PDA

View Full Version : Thread Wars



Absinthe Anecdote
11-03-2013, 11:41 AM
Most of us lived through the infamous Rep Wars and now that the forums have transitioned in the Moderated era, it seems we are now in the midst of a new phenomena, the Thread Wars.

So far, the Thread Wars can be characterized as a petulant rebellion against oafish moderation.

To be fair, it could just as easily be characterized as an oafish rebellion against petulant moderation.

However, there is a question that both sides in this conflict need to ask themselves.

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase that question, but it has to do with personal preferences, biases, and the ability to adapt to a TOS being interpreted and enforced by quirky and fallible moderators.

In my humblest opinion, both sides need to chill the fuck out, but that isn't the point. My main point was to get on record as coining the term "Thread Wars" before anyone else.

Mjölnir
11-03-2013, 12:29 PM
You will get all credit for the term "Thread Wars". +1

As I see it, I don't think the forums are being moderated OR used perfectly. I think things are getting better, but there are some who want to stir things up and rehash the same old issues as well.

On moderation: Yes, we (me) have closed a thread when it shouldn't have been. At the same time, some threads have gone on for so long and deviated so far from the original intent that they get unfollow-able by users. Ideally, we would have many threads on different topics, but keeping to that topic closely. Threads that are shorter with more specific discussions are easy for people to engage with and stay current on. Long threads that shift from topic to topic are good, but they are extremely difficult for new members, or members not involved in that topic, to get involved with, to catch up, and be active.

On Users: Many say the forums of late have been all about the mods. I would tend to say there is a lot of conversation about the moderators, but that seems to be the only subject some people want to talk about. If you don't want there to be so much talk about the mods, then don't talk about them. At this point, I think it is pretty clear that the boards are now, and will be moderated so saying they shouldn't be is pretty senseless.

Some say there are no more 'fun' threads, I disagree but they are mostly in the "Off Duty" Forum. While I may not like the topic of some of them, I don't edit or moderate in them unless they violate the ToS / Guidelines. But again, the service Forums are for topics "related to or about ... those services." I say it many times and will say it again, have fun but let those who want to have a serious debate have it.

On the anti-moderation or anti-moderators threads, you don't see too much editing or deleting of those. But at some point 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. threads all complaining about the same issue is redundant.

As many know, if you have a question feel free to ask it. Many people PM any of the moderators. I do make an effort to always get answer, but since this is a part time (an unpaid) job it may take me a while to get you your answer.

RS6405
11-03-2013, 12:53 PM
Things get better then things get worse.

I think the problem is that some (not all) Mods have a personal opinion on certain issues/ things and act accordingly to said personal opinions. Which translates to certain mods have a personal agenda.

The forum has an uneven playing field between Mods and members. The only way to address the issue is to put it out in the open. Most of the members do not disagree on all of the Mods' actions. Often if the Mods' response matches the infraction there is not an objection. There have been comments, but they are more of the sideline opinions of what took place. Don't confuse sideline comments as to objections.

However, when the response does not match the infraction, or a Mod responds in a subjective and bias manner then everyone (the Mods and other members) should not complain when someone publicly objects. It is the only way members can address these issues.

RS6405
11-03-2013, 12:55 PM
Also, the new anti moderation threads pop up when the new problems re-occurs.

Mjölnir
11-03-2013, 12:59 PM
However, when the response does not match the infraction, or a Mod responds in a subjective and bias manner then everyone (the Mods and other members) should not complain when someone publicly objects. It is the only way members can address these issues.

I agree, but again sometimes the stronger response is a sum of several lesser infractions.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-03-2013, 01:08 PM
How to respond to a community revolt.

There are a lot of articles and content out there on the internet about forum moderation.

Check out this article and site, good stuff!

http://www.communityspark.com/responding-to-a-community-revolt/

RS6405
11-03-2013, 01:09 PM
But if there is no regulated response or guidelines then it is a subject response of those in power. Since (I believe) you are talking about Tak's banning, you first banned him for a week then changed it to forever based no new actions, just personal opinions.

