PDA

View Full Version : Quick to move posts, but not remove spam?



Drackore
11-05-2014, 03:03 PM
Wow - so now we're allowing spam posts advertising crap???

LovedtoFly
11-05-2014, 03:21 PM
Exactly, what up with all the junk from GearScout??

Measure Man
11-05-2014, 03:52 PM
From what I'm getting...GearScout is a Gannett approved and endorsed spammer. It's above the mods' heads.

SomeRandomGuy
11-05-2014, 03:58 PM
From what I'm getting...GearScout is a Gannett approved and endorsed spammer. It's above the mods' heads.

That makes more sense than what I came up with. I originally thought they allowed Tak to come back but instead of haikus he decided to keep us up to date on sweet deals he has found. He is retired and living in Minot. What else is there to do up there besides scout gear?

Mjölnir
11-05-2014, 04:31 PM
Wow - so now we're allowing spam posts advertising crap???

GearScout is an RSS feed from Military Times.

For an explanation of what an RSS feed is, go here (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS

TJMAC77SP
11-05-2014, 06:07 PM
GearScout is an RSS feed from Military Times.

For an explanation of what an RSS feed is, go here (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS

In the MTF RSS = SPAM

Mjölnir
11-05-2014, 06:12 PM
I said it earlier, and this is truly not meant to be dismissive; Gannett owns the forums & it definitely is their prerogative to syndicate articles etc. from other media they own to here if they want.

LogDog
11-05-2014, 06:54 PM
Exactly, what up with all the junk from GearScout??
The junk is from The Military Times advertising it's goods for sale. I sent a complaint to the moderators and their response was "GearScout is a Gannett RSS Feed." I checked the FAQ of this board and I saw nothing preventing anyone from advertising on this board. I'd be curious if another company tried to put their goods on this board for sell would the moderators deleted it? If they did wouldn't they be hypocrites?

Measure Man
11-05-2014, 07:01 PM
The junk is from The Military Times advertising it's goods for sale. I sent a complaint to the moderators and their response was "GearScout is a Gannett RSS Feed." I checked the FAQ of this board and I saw nothing preventing anyone from advertising on this board. I'd be curious if another company tried to put their goods on this board for sell would the moderators deleted it? If they did wouldn't they be hypocrites?

Hypocrites? No.

Mjölnir
11-05-2014, 07:20 PM
The junk is from The Military Times advertising it's goods for sale. I sent a complaint to the moderators and their response was "GearScout is a Gannett RSS Feed." I checked the FAQ of this board and I saw nothing preventing anyone from advertising on this board. I'd be curious if another company tried to put their goods on this board for sell would the moderators deleted it? If they did wouldn't they be hypocrites?

From the Community Guidelines:

[QUOTE=CommunityEditor;315137]Advertising and solicitation
Posts that include advertising, solicitation or promotions may be removed. Members intent on spamming our communities may find their posting privileges revoked without additional warning.

Please note the use of may vice shall.

LogDog
11-05-2014, 07:28 PM
From the Community Guidelines:

[QUOTE=CommunityEditor;315137]Advertising and solicitation
Posts that include advertising, solicitation or promotions may be removed. Members intent on spamming our communities may find their posting privileges revoked without additional warning.

Please note the use of may vice shall.
Thanks for finding the reference. It will be interesting it they ban others for doing the same thing they're doing. I doubt it but as the Golden Rule states, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

CYBERFX1024
11-05-2014, 08:55 PM
I said it earlier, and this is truly not meant to be dismissive; Gannett owns the forums & it definitely is their prerogative to syndicate articles etc. from other media they own to here if they want.

So why doesn't Gannett do away with the forums? I say that because next to nobody comes here anymore since y'all Mods drew them away. My thinking would be to bring more people to the site and THEN advertise. Instead you drew people away from the forums and then want to advertise to a much smaller group of people. It literally is like the same 10-15 people that comment and that is it. No one else comments or hardly even looks at the other threads.

