What's wrong with this picture, too?

[Barry]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part V)

 

>I was under the impression that Truth Teller is still among

>us, posting regularly, under a different handle.

 

I hope so.

 

Barry

[Doug69]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part V)

 

>>But it might well become the most interesting forum here --

>>and be a reason why more people would come.

>

>There is, it's called "Politics, Religion, and War

>Issues"...perhaps

>it should be renamed.

 

I don't believe it's accurate to say that the Politics forum has the type of free-for-all atmosphere that I believe BG is advocating be allowed to exist in at least one forum.

 

The Politics section is moderated at least as much, if not more so, than the other forums. As but one of many, many examples, I was engaged recently in a long (and probably mildly acrimonious) debate with Bucky over some issue (I forget which) and we wrote each other rather long posts detailing our positions and responding to each other's claims and in one of the rather lengthy and substnative posts I wrote to him, I inserted the word "bitch" into the middle of one of my sentences (something like: "no, sorry, bitch, you have that all backwards"). The entire post was deleted.

 

I'm not bringing that up to complain about it or get some affirmation that it was not the best deletion ever. It's in the past and I don't care about it. I'm only recounting it to make clear that, contrary to what you said or even may believe, there is substantial moderation in that forum as well. Using the word "bitch" to address someone you don't know and just walk up to on the street may be provocative, and even with someone you do know, it may not be the most eloquent use of the language, but in the middle of a vigorous political debate between adults who have communicated with each other regularly over the course of a year, it's, at worst, an innocuous and playful insult that -- especially in a political forum -- is hardly something that adults need to be protected from. There are lots of other examples like that.

 

Personally, I think BG's suggestion is excellent regarding creating a section or category here that is intended to allow free-form discussion that is largely unmoderated (with the exception, of course, of things that could subject the forum to legal jeopardy or things, such as disclosure of escort or client identities, that could harm someone in their life).

 

It seems such a section would yield many benefits:

 

(1) it would allow those who like more unmoderated discussion to know where to go to get it;

 

(2) it would allow those who dislike such discussions to more easily avoid them;

 

(3) it would enable HB to know whether a less moderated enviroment is actually more popular and attractive or less so (based on the numbers reading and participating in such a forum versus those reading/particiatping in the other forums);

 

(4) it would guarantee that nobody made the mistake of believing that HB was sponsoring or encouraging the statements made, since -- like all unmoderated forums hosted by, say, Yahoo, MSN, etc. -- it would be expressly clear that Management is merely providing the venue for communication but NOT monitoring or controlling the content;

 

(5) it is an experiment easily rescinded if it turns out to produce unexpected downsides, since it can be deleted with one swish of a Daddy finger; and,

 

(6) it would eliminate complaints and endless discussions about moderator activities, since anyone who dislikes excess moderator invervention would know where to go to post.

 

The only negative I see with it is that it could lead to a type of discussion ghetto where any posts even remotely controversial or passionate get relegated to it (the way the Politics forum is sometimes used now), but if only a small number of people go to that forum, it means only a small number of people want to read those types of discussions, and so there would really be no grounds for complaint if it becomes a ghost town. I think BG's idea is that the forum wouldn't just be for politics/religion/war, but for ALL topics - an unmoderated Lounge, in essence.

 

Anyway, with this rare open window (likely to be slammed shut shortly) of receptiveness to suggestions by the participants here, I wanted to say through that open window that I think this suggestion by BG, in particular, would go a long way towards erasing a lot of the long-standing disputes about how this forum should operate, and would relieve a lot of the frustration which BG, I think corectly, claims is leading to a lot of people no longer participating here (even if it's the case that the number of readers of this site, overall, continues to increase - any business, even ones that are prospering, strive to prosper more).

 

And, if - as everyone here always claims -- it's not only true that some people leave because they think the forum is too moderated, but also true that many people leave because they think it's too caustic and hostile, this will be a solution for both groups. It will reserve one part of the Board for the passionate unmoderated discussions, rendering the other parts of the Board more gentle and sweet.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part V)

 

>I was under the impression that Truth Teller is still among

>us, posting regularly, under a different handle.

 

So was I. And if so then good news even if disappointing that he felt he needed to return under a different screen name.

[BuckyXTC]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part V)

 

While I can only render my opinion on this, I think Doug's suggestion in support of Boston Guy's idea of an unmoderated forum is meritorious and worthy of consideration, at the very least on a trial basis. Hooboy added the fetish forum on a trial basis, making it very clear what would not be tolerated, (pedophilia), and while I haven't frequented that forum much, I'm not aware that there have been problems with it. Granted, it is moderated, but the plug can be pulled at any time. I would humbly suggest that Hooboy give this unmoderated forum idea a trial run for a month, and if at the end of that time, it creates more grief than it's worth, then pull the plug.

