Censorship and SB..how far are we going to take this???

[Kim]

It seems a bit odd to create a forum called "feedback" and have the owner publicly thanking everyone for their input and asking for more, to then have a Senior Mod posting dismissively that it's an issue that hardly anyone is concerned about - and an Adviser thanking him in agreement. I doubt if any thread is going to get more participants than this one, so if the numbers giving feedback here aren't high enough to count what's the point of any feedback thread?

It's always easy to claim the silent majority for your own point of view - no one can disprove it. This isn't about them though really, although I think that any reasonable person would have to conclude that there are many who might agree with the OP but don't post - as those of us that do seem to acquire the label "troublemaker".
A group of people are simply asking for an opt-in area where they can discuss what they want in the way that they want to. It's a MUCH larger group than it takes to start a normal "club", and it wouldn't have to bother anyone else as it would effectively be hidden. OK - it doesn't compare to the Iraq examples, but what does? If we all have to stay focused and serious and thinking about the situation in Iraq all the time, what the hell is anyone doing here in the first place.

This is where people come to relax and sometimes learn. As they are often being told that this is "their" board some are providing the very feedback we were all asked to give. It seems odd to be dismissive and just label it a troll.

 

[Cave Diver]

Well this is pointless

Maybe we should go back to carolling?

 

[UnderSeaBumbleBee]

Maybe we should go back to carolling?

What happened to Pirate's post? That was one of the more interesting turns in this whole thread. And the POOOFFF!!! it was gone.

 

[Geoff_H]

A group of people are simply asking for an opt-in area where they can discuss what they want in the way that they want to. It's a MUCH larger group than it takes to start a normal "club", and it wouldn't have to bother anyone else as it would effectively be hidden. OK - it doesn't compare to the Iraq examples, but what does? If we all have to stay focused and serious and thinking about the situation in Iraq all the time, what the hell is anyone doing here in the first place.

One of the obvious problems about this group is that it will spill over onto the main board, like it or not.

When most people get told their long held views on religion, politics, abortion or dolphin slaughter they tend to get angry, upset and resentful. Some don't, but most do and this is an immutable fact of life. They will resent the person/people who disagree with them and this will frame the way they see future posts and respond to their - regardless of forum.

Given the visibility this thread has had (rarely off the front page of "New Posts" in the last week I would tend to draw similar conclusions to Doc Intrepid and think this is extremely unlikely to be an issue for the majority. The proof is in the pudding and SB is the biggest, most successful site around and it continues to attract new members and new posts at high rates.

However, I completely agree with you about the Iraq example - it was pretty trite to bring that up in my view, reductio ad absurdum and not really enhancing the discussion.

 

[HowardE]

It seems a bit odd to create a forum called "feedback" and have the owner publicly thanking everyone for their input and asking for more, to then have a Senior Mod posting dismissively that it's an issue that hardly anyone is concerned about - and an Adviser thanking him in agreement. I doubt if any thread is going to get more participants than this one, so if the numbers giving feedback here aren't high enough to count what's the point of any feedback thread?

Kim,

I can tell you that the feedback is making a difference.

I am sure you know that things don't change overnight here on SB though.

----------------------------------------

Keep that feedback coming... we all appreciate it.

 

[Kim]

One of the obvious problems about this group is that it will spill over onto the main board, like it or not.

Maybe....but also maybe not. Presuming that it's going to go wrong is a little like dealing premptively with children to keep them out of trouble. With kids you need to do it, but I'm not sure that is the right way to deal with adults.

BTW - from your example topic areas both religion and dolphin slaughter are perfectly acceptable on the board and have been discussed many times. Sometimes things have gone a little astray, but many times not. In any event I don't think that any of those discussions have left scars or done the board any harm. Certainly they have never caused more problems than such scuba related topics as spare air, split fins, or DIR. People can, and do, argue about many things. It seems a bit presumptious to suppose that they'll be less restrained or civil discussing one thing over another.