AFKILO7
11-06-2014, 12:36 AM
So why doesn't Gannett do away with the forums? I say that because next to nobody comes here anymore since y'all Mods drew them away. My thinking would be to bring more people to the site and THEN advertise. Instead you drew people away from the forums and then want to advertise to a much smaller group of people. It literally is like the same 10-15 people that comment and that is it. No one else comments or hardly even looks at the other threads.

I used to come to the forums every.single.day. Sometimes I would stop by multiple times...nowadays I hardly stop by. The Air Force forum was on point there were always discussions, before I rarely had the need or desire to even go to the other sections. Whoever the person(s) responsible for the systematic destruction of MTF should either be drug through a field of broken glass or promoted...dependent upon whether this wasn't or was the intentions of the HFMIC.

sandsjames
11-06-2014, 12:16 PM
So why doesn't Gannett do away with the forums? I say that because next to nobody comes here anymore since y'all Mods drew them away. My thinking would be to bring more people to the site and THEN advertise. Instead you drew people away from the forums and then want to advertise to a much smaller group of people. It literally is like the same 10-15 people that comment and that is it. No one else comments or hardly even looks at the other threads.

In defense of the Mods, they've been pretty hands off the last few months.

TJMAC77SP
11-06-2014, 01:50 PM
In defense of the Mods, they've been pretty hands off the last few months.

True, but then again there isn't much need for police in a cemetery.

Rusty Jones
11-06-2014, 03:23 PM
So why doesn't Gannett do away with the forums? I say that because next to nobody comes here anymore since y'all Mods drew them away. My thinking would be to bring more people to the site and THEN advertise. Instead you drew people away from the forums and then want to advertise to a much smaller group of people. It literally is like the same 10-15 people that comment and that is it. No one else comments or hardly even looks at the other threads.

As much as I want to say that I miss the old days back when it was anarchy, there were two problems with it:

1. The Rep Wars. 'Nuff said.

2. If someone reported your post, you were GUARANTEED to be banned. They didn't even bother reading your post. Hell, the reporting/banning system was probably automated for all we know.

I don't think that the mods did anything wrong; some people just feel a certain away about authority.

Bourne
11-06-2014, 04:02 PM
I will take it down if the majority of users feel it is not a benefit.

We honestly felt that the content would be of interest. But if it is not, we'll remove it.

Please comment here and let me know.

efmbman
11-06-2014, 04:19 PM
I will take it down if the majority of users feel it is not a benefit.

We honestly felt that the content would be of interest. But if it is not, we'll remove it.

Please comment here and let me know.

If you are referring to the GearScout threads, yes - please take them down.

Bourne
11-06-2014, 06:38 PM
So, there are a total of several hundred views to the multitude of posts.

It would be a shame to completely blow them out, when there are a few interested individuals.

I'll find a way to reduce and consolidate so there is a place for updates, without cluttering your experience.

Fair?

Measure Man
11-06-2014, 06:41 PM
So, there are a total of several hundred views to the multitude of posts.

It would be a shame to completely blow them out, when there are a few interested individuals.

I'll find a way to reduce and consolidate so there is a place for updates, without cluttering your experience.

Fair?

Honestly, I don't think clutter is a problem here anymore.

I reported the posts because I thought someone was spamming the forum...but if that's not what this is, I don't have a big problem with it.

I don't have much interest in rail-somethings on the carbide-whatever, and I don't even really know what they are talking about...but I can ignore them easily.

Bourne
11-06-2014, 06:44 PM
OK. How is this. 1 item every 12 hours, which dies and goes away after 24 hours. It will sticky, so it's at the top, but knowing that it'll be easier to ignore that way too.

Cool?

Thanks all for the input, and sorry. We experiment with things here, and this one didn't go over as well as hoped.

EDIT:
Wow. I am going through and closing the older threads. I did not realize how bad this had gotten - Literally page 1 and 2 are completely just full of these. I am very sorry about that, this was not the anticipated nor desired outcome of the feed. Won't happen again.

TJMAC77SP
11-06-2014, 07:44 PM
As much as I want to say that I miss the old days back when it was anarchy, there were two problems with it:

1. The Rep Wars. 'Nuff said.

2. If someone reported your post, you were GUARANTEED to be banned. They didn't even bother reading your post. Hell, the reporting/banning system was probably automated for all we know.