 

BuckyXTC (Doug's bitch)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

BG,

 

I have missed you. Your post contains much food for thought. I am glad to see that Daddy is dining at your restaurant which exhibits interesting fare -- a lot of it to my taste. Now that you have started this converstion, I thought I would throw some general tidbits into the mix.

 

It is true that the MC is a pale shadow of its former self. Some of this is attributable to the moderation environment. But I believe most of it is attributable to the posters. Those that participate and those than don’t. Some of the best discussions of the ‘distant past’ – many, I go so far to say – never descended in the base pissing contests that have marked the recent and near recent past. There were instances of rudeness and bitchiness for sure. I gave a few bitch slaps back then and took a few too. That comes with passionate discussion that is, by the way, what this board has been missing.

 

However, there are the few that seem to relish the insult and the slur over the discussion. These can be just as ‘stultifying’ as the blander moderated fare. They can also be quite entertaining and rise to the level of witty farce went confined to a pair of articulate individuals. I regularly skipped the contributions of certain posters and the responses to those posters because I had no desire for their bill of fare and even less desire for the oh-so-often predictable responses to it. The outraged responses only served to fan the outrageous comments, which is the name of the game for these purveyors of slur and slam.

 

I’m always a bit perplexed when I see those that are so outraged engaging the outrageous, giving energy and worse, longevity, to that which offends them so. With one caveat the best response to an outrageous slur is not moderation it is silence. It provides NO VEHICLE for any continued display of that which is deemed offensive. Yet the offended are quick to engage the offensive and prolong and extend that display which offends them. They ask for another serving of salt for their wound. Thus the outraged share the blame for the descent of the MC. The caveat is the rare instance when a remark is made that has the potential to put someone at risk. In this case the poster should be called on his post in no uncertain terms. In my tenure I can recall only two instances of this nature.

 

In my youth I hunted recreationally and spent many a weekend tromping through cow pastures between cypress hammocks in search of the wild turkey. Some if those pastures were mined with so many fresh cow patties that constant attention was necessary to avoid an unpleasant ‘squish’. For tromping I much preferred the less frequented cow pastures. As far as I am concerned when offensive comments substantially outweigh the substantive contributions of a poster he fails my cost/benefit analysis. I won’t miss him. Ethan is a good example although I do miss his positive side. He is a smart articulate guy with interesting opinions. However, he would jump off the deep end and respond to EVERY post to him or to others no matter how inane, it seemed just to make the statement that he backs away from no one. It was just too tedious and would eventually take on the overriding tone to his contributions and subsume the thread and spill over into other threads.

 

Moderation has contributed to the frustration as well. It can be arbitrary and heavy-handed at times. Deciding what is acceptable and what is not is a slippery slope. Not only do we have a half dozen unlike minds in the mix but also the perceptions vary day-to-day with the weather, the workload, and the frustrations and aggravations in play that day. Add to that that it is a thankless job that can never please everyone which multiplies the frustration and aggravation. The natural reaction to being the continuing subject of questioning, contempt, and abuse, is to develop a patina that may seem inflexible and unsympathetic to some. That is human nature. I don’t envy these volunteers their task. I appreciate that they are willing to undertake it.

 

Because we are dealing with a site with the entire raison d’être being the contribution of information for exchange, the moderation criteria should be the minimal set that meets the intended purpose of the site or forum as determined by the provider and that does not compromise the substantive contributions. The maxim "when in doubt do nothing" probably ought to be forsaken for the alternative "when convinced beyond any doubt then reconsider once again before acting". IMO there are instances when moderation is appropriate. Those instances do not include enforcing the casual day-to-day etiquette of Miss Manners. They do include the repeated egregious abusive behavior that has shot to hell the cost/benefit ratio. Codifying those instances is not so easy but I know them when I see them. The problem is that not everyone shares my vision.

 

A number of good suggestions have been made by Boston Guy and Daddy has taken them under consideration. I hope many are implemented. However, as with any neighborhood 'we inhabitants' have a primary responsibility for the attitude and the ambience. Occasionally habitual public nuisances have to be dealt with. If this offends some of the more interesting contributors and drives them to their Walden Pond ( and it has) that is unfortunate. They also make this community what it is or is not. If they choose to forego a minimal civil environment for the discussion of ideas because the rare individual that cannot exercise a modicum of self control is asked to leave then so be it. We all pay a price to live in a ‘community’. If they are unwilling or unable to see the benefits of that then both they and the community are the poorer for it. The same goes for the egregiously outraged that fan the fires of the outrageous.

