

But the irony of that reply above in this thread is amusing, I will leave it at that and bite my tongue about what I really think.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

I just explained what I meant with my post, and I think I did a good job of it.

 

I even offered an apology.

 

I think a lot of the problem is that other people don't just say they're sorry when somebody lets them know they've been offended. To me, that's self-policing in a positive and beneficial way.

 

Not sure how that counts as semantics, but I'll take the deep breaths anyway, just for the yoga benefit.

 

And--we're allowed to say "damned"? Damn, I would have been saying it this whole time.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

I don't need a deep breath I'm sharing honestly, openly, and respectfully. I am frustrated by inconsistencies that others share and I now know are being worked through. That's the only thing I was requesting. But the irony of that reply in this thread is amusing, I will leave it at that.

 

Leaving it at that might be a good idea, because I think an explanation of irony would probably come across as condescending to you.

 

You didn't respond regarding the ways that I actually did address your points, despite you saying I didn't.

 

Also, and most arguably most damning, you didn't address the polite apology I offered for offending you.

 

Strange... The only responses you have given me are to respond to things you perceive to be slights toward you, but none of the contrition or genuine attempt to clarify some of your concerns.

[cwzimmerman]

Does anyone else think that we've now beaten this thread nearly to death? I agree with Brock's thoughts above to a "T".

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Does anyone else think that we've now beaten this thread nearly to death? I agree with Brock's thoughts above to a "T".

 

I have never once been forced to click on a thread and read what it says. As for Brock and other moderators, that's why they get paid the big bucks....

[glunn]

Except that the policy was changed mid-stream. If the effort is truly to persuade someone from not violating the policy, why is there such silence on better explanations of what is being policed? I've made three attempts to get someone to explain how I violated policies I was warned and banned for attacks on arguments, with language like "obtuse" and "not makes sense" apparently serious enough to qualify for a ban which caused discussion on the board for it being ridiculous and those concerns were largely met with silence. If this is truly the efforts of the moderators, perhaps a bit more transparency (even privately) would be nice. Hell, I took a seven day ban for calling an argument obtuse and the very obtuse-argument poster literally called other posters names and was back in three days. Sky posted earlier that he did the same thing to Fro that Fro was banned for and didn't receive a warning. Hell, his post actually got a like from an administrator. How does that happen? For one person the tact gets them a ban and for the other they get an admin like? I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that people are going to start really getting annoyed at this kind of inconsistency.

 

Part of the issue is people not liking the policy, another is not liking enforcement. I still sit here, three private requests in and multiple requests here, waiting to hear that. I respect you and I know you have tried to do this to varying degrees glunn, but I think your version of the events here is a bit too rose-colored. But I'd be more than happy for someone to do more than pay lip-service to the inconsistencies. That would be swell.

 

Leviathan, I think that you have some legitimate points and I am always glad to respond to any private messages that you may send. Yes, I have a rose-colored outlook, but I understand your concerns and greatly appreciate your efforts to obtain clarification.

[ashbury]

I have never once been forced to click on a thread and read what it says.

 

I'm never forced to go to a public park or to a store (depending on whether you view this site as a shared resource or a private venture) if it's overrun with litter or graffiti that "someone" thought was OK, either. But the world is a slightly less good place for me when it happens.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

I'm never forced to go to a public park or to a store (depending on whether you view this site as a shared resource or a private venture) if it's overrun with litter or graffiti that "someone" thought was OK, either. But the world is a slightly less good place for me when it happens.

 

True, Ashburyjohn. Though I think the analogy is a bit of a stretch. This is a message board. This is a thread that is discussing moderation of a message board. To call the conversation within it litter or graffiti seems a little harsh. I do take your point about "nobody forced you to come here" not being a very well thought out approach.

 

Honestly, it seems like many people on this board are perfectly happy to claim somebody else is insulting, but then aren't willing to admit when they have been insulting themselves.

 

There is recent controversy regarding another thread that I and a couple of other people participated in. The conversation may seem to get stuck in spots without resolution, and i can understand that being frustrating. I tried to tie it all up, even making an apology for what was perceived as belittling another poster. The fact that the other person wouldn't just say something to the effect of "I disagree with you but I appreciate the apology" seems strange.