I don't think that the mods did anything wrong; some people just feel a certain away about authority.

I suppose the mods and admin could reply themselves but I seriously doubt that the mere report of a post earned an automatic ban. It may make the ban pill a little easier to swallow but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

SomeRandomGuy
11-06-2014, 09:18 PM
Honestly, I don't think clutter is a problem here anymore.

I reported the posts because I thought someone was spamming the forum...but if that's not what this is, I don't have a big problem with it.

I don't have much interest in rail-somethings on the carbide-whatever, and I don't even really know what they are talking about...but I can ignore them easily.

I just did the same as many others. Put GearScout on your ignore list and then they don't show up in your activity stream. For all I care they can post 1000s of times per day I won't see any of them.

Rusty Jones
11-07-2014, 12:06 PM
I suppose the mods and admin could reply themselves but I seriously doubt that the mere report of a post earned an automatic ban. It may make the ban pill a little easier to swallow but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I'm not sure that the current mods can really give a concrete answer to that, unless they've asked the person behind the "Community Editor" account.

The times that I've been banned by the current user-moderators, I knew why and accepted it. And I think that's the case now with anyone who may have been banned by the current user-moderators. But... everyone had those same complaints back when it was just "Community Editor," i.e., report = ban.

Maybe it was automated, maybe it wasn't. Most likely, the person (or people) behind the Community Editor account were employees of Military Times or Gannett who have some other full time job; and lacked the time (or desire) to actually assess the situation before banning someone. I say this, because that's probably the reason why user-mods were selected in the first place.

TJMAC77SP
11-07-2014, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure that the current mods can really give a concrete answer to that, unless they've asked the person behind the "Community Editor" account.

The times that I've been banned by the current user-moderators, I knew why and accepted it. And I think that's the case now with anyone who may have been banned by the current user-moderators. But... everyone had those same complaints back when it was just "Community Editor," i.e., report = ban.

Maybe it was automated, maybe it wasn't. Most likely, the person (or people) behind the Community Editor account were employees of Military Times or Gannett who have some other full time job; and lacked the time (or desire) to actually assess the situation before banning someone. I say this, because that's probably the reason why user-mods were selected in the first place.

Prior to the current mods there was one admin. I doubt Gannett devotes a staff to managing the MTF so one admin sounds just about right. Given the back and forth I don't believe it was an automated function.

As I said, it may make the pill a bit harder to swallow and I can't say I agreed with a ban 100% of the time but when egos are stripped away there was usually a ToS violation at the root and not merely a reported post. I daresay if every poster who garners a reported post were banned the MTF would have looked like a ghost town long before this. You can deal with your past bans in any way that works for you. I suppose with multiple accounts you had more than some.

Mjölnir
11-07-2014, 03:15 PM
I suppose the mods and admin could reply themselves but I seriously doubt that the mere report of a post earned an automatic ban. It may make the ban pill a little easier to swallow but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I am not sure if prior to the current moderators that a reported post instantly resulted in a ban or not; that was before my time.



The times that I've been banned by the current user-moderators, I knew why and accepted it. And I think that's the case now with anyone who may have been banned by the current user-moderators.

The two current moderators do try to give a reason to the user if a warning, infraction or ban is issued. And yeah, as many temp ones as Rusty Jones has gotten -- he never sends a PM when he comes back talking about what an ass-hole I am or anything like that. Tks Rusty.


Most likely, the person (or people) behind the Community Editor account were employees of Military Times or Gannett who have some other full time job; and lacked the time (or desire) to actually assess the situation before banning someone. I say this, because that's probably the reason why user-mods were selected in the first place.

This is pretty much how I understand it as well. As a user, I have my opinions, I have never used my moderator account to push-back on anyone who has disagreed with my opinions from that account. I think about 3/4 of the MTF community knows who my user account is and would agree with that. I do like having the two separate accounts to distinguish between me stating my opinion, and my (very minor) role in moderating the forums.