 

... another opinionated view.

[woodlawn]

RE: What Just Happened

 

While this thread contains a number of interesting and thoughtful posts, in my view it boils down to this: BG has complained that the quality of the board is suffering due to over-moderation; Daddy has responded with a laundry list of the problems involved in running such a board, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the issue BG raised; BG has made a number of soothing remarks; Daddy has indicated that the potential for bringing the board back to what BG (and others of us) would like it to be is small to nil. So what was the point of the whole discussion? None, so far as I can see.

 

BG's position seems to be that the moderators should do their job differently; but if they are to be the same people operating in the same environment the chances of that happening clearly aren't great. Daddy's position seems to be that running this board is such a burden that no one should expect him and his colleagues to do anything more or anything different than they are currently doing, and since only a minority of participants are unhappy with the direction of the board what they say doesn't really matter -- which is pretty much the attitude BG complained about to begin with. People on both sides of the issue got to vent, and the status quo remains as it is.

 

Doug is the only poster who has come up with a concrete suggestion addressing the problem of over-moderation: create a forum without moderation. But that leaves the management no way to deal with issues like disclosure of identifying information or others that could cause legal problems for this site, so it doesn't seem entirely practical. The truly practical suggestion, that moderators simply leave posts alone unless they contain something that could cause a legal problem for the site, and that anyone who finds a post or a poster too offensive should simply ignore it or him, does not seem acceptable to the Emily Post crowd. Back to square one.

[Doug69]

RE: What Just Happened

 

>Doug is the only poster who has come up with a concrete

>suggestion addressing the problem of over-moderation: create

>a forum without moderation.

 

Actually, this was BG's idea. Having read it in his original post and thought about it, it seemed to me to be a very workable solution to a lot of the problems and disputes here, and one which (unlike your desire for moderation being confined to the bare minimum, which I share), was one that seemed potentially acceptable to HB. I (followed by my bitch, Bucky) just then advocated BG's proposal and elaborated on why it seemed to make sense.

 

But that leaves the management no

>way to deal with issues like disclosure of identifying

>information or others that could cause legal problems for this

>site, so it doesn't seem entirely practical.

 

I don't think this is true. In both BG's post and in mine, we both said that the only moderation that should happen in that section is deletion or editing of posts which subject the forum to legal problems or which disclose private and personal information about someone. Other than those narrowly and clearly defined grounds for moderation, anything goes.

 

Why is that unworkable?

[woodlawn]

RE: What Just Happened

 

>I don't think this is true. In both BG's post and in mine, we

>both said that the only moderation that should happen in that

>section is deletion or editing of posts which subject the

>forum to legal problems or which disclose private and personal

>information about someone. Other than those narrowly and

>clearly defined grounds for moderation, anything goes.

>

>Why is that unworkable?

 

It isn't unworkable. For some reason, I thought you meant no moderation at all.

 

If I understand you, you'd create a forum in which moderation is limited to legal issues only, and leave the rest of the forum for the heavy-handed approach that now prevails. I suspect the result of such a policy would be that all of the threads that last for more than five minutes, that is, the controversial ones, would migrate to the "moderation lite" area, while the rest of the board would be reserved for dreck like "What Kind of Pet Do You Have" and "411 on Brad from Los Angeles" and "What's the Best Lube." Do you agree?

[HooBoy]

Thank you TY, BG (and everyone else who is seeing the glass half full rather than running on empty.)

 

All of the suggestions that have been offered us the past few days are under serious consideration.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

The Other Side of the Tracks

 

> In both BG's post and in mine, we

>both said that the only moderation that should happen in that

>section is deletion or editing of posts which subject the

>forum to legal problems or which disclose private and personal

>information about someone. Other than those narrowly and

>clearly defined grounds for moderation, anything goes.

>

>Why is that unworkable?

>

 

No reason as far as I can see and I think it has merit. An AYOR No Holds Barred Fourm within the strictures above. The only down side I can see is that some may go there solely for the express purpose of throwing sand, not engaging in meaningful discussion. That is not a deal breaker because the forum explicity permits sand throwing. It just that in the extreme it represents a potential for the forum to fail in its goal of lively discussion. Even so, eveyone knows the rules and those that choose can play.

 

However, I don't know how well this will satisfy those seeking a more repremand-free environment. From some comments it seems that the Politics Forum is not heavily attended. If the new forum turns out to be lightly attended then it won't achieve the intended purpose of lively discussion among a group of critical mass. I am not making a prediction because I have no idea. It would be an interesting referendum on the issue.