Honestly the one banning I am most frustrated about is RC's. He got a month ban, when it could have been much less. Also I am not discussing certain facts that you and I both know about, which should have been taken in consideration yet was not.

Mjölnir
11-03-2013, 01:15 PM
Yes, Tak's ban was 'upgraded', at the same time though when he was allowed to return he was told that he would not be allowed any more infractions. He actually got 4 before he was banned.

For RC, yes his ban could have been for 1, 2, 3, 4 etc days. This is this 4th banning in 3 months, the last one was for 30 days and was 'downgraded' to 15 days. The circumstances with RC do not give him carte blanche to be disruptive or to start being vulgar / attack moderators in PMs.

Mjölnir
11-03-2013, 01:18 PM
How to respond to a community revolt.

There are a lot of articles and content out there on the internet about forum moderation.

Check out this article and site, good stuff!

http://www.communityspark.com/responding-to-a-community-revolt/

I will read that, thanks.

RS6405
11-03-2013, 01:20 PM
Yes, but the prior banning was before the Mods said (or implied) they would examine how they ban members. I had believed that a systematic approach would be applied to all members not just ones who are friends with vocal members or empowered mods.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-03-2013, 01:26 PM
But if there is no regulated response or guidelines then it is a subject response of those in power. Since (I believe) you are talking about Tak's banning, you first banned him for a week then changed it to forever based no new actions, just personal opinions.

Honestly the one banning I am most frustrated about is RC's. He got a month ban, when it could have been much less. Also I am not discussing certain facts that you and I both know about, which should have been taken in consideration yet was not.

First, I admit that I am biased against Tak and RC. Try as I might to set aside my dislike for those two members, I just can't understand your devotion to them.

Why are you such an ardent defender of those two guys? They constantly ran afoul of the rules, picked fights with people, and choreographed as shameless like/dislike campaign. Not to mention the creepy PMs they would send to people.

I realize I am viewing them from a different lens than you are, but can you explain why you back them up to such a degree?

Their behavior doesn't seem to deserve that kind of support, help me understand.

Mjölnir
11-03-2013, 01:35 PM
Yes, but the prior banning was before the Mods said (or implied) they would examine how they ban members. I had believed that a systematic approach would be applied to all members not just ones who are friends with vocal members or empowered mods.

You are assuming we didn't.

That said, Tak and RC both were 'repeat offenders' and recipients of several bannings and received more infractions than any other users. There were also many, and I mean MANY private messages and warnings.

A very important consideration would be "how many people did the actions of a small group of users who refused to follow the Guidelines run off?"

RS6405
11-03-2013, 01:41 PM
My devotion to my friends are simple.... When all the problems started they pointed out how there are different set of rules for certain members and how those in authority will respond to them. I took what they claimed and confirmed their statements. They tried to communicate directly with those in authority, but were rebuffed.

I do not defend all their actions, but I do defend the unfair situations. I also advocated about other members ( to the point of what I actually know or can confirm).

AA you have a talent to bait and demean people without crossing the clear personal attack threshold... Why do you do that?

sandsjames
11-03-2013, 01:44 PM
First, I admit that I am biased against Tak and RC. Try as I might to set aside my dislike for those two members, I just can't understand your devotion to them.

Why are you such an ardent defender of those two guys? They constantly ran afoul of the rules, picked fights with people, and choreographed as shameless like/dislike campaign. Not to mention the creepy PMs they would send to people.

I realize I am viewing them from a different lens than you are, but can you explain why you back them up to such a degree?

Their behavior doesn't seem to deserve that kind of support, help me understand.

Is what you, or I, or many other do any different? Sure, it may be much more subtle at times, but anyone with sense can see that the meaning of things we may say are no different than the things others have been banned for, except for different language being used. For instance, if I say to someone that they can kiss my behind, the meaning is the exact same as those who say "kiss my ass" yet, for some reason, in a group of adults, the latter is frowned upon like we are 7th graders.

