PDA

View Full Version : Moderation on moderation



RS6405
08-19-2013, 10:53 AM
It appears that far too many threads are being closed/ locked.

I understand shutting down the threads that that have caused heated debates. However, a heated debate has not happen in months. I wonder if the recent moderation has caused a chilling effect that is de facto censorship?

Another thing that is explicit censorship is shutting down threads that make the mods uncomfortable, I.E. Otis's thread about Tak. Granted you may not like the topic, but the discussions on that thread and on others were civil.

Yes Garrett is a private company, but that private business is based on journalism and the military. Two notions that invoke freedom of speech: one that protects it and one that relies on it.

So I challenge the mods to avoid the censorship ..... De facto and explicit!

Greg
08-19-2013, 11:00 AM
I'm with her, I detest censorship.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2013, 11:14 AM
I am wondering why heated debates are even considered for censorship. I have seen a lot of trolls come and go on this forum. Until recently not one left due to any act by any moderator or admin. They finally go tired of being called on their constant and inane bullshit.

I am with Greg on this topic. Censorship above all else is to be disdained. Eliminating personal attack is fine.....until you lose track of what is and is not a personal attack and eliminate valid ideas along the way. The fact that we can't dicsuss the moderation efforts is a perfect case in point.

“Free societies...are societies in motion, and with motion comes tension, dissent, friction. Free people strike sparks, and those sparks are the best evidence of freedom's existence.”

Mjölnir
08-19-2013, 12:41 PM
I have only edited a few posts that had personal attacks.

I know a few threads were closed by one moderator or another, I have said to someone recently that we are still in the process of figuring out thread moderation.

EDIT: I have moved quite a few that were not in the right thread based on the subject matter. EDIT

Personally, I like the heated/spirited debate. I would offer that just because you disagree however, you don't have to be disagreeable. I once had a pretty good back and forth with someone on a forum. We totally disagreed, but never attacked each other.

I have been in the military way to long to get offended by almost anything someone may say, someone is much more likely to violate the community guidelines before offending me.

Robert F. Dorr
08-19-2013, 03:23 PM
For a couple of years, this place had no moderation at all. It worked fairly well but things out of hand and some supervision was needed.

Now, this place has too much moderation but no one in charge who is known to participants. It is no longer functioning at all. There is no longer any useful debate going on.

In the past, the deal was that if something was of interest to people in the Air Force (i.e., an airman expressing an opinion about Trayvon Martin) it belonged on the Air Force forum. That worked perfectly and didn't need to be changed. But it's a minor point.

I joined in October 2011 with a very specific understanding with senior leadership at Gannett Government Media. The purpose was to enable me to inter-act with those who'd created threads about me. The latest version of that thread was shut down (but not deleted) because I expressed my opinion that forum participants are entitled to know the name of the Gannett Government Media employee who moderates these forums. I decided to leave the forums over this issue and have done so but cannot go away without expressing agreement with the very reasoned and sensible comments made by RS6405, above. The recent changes may have wrought some improvements (together with a significant drop in page view; no matter what the mods say, the numbers are there for everyone to see) but many users and former users believe they're entitled to a better understanding of what the rules are and who is enforcing them. I was invited to participate in these forums because they were in small part about me and because I bring a different point of view and have something to offer. It will be a loss for everyone if I have to stay away. I'm not "soliciting peoples' names" as charged in another post. I'm asking for one name. My purpose in posting my contact information is simply this: I want anyone who wishes to reach me to know how to do so. I've made many friends here and will gladly continue those friendships with those who want to.

Robert F. Dorr
3411 Valewood Drive
Oakton VA 22124
robert.f.dorr@cox.net
(703) 264-8950

Stalwart
08-19-2013, 04:22 PM
Now, this place has too much moderation but no one in charge who is known to participants.

I'm not "soliciting peoples' names" as charged in another post. I'm asking for one name.

You have their screen name though. I guess I also don't understand why you want (not need) to have their real name? What would that do for you that a screen name does not?


In the past, the deal was that if something was of interest to people in the Air Force (i.e., an airman expressing an opinion about Trayvon Martin) it belonged on the Air Force forum. That worked perfectly and didn't need to be changed. But it's a minor point.

