No need to move this thread

[letterboy]

Sooo... the automaton needs to be between the mod's ears... a less than perfect solution, but it appears we're stuck with it, at least for the time being.

Rick

au⋅tom⋅a⋅ton
  /ɔˈtɒməˌtɒn, -tn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [aw-tom-uh-ton, -tn] Show IPA
ËÏoun, plural -tons, -ta  /-tə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-tuh] Show IPA .
1. a mechanical figure or contrivance constructed to act as if by its own motive power; robot.
2. a person or animal that acts in a monotonous, routine manner, without active intelligence.
3. something capable of acting automatically or without an external motive force.

 

[ScubaSteve]

OK so now we have a scenario where one person called another an idiot and it gets reported but there are 6 other occurrances in the thread. Does one remove just ONE occurrance as reported or all? This brings us back to consitency. If it is black and white enough to make the call on in the first place, then all occrrances whoucl be that balck and white.

 

[gypsyjim]

OK so now we have a scenario where one person called another an idiot and it gets reported but there are 6 other occurrances in the thread. Does one remove just ONE occurrance as reported or all? This brings us back to consitency. If it is black and white enough to make the call on in the first place, then all occrrances whoucl be that balck and white.

Just a random thought, Steve. Maybe it is OK to call someone an idiot, if they are really not one, but if they really are one, then.......

 

[Cave Diver]

Sooo... the automaton needs to be between the mod's ears... a less than perfect solution,

Guess that depends on the ears.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Just a random thought, Steve. Maybe it is OK to call someone an idiot, if they are really not one, but if they really are one, then.......

Again, my main point with this thread was the fact that there is very little CONSISTENT enforcement of the TOS at times. This thread is not even to pick on any MODS that were involved in this incident....this is a bigger issue and extends accross "the board". Some MODS are very open to discussing it and open to siggestions, others....not so much. I understand that the MODS/Staffers have a very tough job because it is impossible to make 100,000+ users happy. I know that which is why I very rarely report posts. But, when something is brought to attention, then someone is concerned about it and it then becomes viewable as a "personal agenda item" (even if it is not) to only "correct" one person rather than all occurrances of the problem. IMO anyways.

 

[Diver0001]

But if I had my choice, I'd rather see the mods err on the side of leniency rather than be to strict about posts for fear things would become somewhat boring at times.

This is the reason we let a lot of comments like "there are so many idiots on this thread" slide. Most of the mods, and most importantly, the bossman, think that a little friction keeps it interesting. If we were to force people to be too polite then it may get boring, as you said. This issue actually came up recently because I modded something you-know-who said and I got whistled back for it for being too harsh.

The basic sort of underlying principle is that generalisations usually get through and direct attacks at one person generally get the axe. This is also the area where the most complications/nuances arise and the area where it's most important to use your judgement.... ie.... it probably won't come as a big surprise that this is the area where we are least consistent.

Another reason that some of it seems to slide is that we just don't see it. Most of the time we react to things happening in threads we're in or in threads taht get reported. Some threads and therefore come comments simply fall through the cracks.

R..

 

[Cave Diver]

This is the reason we let a lot of comments like "there are so many idiots on this thread" slide. Most of the mods, and most importantly, the bossman, think that a little friction keeps it interesting. If we were to force people to be too polite then it may get boring, as you said. This issue actually came up recently because I modded something you-know-who said and I got whistled back for it for being too harsh.

The basic sort of underlying principle is that generalisations usually get through and direct attacks at one person generally get the axe. This is also the area where the most complications/nuances arise and the area where it's most important to use your judgement.... ie.... it probably won't come as a big surprise that this is the area where we are least consistent.

I can live with this. Boring sucks!

Another reason that some of it seems to slide is that we just don't see it. Most of the time we react to things happening in threads we're in or in threads taht get reported. Some threads and therefore come comments simply fall through the cracks.

R..

Since some of us rarely (never) report posts, as our civic duty, anytime some of us see something spinning out of control, we'll be sure to make controversial posts that are sure to get reported, thus bringing the thread in question to the attention of the Mods. No thanks necessary, it's the least we can do to help.

 

[ScubaSteve]

SERIOUS POST ALERT

I agree that if you were to over moderate, then much of the board would lose it's attraction (or what I have called flavour). Pete is right that a bit of challenging makes the board a more interesting place. However, when a thread gets "scrubbed" to remove the name calling but only one person's posts are removed and the rest of the name calling remains, how does that look? Looks awfully selective to me. This is just an example because my posts were not deleted for name calling. My point is that selective moderation is just as bad as over moderation IMO.

 

[crd_kats]

SERIOUS POST ALERT

I agree that if you were to over moderate, then much of the board would lose it's attraction (or what I have called flavour). Pete is right that a bit of challenging makes the board a more interesting place. However, when a thread gets "scrubbed" to remove the name calling but only one person's posts are removed and the rest of the name calling remains, how does that look? Looks awfully selective to me. This is just an example because my posts were not deleted for name calling. My point is that selective moderation is just as bad as over moderation IMO.

Well said.

Where was his other one?

 

[Cave Diver]

SERIOUS POST ALERT

I agree that if you were to over moderate, then much of the board would lose it's attraction (or what I have called flavour). Pete is right that a bit of challenging makes the board a more interesting place. However, when a thread gets "scrubbed" to remove the name calling but only one person's posts are removed and the rest of the name calling remains, how does that look? Looks awfully selective to me. This is just an example because my posts were not deleted for name calling. My point is that selective moderation is just as bad as over moderation IMO.

It is a fine line and for the most part they do a good job at it. But it's kind of like everything else in the world today. Everyone is concerned about hearing something "offensive" that our right, actions and words are being legislated out of our control.

I remember growing up that my father had a drawer with a bunch of jokes he'd gotten from work written down on notebook paper. Today, those same jokes would run the risk of getting someone fired. Not because they are particularily offensive, but just because that a joke, by nature, pokes fun at someone/thing.

As Diver0001 suggested earlier, it's hard to hit a moving target and the line on what's offensive/not offensive is faster than a Lionfish on speed. Some people need to learn a bit more tolerance for others opinions and some people need to quit being such babies: so the other 95% of people can enjoy the debate.

I'm still trying to decide what percentage I fall into.