Prior to the current mods there was one admin. I doubt Gannett devotes a staff to managing the MTF so one admin sounds just about right. Given the back and forth I don't believe it was an automated function.

Right now there is one Admin (@Bourne) and two Moderators (@Mjolnir & UncaRastus). The moderators are listed as "super-moderators" to give us more permissions on the boards than what a 'moderator' would have. Two mods is pretty good as, from time to time life comes up etc. The moderators pretty much arbitrate if there is a dispute that is disrupting the board, edit or delete a post, merge threads etc. We do not control the Terms of Service/ Community Guidelines nor the vBulletin software, nor the much-loved GearScout RSS feed; before knowing what GearScout actually was I banned it ... oppps.


As I said, it may make the pill a bit harder to swallow and I can't say I agreed with a ban 100% of the time but when egos are stripped away there was usually a ToS violation at the root and not merely a reported post. I daresay if every poster who garners a reported post were banned the MTF would have looked like a ghost town long before this. You can deal with your past bans in any way that works for you. I suppose with multiple accounts you had more than some.

As I have said before, 99.947326% (scientific to the end) of the time, I could care less what is said, as long as it is pseudo-civil. As Rusty pointed out elsewhere, there is a difference between "I disagree with you and here is why" and "I disagree with you and you must be of the ilk that likes to sleep with children as a result." I think overall users, the moderators and the admin have found a balance and as sandsjames said, we have done very little moderating in the last few months and the sky didn't fall in on us either.

Measure Man
11-07-2014, 03:26 PM
I think about 3/4 of the MTF community knows who my user account is

I don't...

giggawatt
11-07-2014, 03:58 PM
I haven't seen Shrike on here in a long time. I'm sure he's enjoying his retirement but I suspect him of being a mod.

TJMAC77SP
11-07-2014, 04:02 PM
I am not sure if prior to the current moderators that a reported post instantlyresulted in a ban or not; that was before my time.


Absent inside knowledge I don’t know either but it just doesn’t make sense.



As I have said before, 99.947326% (scientific to theend) of the time, I could care less what is said, as long as it ispseudo-civil. As Rusty pointed out elsewhere, there is a difference between"I disagree with you and here is why" and "I disagree with youand you must be of the ilk that likes to sleep with children as a result."I think overall users, the moderators and the admin have found a balance and as@sandsjames (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=8611)said, we have done very little moderating in the last few months and the skydidn't fall in on us either.

Did you mean this post………………http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8936-Disruptive-threads?p=348740&viewfull=1#post348740 (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8936-Disruptive-threads?p=348740&viewfull=1#post348740)
I agree that moderation has dropped off. Of course so has posting so I am not sure if we are looking at the true cause and effect formula.

TJMAC77SP
11-07-2014, 04:03 PM
I don't...

Neither do I.

sandsjames
11-07-2014, 04:44 PM
As I have said before, 99.947326% (scientific to the end) of the time, I could care less what is said, as long as it is pseudo-civil. As Rusty pointed out elsewhere, there is a difference between "I disagree with you and here is why" and "I disagree with you and you must be of the ilk that likes to sleep with children as a result." I think overall users, the moderators and the admin have found a balance and as sandsjames said, we have done very little moderating in the last few months and the sky didn't fall in on us either.

Couldn't care less...

Mjölnir
11-07-2014, 05:01 PM
Did you mean this post………………[/FONT][/COLOR]http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8936-Disruptive-threads?p=348740&viewfull=1#post348740 (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8936-Disruptive-threads?p=348740&viewfull=1#post348740)
I agree that moderation has dropped off. Of course so has posting so I am not sure if we are looking at the true cause and effect formula.

Yes, I think that:

1. The majority of people who overly disrupted the boards & conversations are no longer here (left on their own or did not modify their style of posting when the rules were once again reinforced) & were eventually banned = less moderation. Which has caused post count to drop.

