I think an acknowledgement of actions taken (either by email or a post to the thread) would be beneficial in this and some other cases.
I like the idea of posting the action taken and the reasoning to the thread. It would help remind members of the particular rule/s being broken. Same thing with posting a notice regarding the banning of established (legitimate?) members. It helps to reinforce our understanding of the rules, as well as providing that daily dose of voyeurism.
I did not “threaten” to leave these boards.
OK. Sure. I’m not gonna play semantics again. My point is that your leave of absence from the board is totally irrelevant to your “serious” question. Why even bring it up?
Would have been nice had the response been in an email explaining the action at the time, but there you are.
Would have been nice if you respected one of the few requests we as mods have made, which would have eliminated the need for an email to you. But, as you say, there you go. Besides, we did notify you of the action soon after it was taken. See below:
** as far as “thwarting the actions of the moderators” is concerned, since the moderators didn’t bother to explain their actions upon taking them, or indeed advise me that action was being taken at all (say, via email, or in a message to the thread)**
Look at your thread again. Here’s a quote from UB’s post:
UB **did ** in fact advise you that action was taken in a message to your thread. UB apparently simulposted with your post. After he saw your post, UB edited his post to respond. So your complaint is moot.
especially since they allowed the repetition of the “potentially offensive” phrase to stand within the thread itself…
So you ignore the rules twice and proceed to complain how we didn’t clean up after you both times.
**no one has yet addressed the apparent double-standard of insults. **
How about providing us with a link? I found the first one for you. How about you pitch in a little? It is your complaint, isn’t it?
Finally, I’ve already found boards which have a “higher prick tolerance,” those being the ACLU boards which I moderate.
Well sure. The ACLU in general has a very high prick tolerance. Its required for the work they do. Pricks have rights that need defending too.
With different boards, you have different rules. If you wanna play in our backyard then you should the follow the few rules we have. What ACLU MB mods would do is completely irrelevant to our work.
The vast majority of us here are generally replused by “censorship” and huge fans of “free speech”. But the minute you registered you were make aware of the fact that we can moderate what we want, how we want and when we want. I think we do a damn good job of moderating without supressing people’s opinions or impeding discussion.
Otto has questions about what appears to be unequal treatment at the hands of the moderators and asked, in a fairly calm and rational way, what the fuck was up with that.
I’d say it was more condescending and dismissive. Which is all well and good, as this is the Pit, but don’t expect a “Thank you for asking :)” attitude from the mods.
Context is everything. As a result, some people may view what we do as inconsistent. What can I say. I’d rather moderate every situation seperately than automatically snap into action everytime the word jackass shows up.
Again, if you have a question about why we do what we do then ask. But don’t undo the work we do. Is that an unreasonable request?
minty green
Please refer to my previous comment vis-a-vis fucking yourself.
Alphagene
To note that the same kind of shitty thing has been going on for a long time.
Uh, no it’s not. If he made the change without notice, then after reading my post edited his response, the complaint most certainly is not moot. May I suggest in future the order of actions be post the change and reason to the thread, THEN make the change? Had I been able to see UB’s stated reason, then certainly I would not have posted the tweak of repeating the “threat” in the thread.
And speaking of UB’s stated reason…
UB
(emphasis added)
Which is fine. A “no death threat regardless of how jokingly made” rule is certainly well within your perogative. But if that’s the rule, then edit EVERY “death threat” and don’t claim that the reason one is edited and the other isn’t is because of the relative “potential offense” of the two “threats.”
Alphagene
Sorry, is “no death threats, however jokingly made” posted in a list of forum rules somewhere? If it is and I missed it, then I humbly apologize. If it isn’t and it was formulated on the spot and implemented without notice, then it’s hardly reasonable to accuse me of “ignoring the rules twice.” And yes, if “no death threats regardless of how humorous” is the rule, then you should have edited my post and explained why. Allowing one “threat” to stand and deleting another is just what brought the question up to begin with.
If “no death threats regardless of how humorously intended” is a posted rule, then I again apologize. But when one humorous “threat” is allowed, how exactly do you expect me to glean that they are forbidden?
I don’t think consistency is too much to ask for. Nor is being informed of actions and the reasons at the time they are taken.
Your responses to me show you to be the master of condescending and dismissive.
Why not? Why shouldn’t I expect a “thank you for asking” attitude? Isn’t part of your job responding to the concerns of the members? Was I rude in the OP? Only to those who I anticipated would be rude to me to the possible detriment of actually getting an answer.
Not according to UB: “death threats, however jokingly made, really have no place on this message board.”
Sounds absolute to me.
And you know what? That’s fine. All I’m asking for is some explanation of the context that allows “your IQ has dropped” but not “you’re behaving like a jackass.”
It’s only unreasonable if you don’t explain the work you do. Is an explanation for your actions an unreasonable request?
Ya know, after I win the lottery, I am going to take a few years off and walk across this great land of ours, from Maine to California, from Florida to Alaska.
And along my way, I am going to stop and ring the doorbell at each trailer, apartment and house in this fine land.