I see your point, but think it also creates duplicative effort as opposed to if someone had an opinion about Trayvon Martin having to look in the In the News, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps forums (Coast Guard too I guess.)

Max Power
08-19-2013, 05:01 PM
It will be a loss for everyone if I have to stay away.

http://i.qkme.me/3q1xm1.jpg

imnohero
08-19-2013, 05:22 PM
For a couple of years, this place had no moderation at all. It worked fairly well but things out of hand and some supervision was needed.

"out of hand" is putting it mildly.


It is no longer functioning at all. There is no longer any useful debate going on.


Your opinion. Of course, you seem to think "useful debate" includes whether or not people use too many spaces after punctuation, so I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt.





I joined in October 2011 with a very specific understanding with senior leadership at Gannett Government Media.

Great, let's see the written agreement that exempts you from the terms of service, community guidelines, etc.


The purpose was to enable me to inter-act with those who'd created threads about me.


Your stated purpose was to bury a thread about your opinion columns that you didn't like. Oops, did you forget to delete those posts?


I decided to leave the forums over this issue

You keep saying that. "i do not think it means what you think it means"...




I was invited to participate in these forums because they were in small part about me and because I bring a different point of view and have something to offer.

You were invited? As I recall you just showed up. Everyone has a point of view and has something to offer, Bob. But most of those voices were being silenced by the "sith lord" gang, of which you are a member. So again, grains of salt.


My purpose in posting my contact information is...

...Self promotion. There, fixed it for you.

Seriously, Bob. Do you not realize that there are people here that watched during the whole thing? Feel free to spin a new reality however you want, but don't expect people to believe it.

Greg
08-19-2013, 05:58 PM
I could not care less if the moderators shared names, or brought personality to the board while overseeing the members. And if they did? I'm for that also.

There was quite a bit of butt hurt during the rep-wars, and it continued with the religious threads. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

Everything is cyclical.

sandsjames
08-19-2013, 09:49 PM
I don't care if they share names. I would like to know who their alts are...we all know they are using other names when conversing on normal topics while having an alt (not allowed) mod account.

RobotChicken
08-19-2013, 11:35 PM
It appears that far too many threads are being closed/ locked.

I understand shutting down the threads that that have caused heated debates. However, a heated debate has not happen in months. I wonder if the recent moderation has caused a chilling effect that is de facto censorship?

Another thing that is explicit censorship is shutting down threads that make the mods uncomfortable, I.E. Otis's thread about Tak. Granted you may not like the topic, but the discussions on that thread and on others were civil.

Yes Garrett is a private company, but that private business is based on journalism and the military. Two notions that invoke freedom of speech: one that protects it and one that relies on it.

So I challenge the mods to avoid the censorship ..... De facto and explicit!

:spy "That 'RS6405' sums it up!!"(I also wonder about their stance on NSA etc if they endorse it)

CJSmith
08-20-2013, 07:38 AM
I don't care if they share names. I would like to know who their alts are...we all know they are using other names when conversing on normal topics while having an alt (not allowed) mod account.

I wouldn't be surprised if they (mods) were all the same person. It's a clever way of passing blame to somebody else other than the admin. If they really wanted to keep moderation and personal character out, they should have gone with generic mod handles such as Mod1, Mod2, etc. the names they chose are lame and defeat the real reason for moderation. Having a handle that translates into "crusher" is contradictive to moderator. :2cents

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2013, 10:43 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if they (mods) were all the same person. It's a clever way of passing blame to somebody else other than the admin. If they really wanted to keep moderation and personal character out, they should have gone with generic mod handles such as Mod1, Mod2, etc. the names they chose are lame and defeat the real reason for moderation. Having a handle that translates into "crusher" is contradictive to moderator. :2cents

Give that man a prize !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RobotChicken
08-20-2013, 02:31 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if they (mods) were all the same person. It's a clever way of passing blame to somebody else other than the admin. If they really wanted to keep moderation and personal character out, they should have gone with generic mod handles such as Mod1, Mod2, etc. the names they chose are lame and defeat the real reason for moderation. Having a handle that translates into "crusher" is contradictive to moderator. :2cents

+1
prior user-mod thread 50/50 split vote stated mods would not ban, but it appears they now can
(and that's how a chicken crosses the road)

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2013, 03:07 PM
I was discussing the issue of the moderators sharing their names with one of my brothers from the Creepers and Stalkers Lodge and he felt that you should share more than just your names.