I'm not defending anyone, just asking you the question of how many of your responses that are off topic and subtly inflammatory are any different than anyone else's? The answer is that it comes down to the discretion of the mods, and the mods (not all) have a tendency to not understand a lot of the sarcasm that is posted here. And I'd venture a guess that most of the "infractions" are in response to posts laced with nothing more than sarcasm.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-03-2013, 02:17 PM
My devotion to my friends are simple.... When all the problems started they pointed out how there are different set of rules for certain members and how those in authority will respond to them. I took what they claimed and confirmed their statements. They tried to communicate directly with those in authority, but were rebuffed.

I do not defend all their actions, but I do defend the unfair situations. I also advocated about other members ( to the point of what I actually know or can confirm).

AA you have a talent to bait and demean people without crossing the clear personal attack threshold... Why do you do that?

That was a sincere question and not intended as an attack.

It did put you on the spot and I'm sorry if it made you uncomfortable. However, you answered it honestly and now I understand. Thanks!


Is what you, or I, or many other do any different? Sure, it may be much more subtle at times, but anyone with sense can see that the meaning of things we may say are no different than the things others have been banned for, except for different language being used. For instance, if I say to someone that they can kiss my behind, the meaning is the exact same as those who say "kiss my ass" yet, for some reason, in a group of adults, the latter is frowned upon like we are 7th graders.

I'm not defending anyone, just asking you the question of how many of your responses that are off topic and subtly inflammatory are any different than anyone else's? The answer is that it comes down to the discretion of the mods, and the mods (not all) have a tendency to not understand a lot of the sarcasm that is posted here. And I'd venture a guess that most of the "infractions" are in response to posts laced with nothing more than sarcasm.


You raise some valid points and I will be the first to admit that I am almost always sarcastic, irreverent, and much of the time off-topic.

It would seem the dividing line is being subtle. I have put many bees under many bonnets in here, but apparently in a subtle manner.

The other factor might be the PM campaigns those guy waged. I have never done any of that crap.

In my opinion, Tak and RC attracted a lot of attention to themselves prior to the moderators arriving and then they were unable to adapt to the presence of the moderators.

I don't even see it as a matter of fairness, but I admit I don't like neither of them so my opinion on this question might be somewhat flawed.

Frankly, comparing my antics to Tak and RCs antics has been a useful psychological exercise.

I just might need to find a better way to waste my time as well.

RS6405
11-03-2013, 02:29 PM
AA, I know your question was sincere, which is why I gave an honest answer. I also threw in my question to you not because I thought you were being snide, but because of your sincerity. I've always wanted to ask you that since I have watched you use your "gift" to several members, (disruptive to quiet members).

AJBIGJ
11-04-2013, 04:48 AM
I will say this in your favor Mods, 2 times I have petitioned you on your actions and 2 for 2 times you have consistently displayed the capability of being reasonable in the matter I petitioned you for.

That being said, I have noticed that I can receive PM's from guests, but cannot respond to the PMs. I have also noticed a lot of posters suddenly getting the ban hammer for nothing apparent to the public. This does not signify anything necessarily, as I would never aspire to have visibility on what happens between a user and a PM with the mods.

That considered, more or less, this forum has essentially become a social network of a certain variety, it probably doesn't have the level of users that "Facebook" has but it may be worth considering putting a similar level of constraint on the patronage that such sites ascribe to.

So, in my mind, if you wish to censor sarcasm, that will keep your market demographic extremely limited. Military and sarcasm go hand-in-hand, and if my suspicions about the former identities of the newer "Mods" are correct, I don't imagine sarcasm is particularly novel to your paradigms either.

I would suggest considering loosening the reigns a bit. I know it is possible to disagree with an individual in here and still maintain relatively civil relationships in general. Very few posters in here can say I haven't criticized one of their posts. Yet, one of my greatest friends in this forum was also one of my greatest ideological rivals, yet their youth and apparent response of such caused them to disappear from the MTF radar. I would suggest allow a bit of "questionable" discourse, even a certain level of "trolling" to persist, as long as the individual, in the overall grand scheme of things, seems to offer positive contributions to the forum in general. I think the PM'ed "warnings" would and should continue, and even the temporary suspensions; but I would encourage a comprehensive appraisal of the poster and their individual intent.