 

[Kim]

Kim,

I can tell you that the feedback is making a difference.

I am sure you know that things don't change overnight here on SB though.

----------------------------------------

Keep that feedback coming... we all appreciate it.

I'm glad to hear it.

You have to admit though - reading Doc's last post, and seeing Marvel's endorsement of it, one could be forgiven for thinking that this is actually going nowhere fast. Sure - they're probably only showing their own opinions, and that's fine, but it's also not hard to perceive how influential those opinions might be.....

 

[merxlin]

The way I see it, if we take all the personalities off the posts and just read the content, I think there is a commonality that is not so complicated.

Issue 1- Some of the membership would like a more open forum regarding language, topics, and expression of opinion. Other members do not feel the need is there, and object to that happening on the board the way it exists now. A solution is an opt in forum with a much lower moderation level, where language and topic is open, but personal attacks and possibly anything above a certain level of nudity will still be removed. This would take some getting used to, but as it would be optional, not an affront to those who choose not to join. Much like the movie rating systems, if people go to an R rated movie they should expect some violence, nudity and strong language. The concern of some members is that the permissive nature of the forum would spill into the main board. That should not be of concern since the rest of the board would continue to be moderated as it is now.

Issue 2- Some members feel that the moderation of the board is inconsistent. Whether the management agrees or disagrees really doesn't matter in that this IS the way these members feel, and something has created that feeling. They can address it or decide that it is not a big enough issue and ignore it.

The first issue is easy enough to try. If it gets out of control, shut it down. Sure there will be the expected backlash about how it was unfair and unnecessary, but it will still be the management's call.

The second issue is a harder one to tackle, and one that can only be handled by having all mods agree to a set of terms for themselves, and the forum members be privy to those terms (much like the TOS for members) so they know how things will be judged. Maybe threads and individual posts don't get pulled so quickly, but rather get locked to additional posts while the offending poster is notified about why there is an issue and then allowed to either self edit or have the post pulled. This would still allow the (up until then) good dialog/information to be seen. Maybe before a mod can pull/lock a thread or post it needs to be reviewed by another moderator (maybe that is done now, I don't know).

The issues really seem simple. What isn't simple are the individual disagreements and personality rubs. But that is between the individuals, not the problem of the board management. Don't expect them to side with you against another member. Ideally they should only address an offending issue (like pulling a thread with personal attacks in it); the offending member should be addressed individually, and hopefully discretely, and then only within the TOS. In return the members agree to play by the rules. The terms are the terms. You may not like them but you know what they are.

I know this may seem like a regurgitation of everything up to now, but after almost 500 posts, what's one more? Maybe it will help someone starting on the last page.

 

[Geoff_H]

. The concern of some members is that the permissive nature of the forum would spill into the main board. That should not be of concern since the rest of the board would continue to be moderated as it is now.

More work for the moderators, more marginal calls and more resentment from those who get moderated. I think we shoudl look for solutions that reduce the level of moderation required, not increase it (or shift it elsewhere)

 

[merxlin]

More work for the moderators,

I'm not sure how it is more work. The assumption is that there will be spill over. The other assumption could be that with a place to "be yourself" there would be less to moderate. Why do think cities put in skateboard parks? Because most (not all) of the boarders will use them and stay off the city park benches, stairways, etc. Sure some will still play outside the park, but in the vast majority of cities the boarders just wanted a place to skate (and not be hassled by the man). Inside the opt in forum, there will also be less to moderate because that is what it is designed for.

more marginal calls and more resentment from those who get moderated. I think we should look for solutions that reduce the level of moderation required, not increase it (or shift it elsewhere)

That is issue 2. Again, I think there are two issues here, and no common answer for them both. They need to be addressed as the individual concerns that they are. I think that many members would be happier (although maybe not completely satisfied) with more consistent moderation, and less of it, even if there was not an opt-in forum or a loosening of the language/content in the existing forums.