We were in the process of compiling a list of personal information when a fine PYT walked in front of our tree and distracted us. I forgot all about it until now.

Seriously, the reason someone wants a real name in here is because they think it will make the moderator more plyable for manipulation.

Mjölnir
08-20-2013, 04:07 PM
(I also wonder about their stance on NSA etc if they endorse it)

That would be a topic for a different thread. :)

Mjölnir
08-20-2013, 04:12 PM
I don't care about moderators one way or another.

:(

spirit_eyes
08-20-2013, 04:29 PM
Well let us see. We had some great discussion going on about military spouses. GONE. Had threads about off duty. GONE. Had a thread about breast cancer. Because someone got rude to a moderator, the thread I started was shut down. Moderators don't want a thread about women vets ( I complained, and got a huge amount of words that I would have sworn came from a political ???? because it really didn't say anything).
And since the moderators came, the boards can't be more boring. Seems like everyone is gone. No more good debates.
I don't know what to think.
Honestly, does anyone know of another forum I can go to, instead? Military.com ( believe it or not), is more boring than this place. And that's sad.

spirit_eyes
08-20-2013, 04:31 PM
P.s. I should care about Norse mythology why? I'm Native American. I can tell myths too.

RobotChicken
08-20-2013, 04:33 PM
That would be a topic for a different thread. :)

All prior NSA threads have been censored and moved. (Would place emoticon here, but have been warned for using them)

LovedtoFly
08-20-2013, 04:37 PM
I agree with the Majority. To much moderation. I used to enjoy getting on here and reading what is new every morning; enjoying the discussion and hearing everyones opinion on things (whether i agree with them or not). The last few weeks have been very disappointing; I sure hope something change...or i guess i too will be finding something else to entertain me for a little bit. It surely isnt here any more.

spirit_eyes
08-20-2013, 04:38 PM
Yea, the boards were wiped. And I mean wiped. Sure looked like someone sat down and deleted everything that offened THEM and THEM alone. And that is censorship. Do like the rest of do - if it ain't illegal, mind your own business.

RS6405
08-20-2013, 04:50 PM
(Would place emoticon here, but have been warned for using them)

Seriously?????


Sigh!!!

CYBERFX1024
08-20-2013, 04:53 PM
I used to enjoy coming on here and seeing the debates every morning when I come to work. But quite frankly there has been a rapid slow down of good debates since Joe left and the MODS took over.

imnohero
08-20-2013, 05:07 PM
I wouldn't call what Joe, PYB, and a few others did here, "good." It was more like watching Jerry Springer, or a train wreck, it's awful but somehow you just can't look away.

CYBERFX1024
08-20-2013, 05:12 PM
I wouldn't call what Joe, PYB, and a few others did here, "good." It was more like watching Jerry Springer, or a train wreck, it's awful but somehow you just can't look away.

I understand that and you corrected me. Thanks. But yes I couldn't look away and it was funny. Which helped out alot when I was doing contracting in Kandahar.

Rusty Jones
08-20-2013, 05:26 PM
Hey! We can't even say fuck anymore! What gives?

LovedtoFly
08-20-2013, 05:32 PM
It seems if someone doesnt like what others are saying they should just follow the procedures listed in the FAQ's of this site.

The Mods are always saying that someone didnt follow the guidlines, well either do the complainers; just ignore the people you dont want to hear from.

Dealing with Troublesome Users
Can I block posts, emails and messages from specific users?

If there are particular members that bother you and you do not want to see their posts or receive Private Messages and Emails from them, then you can add these members to your 'Ignore List'. There are several ways to do this:

Through your User Control Panel: User CP, Settings & Options, Edit Ignore List. Then, type their name into the empty text box and click 'Okay'.

RobotChicken
08-20-2013, 05:33 PM
I wouldn't call what Joe, PYB, and a few others did here, "good." It was more like watching Jerry Springer, or a train wreck, it's awful but somehow you just can't look away.