 

But you don't seem like the kind of dude who wants to hear any more about this, Ashburyjohn, so I'll quit bothering you with it.

[ashbury]

To call the conversation within it litter or graffiti seems a little harsh.

 

It might have come out harsher than it should have, my brother. Carry on.

[GCTF]

This may be why people were getting that Summer Eve banner ad.

[GCTF]

Fantastic, now my post makes no sense without the quote.

 

Farewell and good luck magikcat. We'll never forget how your post over at the byto about a Beatles tribute band led to one of the greatest meltdowns in message board history.

[ashbury]

We'll never forget how your post over at the byto about a Beatles tribute band led to one of the greatest meltdowns in message board history.

 

You can be my, be my, be my Yoko Ono.

[Jim H]

I have followed the 4 major founders of this site, pretty much since each started their own blog. When they started this site, I was glad in the sense that now I could go to one place to find good Twins content. I was also worried that I would have to wade through a lot of crap to get to the good content. Many of the discussions that followed posts on the old sites generated better content than the original post(no insult intended). That still happens, but too often the comment section gets hijacked by the kind of stuff that the moderators are trying to control. Keep it up moderators, there is no harm in civility and if people have to stop and think a little before hitting the post button, so much the better.

[DaveW]

Wha was the deleted post?

[Musk21]

Fantastic, now my post makes no sense without the quote.

 

Farewell and good luck magikcat. We'll never forget how your post over at the byto about a Beatles tribute band led to one of the greatest meltdowns in message board history.

 

Hey, that was my post!

[luke829]

[video=youtube;P6aixCBzn3s]

[GCTF]

Hey, that was my post!

 

Did you start the thread or poke the bear to get things rolling? Can't remember.

[glunn]

[video=youtube;P6aixCBzn3s]

 

How could this lead to a meltdown? BYTO sounds like a very contentious place.

[B Richard]

How could this lead to a meltdown? BYTO sounds like a very contentious place.

 

I am dying to find out how that video caused a meltdown. I'm actually giggling. Please someone share, this sounds phenomenal

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't even remember how it started, I only remember the non-stop face-palming for several days.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I just read through the meltdown thread. I was crying, I was laughing so hard. A couple of drinks and that thread are a perfect combination.

 

Too bad it can't be posted here, as it would break very forum rule we have on TD, along with a few we haven't thought up yet.

[TheLeviathan]

There is no excuse great enough to deny humanity that thread RP. Link it up.

[glunn]

There is no excuse great enough to deny humanity that thread RP. Link it up.

 

I would like that link as well.

[JB_Iowa]

Well, I take a break for a few days and feel like I've missed everything but I do have a few observations.

 

1. I think Brock's post earlier about "in season" vs. off season has a lot of merit. And frankly, despite the fact that there are spring training games going on, to me these last couple of weeks before the season are actually worse than the earlier off-season. Frankly my own level of snarkiness (in general but not really expressed on this board) simply increases as we get closer to opening day. I'm ready to see what this Twins team REALLY looks like to start the season. I guess I would urge the mods to chill a little until the season starts.

 

2. While I don't enjoy reading pages of snarkiness, a little back and forth doesn't bother me. I'd rather have some kind of report button where people can complain if they think something is severely getting out of hand or too personal. As an outsider, it's hard for me to judge sarcasm vs true mean-spiritedness when I don't know the backgrounds of the relationship between the people who may be snarking. I usually just ignore it. Maybe the mods are familiar enough with all the posters to know what's really going on but I'd still feel better if they had some input by way of a report button (because LACK of input would also tell them something.)

 

3. In general, it seems to me that there has been less activity on the site in recent weeks (I have no idea if the site traffic numbers bear that out). Snarkiness may play a little factor in that. The site re-design may play a factor in that. But I sincerely believe that most of it has to do with the fact that the off-season just seems to be dragging.

 

Personally, I rarely get involved in much back and forth but unless it gets truly mean-spirited, it doesn't bother me and at times it is amusing. While this board is business for the founders, for most of us, it's just a place to hang out. And I like my hangouts to be relaxed and pretty tolerant.

[DaveW]

Post the itstimetotakeit thread!!!!!!

[Squirrel]

Post the itstimetotakeit thread!!!!!!

Or at least send it to us all privately if you'll get into too much trouble posting it