I will say this, the biggest danger of any individual utilizing their own free speech to an adult audience is to reveal themselves as a buffoon. I think the MTF is a decidedly adult audience, for the most part, despite individual acts of immaturity. I would say this, you guys have modified a broken rep system to implement a simple "Likes, Dislikes, and Thanks" system, which I think is genius by the way! Why not use it? If you see a disproportionate amount of "Dislikes" to the "Likes and Thanks", that may be a good time to throw in some mod intervention and investigate the cause, if the cause is a clear and direct violation of the rules then drop the hammer or the sledge, whichever feels most appropriate. The problem here is, as a lot of the "violations of the TOS" seem to happen in the PM format, the rest of us remain here only to speculate the cause, which could go any which way...

Now I will discontinue this alcohol-fueled "voicing of concerns" and see what transpires, (and yes I'm aware these alcohol-fueled rants are becoming all-too-frequent!)

Mjölnir
11-04-2013, 10:20 AM
There are some really good points being made here.

In general (in my opinion) there IS too much conversation about the moderators and moderation. We (the Moderators) do contribute to that & so do the users. There is a pretty consistent cycle so far that illustrates where Mods and Users are contributing:

Thread starts
Thread progresses
Tread goes on a tangent
Thread either derails or people start attacking each other calling names etc. report(s) gets made
Moderator issues warning & in some cases closes thread because thread is severely off topic and conversation had run its course.
New thread started "why did you delete my thread & the moderators suck"

As far as staying on topic (from the Guidelines):

"What does it mean to be off-topic?
Some boards are for discussing current news and politics, while others are for chitchat. Posts that do not fall within the topic presented in the first post of the thread can disrupt discussions. (For example, a post about what cell phone plans are good if you deploy overseas is off-topic in a conversation about the Secretary of Defense resigning. True story, btw.) Please read the first post and other posts to get an idea of what the conversation is about before you post. Off-topic posts and their responses may be removed without notification."

We have a few reasons for trying to keep threads topical and for closing them when they stray.

1. Avoid fights
2. Ensure they are easy to read and follow

When we allow a single thread to continue for too long, off topic, situations like "Entitlements Much?" are bound to happen. Fights can crop up if people sway too far from a topic, or too deep into a topic. Other members have a hard time keeping track of threads that are 40 or 50 pages +.

What we are trying to accomplish:
Ideally, we would have many threads on different topics, but keeping to that topic closely. Threads that are shorter with more specific discussions are easy for people to engage with and stay current on. Long threads that shift from topic to topic are good, but they are extremely difficult for new members, or members not involved in that topic, to get involved with, to catch up, and be active.

For the most part, posts aren't removed, but there are requests to get back on topic. But the same thread over and over about how moderation sucks, moderators suck, "we don't like it so go away" is getting old. If you don't want the moderators involved, adhere to the guidelines. But, for some the thread "get's interesting" when it derails and people are attacking each other; for some this is not entertaining and causes people to become disinterested in the Forum altogether. The subjective part of this is "when has it become a significant distraction that it just get's turned off?" Sometimes judgement on that question is better than others. But, just because the thread or the Forums in general are not as "interesting" for a small group of users, if it is for a larger group then that is good.

Backing out of that, the enforcement of the guidelines has changed. Some people don't like it, some people have responded in a way that could be called sophomoric but that could be considered insulting sophomores because the behavior is more like a small child throwing a tantrum. Some users have been banned, and those come with warnings, sometimes several before users are actually banned. Some users have a history and their bannings are longer than others; those users made that bed and now must lie in it.

There is still room for "fun" content, but where that content goes has shifted to "Off Duty", the main 'service' forums are for topics about policy, procedures, practices etc. of those services. The Forums are the Military Times Forums, hence some effort is put into making the topics of conversation about the military. There is not an intent to make is solely about the military (Off Duty), but more of the military content in lieu of the "100 women I would like to have relations with"-type content. There are other Forums that have that kind of content that ironically don't have sections dedicated to the military either. Currently there are active topics on: Restaurants, On Base Food Services, Halloween (family stuff), possible censorship on Marine Corps bases and MCTimes, Equal Opportunity in the military, Urinalysis, and the A-10 thread went pretty well for a couple of days. When I see posts coming from 'long-time lurkers' to me that anecdotally hints that the tone of the Forums has shifted enough to get those people involved too. The data indicates that activity is up, post count is up, thread count is up, and new membership is up (even taking into account that new registration was suspended for some time.) Not everyone may like it, but it seems the silent majority does based on the activity.