You were an active player in those threads (I see clearly through my rock candy)

Rusty Jones
08-20-2013, 05:44 PM
I wonder how some people even lasted a fucking day in the military, when they're offended by the word "fuck."

wildman
08-20-2013, 06:01 PM
Bring some stability and requirement to comply with the TOS and look how those who did not comply in the first place bitch, whine and moan. Freedom of speech itself has conformity aspects and does not allow one to say any damn thing they please. Some like to post words and topics just to make themselves noticed, what a pathetic bunch they must be.

Always,
Wildman

LovedtoFly
08-20-2013, 06:05 PM
I just did an ignore of Rusty Jones; that simple, problem solved. :cussing:

Rusty Jones
08-20-2013, 06:08 PM
One less [expletive deleted] I have to communicate with.

20+Years
08-20-2013, 06:08 PM
They deleted the spouses thread??? That was CLASSIC. :aargh4:

Rusty Jones
08-20-2013, 06:10 PM
By the way, I'm not changing a damn thing about how or what I post. If that means that I'll eventually feel the wrath of the "ban hammer" permanently, then I'll just ride out my time on MTF until that happens.

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2013, 06:23 PM
I wouldn't call what Joe, PYB, and a few others did here, "good." It was more like watching Jerry Springer, or a train wreck, it's awful but somehow you just can't look away.

Of course there was bad but it would seem the shotgun didn't work.

It would also seem that your opinion is not widely shared.

Rusty Jones
08-20-2013, 06:34 PM
Of course there was bad but it would seem the shotgun didn't work.

It would also seem that your opinion is not widely shared.

Concur.

We've all had our battles; we've all caused havock... we've all fucked shit up in this place, and we all came back for more! That's what I loved about MTF!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2013, 07:22 PM
I wonder how some people even lasted a fucking day in the military, when they're offended by the word "fuck."

Who is censoring your use of the word ****? I must be missing these heavy handed edits. I haven't felt inhibited in posting any content at all since the “Mod Squad” rolled into town.

The only thing that I’ve had to give up is taking pot shots at Tak and RC and frankly I don’t miss that much at all. When I feel the urge to pester someone, I just make a random comment about CE troops drinking too much.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2013, 07:23 PM
Wow! They are censoring the word ****.

Rusty Jones

Sorry dude, you were right!

imnohero
08-20-2013, 07:28 PM
It would also seem that your opinion is not widely shared.

Kind of hard to tell...continuing the analogy, lots of people watch Jerry Springer, but most of them don't want to be on the show. Can't really blame people for not wanting to engage in a conversation that will get the proverbial chair thrown at them, ya know?

At least for myself, I recognize that the "watch but don't comment" sort of forum is probably not a good thing in the long run. Things will settle down eventually into a new paradigm. Because I'm interested in these sorts of things, I've been watching the number of posters and number of posts per day over the last few weeks, pre and post moderators. The numbers say there hasn't really been much change in either. Average is about 12 posts per day, active posters is about the same. The last couple days have been unusually active, 30+ posts yesterday...and aiming for that today. I'm interested to see if the trend continues. Also, much harder to track without detailed notes is views per thread...however, I think it's telling the number of people that actually look at the forum every day when a post get NO comments but a couple hundred views in a few hours. (that is the easiest to see, since theres no confusion with multiple views generated by posters)

TSgt"M"
08-20-2013, 08:40 PM
My theory on life. Everything in moderation. Even too much sex can rub your parts raw. Oops, can we say sex. Apologies if someone else has said it already.

Bourne
08-21-2013, 01:19 AM
Not to be heavy-handed, but I am back now. I would like to consolidate this discussion into this one:

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1596639-Moderation-Nation&p=647921

TJMAC77SP
08-21-2013, 11:45 AM
Kind of hard to tell...continuing the analogy, lots of people watch Jerry Springer, but most of them don't want to be on the show. Can't really blame people for not wanting to engage in a conversation that will get the proverbial chair thrown at them, ya know?