 

It also won't address BG's concern about posts being moved between fora, the issue that prompted his two month vacation and his thoughtful return post. So moderation of the other fora is still an issue.

 

Maybe it is time that Hooville grows to incorporate the other side of the tracks.

[bigguyinpasadena]

I have remained silent on this till now.If a non moderated forum is created where all chaos is allowed without measure or censure-I am all for it.

I would not visit this forum and would ask that those wishing such a forum not visit any other forum.

Problem solved.

I think it is quite funny that the two biggest trolls on this board(currently at least)are the ones gunning for removal of "unfair"moderation!HAH!

I have,unlike the trolls,met face to face with many(close to 100)posters and lurkers from this site,and the one thing I have heard from them is their displeasure in the pissing contest and troll fest that have plagued this board.IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF "OVER MODERATION"It is because they were either unfairly flamed,or that they grew BORED with the constant quoting/long threads with no real point.Just to fill the time in the life of some BOQ's boring little life.I do not understand these trolls.They repeatedly say they do not care about what any one thinks of them-and yet will spend HOURS defending their "point"

ALL of the discussion grops/message centers I visit have moderators.All have rules of conduct/TOS's.To have a forum that does not would boil down to a "flamefest"that would be so coarse and vulgar that I would have no interest in visiting it.So if that is what these fellas want-let them have it.Just make sure that they cannot spoil the forums I,and many others,have grown to appriciate.

Just so the 2 trolls I mentioned wish to retort-fire away baby.I will not visit this thread again.

I think it is the height of rudeness to come into someones home(hooboys)and demand that the host should change their customs to fit the interlopers taste.

[Guest Norm De Plume]

RE: What Just Happened

 

Just a suggestion! Change the name of the Politics forum to "The Kitchen" give it a description of "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Kitchen. Alert-free zone!" and make Doug69 the moderator. }( It works for just a whole lot of reasons.

[woodlawn]

>I have remained silent on this till now.

 

Everyone was holding his breath waiting for you to comment.

 

>I have,unlike the trolls,met face to face with many(close to

>100)posters and lurkers from this site,and the one thing I

>have heard from them is their displeasure in the pissing

>contest and troll fest that have plagued this board.

 

I can just imagine. What did they have to say about the posts you created that were deleted by the moderators for violating the "flame" rule?

 

>I think it is the height of rudeness to come into someones

>home(hooboys)and demand that the host should change their

>customs to fit the interlopers taste.

 

Well, Boston Guy, now that it's been explained to you that you are guilty of "the height of rudeness" by starting a thread asking that our host change the way this message board is run, I hope you are truly ashamed of yourself, you interloper!

[Doug69]

God, I love this Board!!! The person who came here to say that he and all his friends are FERVERNT believers in the need for moderation in order to prevent FLAMES and PERSONAL ATTACKS said the following, in order to illustrate how bad personal attacks are:

 

>I think it is quite funny that the two biggest trolls on this

>board(currently at least)

 

>I have,unlike the trolls,

 

>their displeasure in the pissing

>contest and troll fest that have plagued this board.

 

>Just to fill the time

>in the life of some BOQ's boring little life.

 

>I do not

>understand these trolls.

 

>Just so the 2 trolls I mentioned wish to retort-fire away

>baby.I will not visit this thread again.

 

So, as you can see, BigGuy really wants moderation to prevent personal attacks because he hates personal attacks - almost as much as he hates the posters he attacks as "trolls" who have "boring little life (sic)." Compared to the things he said in the past which the moderators deleted, the name-calling here is sweetness and love.

 

I must confess - it actaully got me sort of aroused smelling his fear - how he came here and spittled up some insults, but was too scared to see what the response would be, and so vowed (falsely, I know) not to see the responses, because he's too scared to do so. Seeing his deep fear - watching him need to run away - is HOT! I never thought a post by BigGuy could get me aroused, but that did.

[Boston Guy]

>Well, Boston Guy, now that it's been explained to you that you

>are guilty of "the height of rudeness" by starting a thread

>asking that our host change the way this message board is run,

>I hope you are truly ashamed of yourself, you interloper!

>

 

:-)

 

I think perhaps that BGIP and I have different notions of what makes a home, not to mention what one should or shouldn't do on an Internet site that is some part of a (theoretically and hopefully) profitable venture.

 

I have always wished HB and M4M well and still do. Each in our own way, we take value from it and hopefully also give back a little.

 

BG,

The Interloper

[BewareofNick]

Yes, but the real question is: could you sit through an entire screening of Catwoman?