I for one would like to break out of the above cycle as much as anyone, I don't like it, I don't find it entertaining or well spent effort. That said, when I joined MTF about 4 years ago, for a long time I was kind of shocked that so little seemed to be about the military. Yes, there has been a shift in enforcement and that is shifting content to be more military. But the constant griping about how things are now is akin to having a shoe store close and in the space a new furniture store opens, then someone coming into the store and bitching at the clerk that the furniture store doesn't sell shoes anymore. The site has plenty of content, and a fair variety. If you are not finding what you want on the MTF, then perhaps the MTF is not for you anymore.

TJMAC77SP
11-04-2013, 06:13 PM
There are some really good points being made here.

In general (in my opinion) there IS too much conversation about the moderators and moderation. We (the Moderators) do contribute to that & so do the users. There is a pretty consistent cycle so far that illustrates where Mods and Users are contributing:

....................

You HAVE to understand that no one is going to be either surprised nor take it too seriously that you, as a moderator, believe there is too much conversation about moderators and moderation.

kool-aid
11-04-2013, 09:34 PM
It does seem there is a lot of conversation about moderators and moderation, and it's getting old. If you don't like a restaurant because they changed recipes or management, quit going there. It's funny though that for a military forum, there seem to be more postings not related to military issues, like complaining about the mods, or who got banned, etc. I for one would like to see more discussing issues, not gossip and bologna.

TJMAC77SP
11-05-2013, 12:58 PM
It does seem there is a lot of conversation about moderators and moderation, and it's getting old. If you don't like a restaurant because they changed recipes or management, quit going there. It's funny though that for a military forum, there seem to be more postings not related to military issues, like complaining about the mods, or who got banned, etc. I for one would like to see more discussing issues, not gossip and bologna.

Why would questions about a change in an environment where everyone is affected be off limits and any other discussion is ok? Who is to say what is gossip and bologna (sic)? The MTF has ALWAYS had non military threads and postings. This ONE subject seems to have a lot of people jazzed (and not just the ones who oppose the moderation and the direction it has taken the MTF). Isn't such a significant event worth discussing?

Juggs
11-05-2013, 11:18 PM
First rule about moderated forums is don't talk about the moderators.

kool-aid
11-06-2013, 10:17 PM
I'm okay with the non-military threads, it's just that there seem to be many more of them than threads about the military.

BRUWIN
11-07-2013, 12:31 AM
It does seem there is a lot of conversation about moderators and moderation, and it's getting old. If you don't like a restaurant because they changed recipes or management, quit going there. It's funny though that for a military forum, there seem to be more postings not related to military issues, like complaining about the mods, or who got banned, etc. I for one would like to see more discussing issues, not gossip and bologna.

You need to stay out of this and let us big boys handle things with the moderators. Your way outta your league on this one.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 12:38 AM
I'm okay with the non-military threads, it's just that there seem to be many more of them than threads about the military.

It's because the forum generation (the greatest internet generation) has pretty much retired and are no longer that involved in military topics.

Today's younger generation still on active duty are all about snapchat and Skype...they don't have the attention span to read forum threads.

imnohero
11-07-2013, 12:45 AM
You need to stay out of this and let us big boys handle things with the moderators. Your way outta your league on this one.

I hope that was meant to be funny, because it was. "Big Boys"...LOL.

TJMAC77SP
11-07-2013, 01:50 AM
I see the hook about to be set.......................

BRUWIN
11-07-2013, 01:55 AM
I hope that was meant to be funny, because it was. "Big Boys"...LOL.