At least for myself, I recognize that the "watch but don't comment" sort of forum is probably not a good thing in the long run. Things will settle down eventually into a new paradigm. Because I'm interested in these sorts of things, I've been watching the number of posters and number of posts per day over the last few weeks, pre and post moderators. The numbers say there hasn't really been much change in either. Average is about 12 posts per day, active posters is about the same. The last couple days have been unusually active, 30+ posts yesterday...and aiming for that today. I'm interested to see if the trend continues. Also, much harder to track without detailed notes is views per thread...however, I think it's telling the number of people that actually look at the forum every day when a post get NO comments but a couple hundred views in a few hours. (that is the easiest to see, since theres no confusion with multiple views generated by posters)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What is quite evident from actual posting is that the moderation is neither working nor popular. My assumption based on your posts is that it is (on both counts). Hence my statement that your opinion is not widely shared.

Evidently the admin recognized this as well. I applaud the changes announced. Seems reasonable across the board.

(EDIT: Admin, I apologize, didn't see your post until after I posted. Perhaps we will no longer need a discussion on moderation....)

imnohero
08-21-2013, 01:11 PM
What's clear is that you don't think it works or is popular. There are 5 or 6 vocal people that agree with you, 5 or 6 people are glad to have it, the other 1000 people a day that post and view the board don't seem to care either way, since they don't say anything about it at all.

FA apparently agrees that some changes need to be made, that's OK with me, as long as we don't go back to what it as like before.

Rusty Jones
08-21-2013, 01:16 PM
This post was reported: Some profanity is OK. Directed at a person is not OK.

Some PUSSY reported my post. And, by the way, "pussy" is not considered profanity the way I used it. "Pussy" is only profanity when used to refer to a vagina.

The word "pussy" the way it was used here doesn't not come from that "pussy" in reference to a vagina. It is short for "pusilanimous." That's where "pussy," in this context, comes from.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-21-2013, 01:27 PM
Some PUSSY reported my post. And, by the way, "pussy" is not considered profanity the way I used it. "Pussy" is only profanity when used to refer to a vagina.

The word "pussy" the way it was used here doesn't not come from that "pussy" in reference to a vagina. It is short for "pusilanimous." That's where "pussy," in this context, comes from.

Check out the big brain on Rusty!

pusilanimous: : lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity
synonyms See Synonym Discussion at cowardly

TJMAC77SP
08-21-2013, 01:57 PM
What's clear is that you don't think it works or is popular. There are 5 or 6 vocal people that agree with you, 5 or 6 people are glad to have it, the other 1000 people a day that post and view the board don't seem to care either way, since they don't say anything about it at all.

FA apparently agrees that some changes need to be made, that's OK with me, as long as we don't go back to what it as like before.

As I said, I based my assumptions on actual posts you based your assumption on viewers. So be it.

It isn't whether or not something needed to be done. No one argues that. The argument is the path and measures taken to correct and the degree to which this changed the MTF.

imnohero
08-21-2013, 03:51 PM
As I said, I based my assumptions on actual posts you based your assumption on viewers. So be it.



Your assumption that I have an assumption is presumptuous.

TJMAC77SP
08-21-2013, 03:57 PM
Your assumption that I have an assumption is presumptuous.

Well, I thought it better than saying that you had reached a conclusion based on faulty logic relying on irrelevant statistics. I was being kinder and gentler

imnohero
08-21-2013, 03:59 PM
I see. Just FYI, I have neither an assumption nor a conclusion, I have a hypothesis.

20+Years
08-21-2013, 04:13 PM
And I have a penis to share with multiple women. My wife however, moderated me.

Pullinteeth
08-21-2013, 05:04 PM
All prior NSA threads have been censored and moved. (Would place emoticon here, but have been warned for using them)

REALLY???


Concur.

We've all had our battles; we've all caused havock... we've all fucked shit up in this place, and we all came back for more! That's what I loved about MTF!

Amen... I have had EPIC "battles" with you, Joe, and dozens of others... Occassionally, I have crossed the line but have never been banned, have only gotten one warning, and honestly bear no grudges. I have ALSO agreed with almost everyone on these forums at one point in time (even PT God). With the way the "moderation" is going, I am just not sure I have any interest in posting or reading posts anymore. A bunch of nodding heads doesn't really make for a great or even GOOD conversation.