And as the door opens, I will speak the following:
"Hi. I just wanted to let you know that the protections afforded by the First Amendment only give you protection against action by the government. If a private entity censors you, they have not violated your rights.
Y’all have a good day, now, and thanks for listening."
Some may call my quest quixotic, but somebody has to do something. Apparently no one, not even fellow ACLU members, know this.
Sua
Sua
My god. I’ve never clapped harder.
Sua, can I sponsor your Walk Across America to Promote Higher Prick Tolerance? aka, WAAPHT?
jarbaby
Bravo, Otto. Way to win the moral high ground. minty applied a time-honored debating technique. Apparently, you could not come up with a rational response, and decided to go with name-calling. I’m feeling all tingly merely being in the presence of such an intellectual god.
Well, alphagene is pretty darn good, but (no offense, gene), I wouldn’t call him the master. Perhaps a master, but there are better condescenders out there.
But anyway, your complaint is that Alphagene is better a being condescending and dismissive. Buck up, old sod - just keep practicing, and you’ll get there.
Sua
Otto, please stop and think for a minute. I’m sure you’re smarter than you’re presenting yourself here.
I’m completely baffled by your contention that when you saw your thread title changed from “I will have you murdered” to “I will hate you” that you couldn’t figure out WHY. Is it really that hard? You really needed a written explanation? That does lead me to wonder; what is your IQ?
And you were so stupified by this change that you had to go “correct” the modification by stating again that you really would have people murdered as opposed to just hating them? And you don’t understand why this would piss off the mods?
A word of advice. When you see that a moderator has taken some action, if you don’t see a public explanation for same and are too stupid to figure it out, send them an email and ask.
Absolutely, honey. You can even pay me in kind. [sub]damn, we really need a leering smilie[/sub]
Sua
Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion – by Benjamin Franklin, 1750
RULES, by the Observation of which, a Man of Wit and Learning, may nonetheless make himself a disagreeable Companion.
Your business is to shine, therefore you must by all means prevent the shining of others, for their Brightness may make yours less distinguished. To this End:
[list=1]
[li] If possible engross the whole Discourse; and when other Matter fails, talk much of yourself, your education, your Knowledge, your Circumstances, your Successes in Business, your Victories in Disputes, your own wise Sayings and Observations on particular Occasions, &C. &C. &C.[/li][li] IF when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either to in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticize even his Grammar.[/li][li] If another should be saying an indisputably good Thing; either give no Attention to it; or interrupt him; or draw away the Attention of others; or, if you can guess what he would be at, be quick and say it before him; or, if he gets it said, and you perceive the Company pleased with it, own it to be a good thing, and withal remark that it had been said by Bacon, Locke, Bayle, or some other eminent Writer; thus you deprive him of the Reputation he might have gained by it; and gain yourself, as you hereby show your great Reading and Memory.[/li][li] When modest Men have been thus treated by you a few times, they will choose ever after to be silent in your Company; then you may shine on without Fear of a Rival; rallying them at the same time for their Dullness; which will be to you a new Fund of Wit.[/li][/list=1]
Thus you will be sure to please yourself. The polite Man aims at pleasing others, but you shall go beyond him even in that. A Man can be present only in one Company, but he may at the same time be absent in twenty. He can please only where he is, you, wherever you are not.
Ooooooohhh, burn! How will I ever regain my confidence and sense of self-worth after such a thorough tongue-lashing by the Master of Martyrdom? :rolleyes:
Ya know, it never ceases to amaze me how worked up some people get over how these boards are moderated. 99% of the time, the mod’s action is precisely correct. The other 1% of the time, it’s a judgment call that could have gone either way.
You’re not even in the 1% category, Otto. So shut your whiny, self-centered, martyrdom-seeking mouth or take a hike.
Currently in this forum the following threats/wishes of violence are all made in thread titles. They offend me, please edit at your earliest convenience:
Welcome, New Teenaged Dopers! Don’t make me kill you.
DIE! DIE!! DIIIIIE YOU HILLBILLY HEATHEN!!!
You phony “handicapped” fucks! I Hope you turn into Christopher Reeve!
YOU DISGRUNTLED FUCK. Take Your Red Worm And Shove It Up Your Ass.
I’m thinking of randomly blowing some shit up…
Also, the word ‘Fuck’ or a derivative is used in about 10% of pit thread titles. This also offends me.
Perfect. You assholes always gotta reduce everything to the absurd in your effort to subvert authority.
Just show a little decorum, goddamnit. If you guys really wanna be treated like fucking children, that can be arranged.
Otto:
“[Lt Ripley]Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?[/Lt Ripley]” is a quote, and does not read as a serious flame to me. It is not terribly charming, but it’s not like saying “you’re an idiot”. I would like it if GD posters did not feel the need to make casual less-than-flattering references to fellow poster’s intelligence levels. I would also like a pony.
That less-than-flattering remark, however, was a paragon of subtlety compared to your post:
“So what you’re really looking for here is permission to continue being an ill-mannered lout in the use of a term which, were it any other minority’s preferred term, would in all likelihood not even raise this question. Thing is, you don’t need anyone’s permission to be a jackass, just so long as you understand that avidly defending your right to be insulting to gay people does indeed make you a tremendous jackass.”