Not really. We had some idiots on this board just like we have them in the military. It was nice to have different people on these forums. Take PYB for instance. I was not a big fan and he tried to bait me constantly, but he was different. The guy drove a freakin armored car to work everyday....A FREAKIN ARMORED CAR! That in itself deserves him a place in this forum. His insights were fascinating at times....warped...but fascinating. That's why I liked the military as much as I did...people from all walks with very differing views and temperaments.

Now we got people getting banned left and right because they don't fit the mold of what the moderators are looking for. Just read some of these recent threads. I'm bored to freakin tears. Then you got Kool-Aid coming in here saying it's a good thing and we need to stick to military issues and all the rest is garbage. That garbage is how people are really thinking out in the military...only here they were able to say it out loud. It may sound like garbage but a lot of it was honest thinking on some people's part and it was nice to go to work knowing what people are probably really thinking despite them nodding their heads "yes" at you for an entire day, even if it is totally warped thinking. Some of it was sick...but temporary bans would have fixed that.

I know you guys think I am probably full of crap but a lot of what was said in these forums prepared me for work everyday. Before I retired I dealt with many personalities much the same as what I've run into here. There is no reason to hide them by banning them...they are still out there in the real military and everybody needs to learn to deal with them and try to all get on the same team. It was always a work in progress but the old forum actually helped that. Even the lurkers benefitted...and I know many. I feel like I'm watching AFN commercials whenever I come here now.

imnohero
11-07-2013, 02:21 AM
I didn't get what you got from kool-aid's post. I just thought he was commenting on the nonmilitary/military topic ratio. He did clarify after that he didn't mind the non-mil stuff.

The moderators stuff, I don't really care whether they are here or not, doesn't affect me one way or the other, it won't stop me from posting what I want to post or talk about what I want to talk about. From where I sit the people that have the most problem with them are the ones that can't manage to be marginally civil. I know, things have changed, we can't go around calling other posters "ass hats" and other vulgar insults. Is it really that hard to make a point without swearing and insults? <shrug> And to be honest, I'm with kool-aid on this... the mods aren't going anywhere, there no point in endless bitching about it. Every other board I post on is moderated, all of them way more strictly than this one. That's just how internet forums are, it seems to me.

BRUWIN
11-07-2013, 02:30 AM
I didn't get what you got from kool-aid's post. I just thought he was commenting on the nonmilitary/military topic ratio. He did clarify after that he didn't mind the non-mil stuff.

The moderators stuff, I don't really care whether they are here or not, doesn't affect me one way or the other, it won't stop me from posting what I want to post or talk about what I want to talk about. From where I sit the people that have the most problem with them are the ones that can't manage to be marginally civil. I know, things have changed, we can't go around calling other posters "ass hats" and other vulgar insults. Is it really that hard to make a point without swearing and insults? <shrug> And to be honest, I'm with kool-aid on this... the mods aren't going anywhere, there no point in endless bitching about it. Every other board I post on is moderated, all of them way more strictly than this one. That's just how internet forums are, it seems to me.

Whatever I say you won't agree with. They (moderators) have got inside your head and we've lost you now too. I was called an asshat here many times...it was kinda refreshing. It was nice to act like an asshat and be called out for it. I couldn't act like an asshat at work...even though many times I was thinking like one. Which is kinda the point I'm trying to make here.

Measure Man
11-07-2013, 02:58 AM
I feel like I'm watching AFN commercials whenever I come here now.

Don't shake your baby.

MitchellJD1969
11-07-2013, 05:03 AM
The forums definately have a different personality now, from the time I was active last, which was about a year and half ago. It's a lot tamer for sure, so I'm interested to see how this pans out.

giggawatt
11-07-2013, 06:59 AM
Don't shake your baby.

But, how else am I supposed to get him to stop crying?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-07-2013, 09:45 AM
But, how else am I supposed to get him to stop crying?

Give him a little smokeless tobacco and write him a general power of attorney.

giggawatt
11-07-2013, 12:32 PM
Give him a little smokeless tobacco and write him a general power of attorney.

But AFN frowns upon....wait a minute, I see what you did there.