TJMAC77SP
08-21-2013, 05:25 PM
I see. Just FYI, I have neither an assumption nor a conclusion, I have a hypothesis.

Thesaursus.com (http://thesaurus.com/browse/hypothesis)- Hypothesis.........first synonym listed........assumption.

TJMAC77SP
08-21-2013, 05:51 PM
Only because they are listed alphabetically, mind you.

It's not really that great a synonym.

You mean it's first only because they are listed alphabetically...true.....didn't mean to insinuate a relative degree of weight.

How is not ‘that good of a synonym’? How do you judge the value of one over the other?

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis) definition of hypothesis – first definition (not alphabetical)…..” an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument”

TJMAC77SP
08-21-2013, 07:20 PM
Assumption implies an acceptance or belief of the idea.

Hypothesis is more of a question or starting point for further investigation.

I assume you meant that is your usage of the terms. I accept that.

Rusty Jones
08-21-2013, 07:53 PM
Usually when I take a short break from MTF, it's because I was in a thread that turned into a semantics debate. Like this one. Sometimes I think that this is a trolling tactic designed by one person to keep the other "busy."

RobotChicken
08-21-2013, 08:34 PM
REALLY???



Amen... I have had EPIC "battles" with you, Joe, and dozens of others... Occassionally, I have crossed the line but have never been banned, have only gotten one warning, and honestly bear no grudges. I have ALSO agreed with almost everyone on these forums at one point in time (even PT God). With the way the "moderation" is going, I am just not sure I have any interest in posting or reading posts anymore. A bunch of nodding heads doesn't really make for a great or even GOOD conversation.

DEAD MEN(RC) are to tell no tales using emoticons or speakith of anything Norwegian(OR ELSE!)

imnohero
08-21-2013, 08:56 PM
Hypothesis (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis): A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Specifically, statistical hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing


Assumption (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption): a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted


I repeat, I have a hypothesis. You can take for granted anything you like, it doesn't mean it's true.

TJMAC77SP
08-22-2013, 10:18 AM
Usually when I take a short break from MTF, it's because I was in a thread that turned into a semantics debate. Like this one. Sometimes I think that this is a trolling tactic designed by one person to keep the other "busy."

Or maybe there is no real subject to discuss.....and.................to have the last word.

TJMAC77SP
08-22-2013, 10:25 AM
Hypothesis (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis): A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Specifically, statistical hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing


Assumption (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption): a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted


I repeat, I have a hypothesis. You can take for granted anything you like, it doesn't mean it's true.

Irrelevant Wiki citation aside, didn't I already cover this? Cherry picking the other definitions will not change what is. On that point I will agree. Look at the second synonym listed in the definition you cited then click on it and tell us what it says.

Hypothysis = Assumption...........same-same


BTW: What was you original point. It seems to have been lost...........imagine that.

imnohero
08-22-2013, 12:35 PM
My original point was:
1) Someone stated that no "good debates" happen anymore
2) I said that I wouldn't call them "good" but more like Jerry Springer show

Then you ASSUMED from that comment, and started being intentional obtuse about word definitions. Like I said, think whatever you want, it doesn't make it true. It seems you see only what you want to see, or what agrees with your own bias. Or maybe you just want to have an argument with someone.

In any case, it seems you have decided that you know more about what I think than I do, and are unwilling to even consider something different. There's a word for that, since your so fond of dictionaries, go look it up...it should only take you 3 or 4 days.

imnohero
08-22-2013, 12:37 PM
Or maybe there is no real subject to discuss.....

this is correct, just a bunch of whining.

TJMAC77SP
08-22-2013, 02:03 PM
My original point was:
1) Someone stated that no "good debates" happen anymore

I had almost forgotten what your original point was. Imagine that. Can you point out what you consider a good debate since the beginning of ‘moderation?’


2) I said that I wouldn't call them "good" but more like Jerry Springer show

In some cases absolutely true but the same could be said of this thread now. Truth is when you attempt censorship of the bad you often stifle the good and there has always been good here. Posts add to the discussion, viewers do not.


Then you ASSUMED from that comment, and started being intentional obtuse about word definitions. Like I said, think whatever you want, it doesn't make it true. It seems you see only what you want to see, or what agrees with your own bias. Or maybe you just want to have an argument with someone.