When I chastised you for direct and unambigious namecalling, which has always been against the rules in GD, you responded with:
"Fine. I’ll rephrase.
If one uses the word “gay” to mean “stupid” all the while knowing that there are people who find the usage offensive, then in my opinion one is an ill-mannered lout. If one seeks to justify this by demanding studies and surveys of the number of people so offended, in my opinion one is seeking permission to continue acting like an ill-mannered lout. And finally, if one wishes to act like a jackass, one needs no permission from me, with the understanding that if one continues to use offensive speech in full knowledge of its offensiveness, in my opinion one is a tremendous jackass.
No resemblance to any person, living or dead, is intended or to be inferred. Any resemblance is purely coincidental.
Funny how indirectly calling people “stupid” is all right but indirectly calling them “jackass” isn’t."
In other words: I really really want to insult erislover, and will be so obvious that a blind person could see it, but I’m going to see if I can find some loophole in GD rules (and throw in a little gratuitious whining about the rules in the wrong forum, while I’m at it).
I will not put up with bullshit like this. I can understand the occasional heated comment bursting out in the heat of an argument. But a poster who obviously is trying to find a way to directly insult people while staying just barely within the letter of the law is going to quickly get on my shit list. The rules of GD are meant to encourage civilized debate, not as a way to hone the finer points of Using Technicalities to Get Away With Flaming People.
Otto, I actually think you’re a decent guy, and I was glad to see you back. But rein in your temper while in GD and stop trying to sidestep the intent of the rules or I’m going to start cracking down hard. You’ve been around long enough and I’ve certainly warned you often enough that I think you understand what behavior is and is not encouraged in GD, but if you need further clarification you can always email me.
Sua
I’m sure this can’t actually be addressed to me, as there is no assertion anywhere in my post that my constitutional rights were violated. I’m well aware that the First Amendment does not apply to private entities. Censorship by a private entity is still censorship. It’s just not illegal censorship. I may not be a smug attorney but I am a smug paralegal. But thanks for your contribution.
Presenting a phony “quote” and pretending like it has some relevance to the point under discussion is indeed a technique that has been used for quite some time in debate. It’s a shitty tactic and hardly one that I’d call “honored” by time or anything reputable. I never denied that I posted a jesting threat to have people murdered for not watching Family Guy. Anyone who would take such a statement with any seriousness has more deeply-rooted problems than my psychology minor has prepared me to diagnose. I did not, however, threaten to leave these boards over this incident. What I said was that a similar situation from a year ago led me to leave the boards for a long while. I said it to express my disappointment that such problems continue. Perhaps you could convince a gullible jury that such a statement constitutes a “threat,” but I fervently hope that you never try to, say, get a TRO based on “threats” of such caliber as the judge will probably laugh your ass out of court.
Shayna
Let me try to explain this again. I see a thread whose title contains a humorous death threat (“Now…you will die”). I include a humorous death threat in the title of one of my threads. Yes, I do need in writing the reason that one is stricken and the other is not.
We now have that written explanation, so we’re free to move past that. Please try to keep up. The question is not “Why was my thread title changed?” The question is “Why was my thread title changed WHEN THIS ONE WAS NOT?”
Since my restatement was posted BEFORE any explanation from the mods, your question is irrelevant.
UB, thanks for the interesting quote from Ben Franklin. I certainly hope you take it to heart.
You know, this isn’t just about me. This is a question on the way this board is administered that just happens to involve my posts. The same question could have arisen just as easily regarding someone else’s posts. I can’t stop anyone from thinking that I think this is all about me. But anyone who thinks that is wrong.
In what way am I trying to subvert your authority, dickhead? You say that moderators will consider changing thread titles or post phrasing if informed of offense or potential offense.
I’m just informing you of my offense. Do with it what you will. I personally find the thread titles I referenced much more offensive than the one that was changed. I have a hillbilly uncle and I am now fearing for his life.
Gaudere: Thank you for the explanation as to the reasoning behind the decision. That’s all I wanted. And since I have what I wanted, I have no need to return to this thread. You all may feel free to flame to your heart’s content.
ooh! ooh! me! me! me!
Does this mean you’ll feed me? Wash me? give me money to go to college? WOOHOO!
Wait…does this mean I can’t drink beer and have to be in by midnight??? Aww, shucks [sub]kick[/sub]
Fish and complaining posters both smell after 3 days.
Ya know what? Go ahead. Feel offended about a thread edit. Nitpick the editing that was done in one completely insignificant thread to the point of absurdity.
Congratulate yourself on discovering an apparent inconsistency in a message board with eight forums, sixteen mods, 16000 members, and 1.3 million posts. Ask us to do more moderation work just to prove some point.
But don’t respond in jaw-dropping shock if the moderators you deal with seem “cranky” or “assholish”. And don’t be terribly surprised if moderator courtesy seems to be in short supply.
Hope your Family Guy thread wins the god damn Pulitzer one day, Otto. Because that’s perhaps the only way any of this exhuastive hair-splitting would be truly justified.