Juggs
11-07-2013, 02:23 PM
It does seem there is a lot of conversation about moderators and moderation, and it's getting old. If you don't like a restaurant because they changed recipes or management, quit going there. It's funny though that for a military forum, there seem to be more postings not related to military issues, like complaining about the mods, or who got banned, etc. I for one would like to see more discussing issues, not gossip and bologna.

The go to an official forum and talk about those topics. Maybe just maybe some folks come here for the fun of it.

technomage1
11-10-2013, 04:54 AM
Just saw another thread was removed, the Korea one on the AF thread. I understand removing some posts for the racial slurs they were using, and maybe even one of mine since I used a "bad" word in it to describe the racist behavior, but the whole thread? Why? :dunno: It seems to me to be overkill. There was about a page or so of decent stuff before it got off track and then turned stupid. Seems kind of crappy to do that to the OP and the people who responded legitimately to the thread. That's just the kind of stuff I hate to see, when the innocent get caught in the kill, as it were.

Not trying to be an jerk here, but this does bother me & I really want to know, plus it seems contrary to the community guidelines of removing offensive messages. The whole thread was not offensive.

I'd PM this to the mods if I knew who to PM it to...perhaps there should be a general address for mods for such questions that could be handled (and perhaps should be handled) off the boards...or maybe a listing of which mods handle which boards to narrow down the field, so to speak. This would also probably help with the amount of public bickering about the moderation. Right now there is no other "grievance" process, as it were.

VCO
11-10-2013, 05:13 AM
Just saw another thread was removed, the Korea one on the AF thread. I understand removing some posts for the racial slurs they were using, and maybe even one of mine since I used a "bad" word in it to describe the racist behavior, but the whole thread? Why? :dunno: It seems to me to be overkill. There was about a page or so of decent stuff before it got off track and then turned stupid. Seems kind of crappy to do that to the OP and the people who responded legitimately to the thread. That's just the kind of stuff I hate to see, when the innocent get caught in the kill, as it were.

Not trying to be an jerk here, but this does bother me & I really want to know, plus it seems contrary to the community guidelines of removing offensive messages. The whole thread was not offensive.

I'd PM this to the mods if I knew who to PM it to...perhaps there should be a general address for mods for such questions that could be handled (and perhaps should be handled) off the boards...or maybe a listing of which mods handle which boards to narrow down the field, so to speak. This would also probably help with the amount of public bickering about the moderation. Right now there is no other "grievance" process, as it were.

Those racial slurs were just too much.

technomage1
11-10-2013, 05:18 AM
Those racial slurs were just too much.

I agree they were out of line, as any racial slur is. But to nuke the entire thread for a few posts? Delete the offending posts, not the whole thread.

VCO
11-10-2013, 05:22 AM
I agree they were out of line, as any racial slur is. But to nuke the entire thread for a few posts? Delete the offending posts, not the whole thread.

I don't think any of it should have been "nuked." People disagree on a ton of stuff. Disagreement actually can lead to enlightenment in some form or another. If not, it is still pretty harmless.

These moderators have destroyed this forum.

technomage1
11-10-2013, 06:05 AM
I don't think any of it should have been "nuked." People disagree on a ton of stuff. Disagreement actually can lead to enlightenment in some form or another. If not, it is still pretty harmless.

These moderators have destroyed this forum.

I was fine with no moderation. But if you have guidelines, use them fairly and consistently. You want to delete a post for a racial slur or a cuss word, fine. But not the whole thread. That's really unfair to posters who did follow the rules.

I also had them refuse to delete or modify a post that gave enough information on someone to ID their name with a 2 second, first try, first result google search. It was the only post I've ever reported, save from the days of when advertisers used to post. If its one thing I am ultra picky about it, it's the anonymity of the forums. Everyone knows some chains will monitor and seek out and destroy for comments on boards like these (and if you don't know, they will).

Things aren't consistent and there is no grievance process, are my main two beefs.

Juggs
11-11-2013, 07:03 PM
I don't think any of it should have been "nuked." People disagree on a ton of stuff. Disagreement actually can lead to enlightenment in some form or another. If not, it is still pretty harmless.

These moderators have destroyed this forum.


It's in line with the military mind set. Group punishment because of a few.