In any case, it seems you have decided that you know more about what I think than I do, and are unwilling to even consider something different. There's a word for that, since your so fond of dictionaries, go look it up...it should only take you 3 or 4 days.

And now the not so subtle attack on my intellect. Very predictable. Actually my assumption (that you view the moderation in general a good thing and moreover a success) is based on several comments (excuse the lack of quotes, some from closed threads. There are many of those now).

"I wouldn't call what Joe, PYB, and a few others did here, "good." It was more like watching Jerry Springer, or a train wreck, it's awful but somehow you just can't look away."

“You mean you find it boring. I find it much more interesting having 100 people talking to each other every day, instead of 6 people with 20 accounts arguing with themselves,now THAT was boring. To each his own, I suppose.”

“Given that one or two people were posting 100+ times per day, maybe the "new posts" have gone down, I have no way to know for sure. From my perspective, I don't have to sift through 100 posts a day of nonsense, vulgarity, and personal attacks. In that regard, fewer posts is better.”

Skipping over the obviously arbitrary number of posters now and posts by ‘one of two people’ in the past I would agree that often the posts of the people you cited were inflammatory but not always and additionally we have seen what is very questionable bans and editing (albeit that has now ceased) which resulted in a much blander forum. If that was the goal, as I stated in another thread…mission accomplished.

I also pointed out that this evident opinion is not widely shared but instead of directly addressing that we got into a discussion of what you believe, what I think you believe …….distraction.

Hence my obtuseness.....guilty. I often do that when someone so blatantly paints themselves into a corner over some trivial detail and refuses to just own up to it. It is my way of handing them a shovel.
Have you now given up on the ludicrous argument that an assumption and hypothesis are fundamentally different?

imnohero
08-22-2013, 02:36 PM
Your opinion, and those to whom you quoted my responses, is that the forum is now boring/bland/whatever.

My opinion is that it's not, and I prefer the current state of affairs of the side show this forum had become. I didn't say it was "good", I said "better", or comment on moderation level or success, or censorship.

Then you went on to state/argue against what you ASSUMED to be my position, when it's not, and even when I tried to explain it to you, you went right ahead anyway. And you chose to purposely derail the conservation into nonsense. As you say, you do this often.

As to the "not so subtle...blah blah blah"...at least it mostly got you off the hypothesis = assumption foolishness, so it served it's purpose.

Would you care to go forward with a discussion about appropriate levels of moderation, or do you want to keep going with this foolishness?

RobotChicken
08-22-2013, 02:58 PM
:spy THESE forums getting better EVERYDAY!/can curseall day/SLAM people(RC) by NAME, can say AC again/HELL even Rel%$#n coming back!

TJMAC77SP
08-22-2013, 05:03 PM
Your opinion, and those to whom you quoted my responses, is that the forum is now boring/bland/whatever.

My opinion is that it's not, and I prefer the current state of affairs of the side show this forum had become. I didn't say it was "good", I said "better", or comment on moderation level or success, or censorship.

Then you went on to state/argue against what you ASSUMED to be my position, when it's not, and even when I tried to explain it to you, you went right ahead anyway. And you chose to purposely derail the conservation into nonsense. As you say, you do this often.

As to the "not so subtle...blah blah blah"...at least it mostly got you off the hypothesis = assumption foolishness, so it served it's purpose.

Would you care to go forward with a discussion about appropriate levels of moderation, or do you want to keep going with this foolishness?

So was I wrong in my assumption.................you believe the level of moderation when first applied was apprpriate AND popular? If not what part of my assumption was wrong.

And did you read my post.........your lame insult did no such thing. It was simply a lame insult, without merit btw.

This discussion was never about what would be appropriate levels of moderation but rather about the more specific topic off what the level HAS been here on the MTF (and its effects).

And........I guess that would be a "NO" to my question?

imnohero
08-22-2013, 05:59 PM
Right, more foolishness.

Go ahead, get in the last word, I'm done.

TJMAC77SP
08-23-2013, 04:03 AM
Right, more foolishness.

Go ahead, get in the last word, I'm done.

Ok, good to hear

So, was the moderation a success and popular?