2. And since total posts are down, less traffic overall = less to moderate.

I don't think there is a 100% cause / effect but it is what it is.

sandsjames
11-07-2014, 05:28 PM
Yes, I think that:

1. The majority of people who overly disrupted the boards & conversations are no longer here (left on their own or did not modify their style of posting when the rules were once again reinforced) & were eventually banned = less moderation. Which has caused post count to drop.

2. And since total posts are down, less traffic overall = less to moderate.

I don't think there is a 100% cause / effect but it is what it is.

More users = more topics. More topics = more conversations. More conversations = higher chance to have to moderate. This is true whether the topics and discussions were valid or not.

There is no doubt that the HME (heavy moderation era) annoyed people enough to leave or resulted in many "lifetime" (ridiculous) bans. There is no doubt that when there are fewer people then there are fewer threads. There is no doubt that when there are fewer threads, things are less interesting. There is no doubt that cause/effect is very clear.

Arguments can be made as to whether the results of the HME are good or bad, but that just depends on a persons reason for coming here. Usually, the one's who come here with actual military related questions and concerns are only here for a very short time until they either get their answer or get so annoyed with the shenanigans that they give up and leave.

That just leaves the rest of us, looking to kill some time and have conversations about controversial stuff while remain anonymous (as we can also have the same arguments on other social media sites but generally we don't want friends and family involved in that stuff).

I can verify that it's much easier to kill time when there are 15 threads a day to browse as compared to having, maybe, 3 threads a week.

Cause and effect? No doubt.

Mjölnir
11-07-2014, 05:53 PM
More users = more topics. More topics = more conversations. More conversations = higher chance to have to moderate. This is true whether the topics and discussions were valid or not.

There is no doubt that the HME (heavy moderation era) annoyed people enough to leave or resulted in many "lifetime" (ridiculous) bans. There is no doubt that when there are fewer people then there are fewer threads. There is no doubt that when there are fewer threads, things are less interesting. There is no doubt that cause/effect is very clear.

Arguments can be made as to whether the results of the HME are good or bad, but that just depends on a persons reason for coming here. Usually, the one's who come here with actual military related questions and concerns are only here for a very short time until they either get their answer or get so annoyed with the shenanigans that they give up and leave.

That just leaves the rest of us, looking to kill some time and have conversations about controversial stuff while remain anonymous (as we can also have the same arguments on other social media sites but generally we don't want friends and family involved in that stuff).

I can verify that it's much easier to kill time when there are 15 threads a day to browse as compared to having, maybe, 3 threads a week.

Cause and effect? No doubt.

It was never a desire to lifetime ban anyone. That said, when a user receives several warnings and says (sometimes indirectly, sometime flat out) that they have no intention of abiding by the rules they are leaving a mod little choice. The total number of lifetime bans is actually pretty low (when removing spammers or not IPs -- which is most of what we are doing now.)

You are 100% correct that there are many users who ask a few questions or make a few posts and leave; there are also those who pop in on occasion. Most of the discussions are not focused solely on the military, that is just the common denominator amongst most of the users. I would argue, users can and still have controversial discussions & debate here (the actual majority of topics now) but there are some left and right lateral limits on making things a personal argument, using derogatory language etc.
Rusty Jones wrote above that some people just have an issue with authority; I don't know if that applies here, but definately think that some peoe are not going to like moderators/moderation no matter what ... Just because, no matter what we do or don't do.

sandsjames
11-07-2014, 07:51 PM
Rusty Jones wrote above that some people just have an issue with authority; I don't know if that applies here, but definately think that some peoe are not going to like moderators/moderation no matter what ... Just because, no matter what we do or don't do.

Two things: 1) It's very true that some people have an issue with authority, or think those in certain positions are overstepping their bounds, and those people will never be able to function in a moderated forum. 2) I think the biggest issue, at the time, is it seemed like much of the "punishment" was being handed out unevenly...certain people were able to get away with a lot more stuff than other, etc.

You are right about what this forum has become. It's definitely not a military forum, as it was designed. It's now just a forum frequented by people with the military in common. To tell you the truth, I'm a little surprised that military times lets it continue to operate considering that I can count the number of military related threads in the last 6 months on two hands (though that happens when the one person who actually started threads about military related topics gets banned for life).