• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Moderation

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Just a question for longwatch, member moderator. I trust that you can answer this.


Sometimes, when people discuss subjects on OCDO, they will disagree. When this happens, usually, a person will state what his disagreement is. Then, usually, there will be a reply to that disagreement and the conversation/debate/discussion/argument will proceed until it's done.

But sometimes, it just would be good to end all that back-and-forth stuff and simply tell the other discussant to be quiet and cease writing his opinion. If the person "causing" the disagreement were only to be quiet and just stifle it, things would just be better... :)

One way to accomplish this quietness is to request or order an OCDO member to be quiet and cease writing his opinion. If the guy is named, George, one could say, "Please do not write your opinions anymore, George. I do not wish to read them."

Or one could say, "George, shut up!" That would send the same message in a different style.


Finally, with a distinct sense of immediacy or for some other reason, one OCDOer might say, "STFU, George."



What do you think, longwatch?

1. Is it OK for one OCDOer to post that another OCDOer should "shut up?"

2.Is it OK for one OCDOer to post here that another OCDOer should: "STFU?"


Ifboth of thesestatements are OK withyou, I (and probably others) want to start using them.But it's best to check first.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

On a more general note regarding moderation... I'm a bit disheartened that openryan's recently posted thread about Fred Thompson and abortion was locked. While a thread of "cool YouTube videos" is relevant to the purposes of this forum, it seems that a debate about the freedom a woman has over her body is somehow not even tangetally relevant to freedom. Hmpf.

I have the odd feeling that the response will be, "We, the moderators, can lock/delete any thread at any time for any reason and in a completely arbitrary or politically-motivated manner."


:uhoh:
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
On a more general note regarding moderation... I'm a bit disheartened that openryan's recently posted thread about Fred Thompson and abortion was locked. While a thread of "cool YouTube videos" is relevant to the purposes of this forum, it seems that a debate about the freedom a woman has over her body is somehow not even tangetally relevant to freedom. Hmpf.

I have the odd feeling that the response will be, "We, the moderators, can lock/delete any thread at any time for any reason and in a completely arbitrary or politically-motivated manner."


:uhoh:

See Rule 5....

I notice no one took responsibility for that lock. Lately, too, posts are deleted without any "deleted by" notation. So, it is uncertain as to who locked the thread. Longwatch? BobCav?

Who is John Galt?
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
On a more general note regarding moderation... I'm a bit disheartened that openryan's recently posted thread about Fred Thompson and abortion was locked. While a thread of "cool YouTube videos" is relevant to the purposes of this forum, it seems that a debate about the freedom a woman has over her body is somehow not even tangetally relevant to freedom. Hmpf.

I have the odd feeling that the response will be, "We, the moderators, can lock/delete any thread at any time for any reason and in a completely arbitrary or politically-motivated manner."


:uhoh:
Nothing I do is arbitrary, my motivation is to do what I think is best for the forum. I figured that thread had no chance of not producing flames, even the OP tghought so. However I've reopened it, I'll be happy to be wrong on that one.
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

longwatch wrote:
Well I've been doing the job for a week or so now and I just wanted to check how everyone thinks its working out. After all I work for you all.

I've been trying to do the task with a few guidelines in mind. Firstly the forum rules:

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]1) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry, freedom, liberty, firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate in some way to one of these topics.

2) Keep the profanity to a minimum. While an expletive may be the only way to convey the depth of anger / surprise or frustration you are trying to express, please do not use them gratuitously.

3) Links to spam/membership sites not related directly to firearms are NOT allowed under any circumstances!

4) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks based upon race, religion or sex.

5) We reserve the right to remove posting for any reason, at our sole discretion.

I would add that I have gone beyond the rules with personal attacks, basically trying to keep the flames away by clamping down on fighting words. As my signature line says 'we carry guns here act accordingly', if I saw armed people conversing in the way a few folks do around here I'd be worried about a gunfight breaking out. Since this is a very social forum with real life meetups letting that kind of trash talk go on is not a good thing.

This doesn't mean everyone has to agree with each other but we should be civil about it.

Anyhow if you all have question, concerns, or complaints this is the place for it.


[/font]


Bravo



I for one think you are doing a good Job.

When I have been moderated, I deserved it.



I will try and do better in the future



Tarzan
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

Bravo_Sierra wrote:
It's my personal opinion that HankT argues just for the sake or arguing.

That is true as it is for imperialism2024and openryan and, I am sad to say, me, and most of the rest of us that have been posting on this thread.

I can do nothing about you other guys, I have to work on me.



Tarzan
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Well I've been doing the job for a week or so now and I just wanted to check how everyone thinks its working out. After all I work for you all.
I appreciate that you are asking for feedback on the job you're doing. Before I launch into my 'constructive criticism,' let me say that I understand moderating is not an easy task. You'll never make 100% of the members here happy. I'm also pretty sure you're doing the work as a volunteer; a job I don't think I would do unpaid. Now, all the positive, fuzzy-warm thoughts out of the way...

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
1) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry, freedom, liberty, firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate in some way to one of these topics.
I have no problem with a desire to keep posts on topic. However, you have deleted at least one thread that was explicitly on topic: philosophy of 2A rights' limitations. (I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about, as we discussed this in another thread.) There was no call for deletion of that thread; we had a good, friendly debate going.

[/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
5) We reserve the right to remove posting for any reason, at our sole discretion.
The only legitimate purpose rule #5 servers is to explain that it is up to the moderators' discretion what violates the other rules. For example, if you and I disagree that the 2A philosphy thread was off topic, then you win. However, I don't think it was deleted for being off topic. 'Just because I can' doesn't sit well with me. Try not to abuse the power or you'll see people starting another forum where the moderators are more reasonable.
[/font][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][/font]

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
As my signature line says 'we carry guns here act accordingly', if I saw armed people conversing in the way a few folks do around here I'd be worried about a gunfight breaking out.
[/font]
I disagree with this method of moderating, especially on a forum where we have meetups. I would rather know up front who the assholes are BEFORE we meet up. Obviously, if someone is using excessive profanity or racial slurs, then just ban the account. If a thread turns into a flame war, it's off-topic and should be locked. Otherwise, I think we all have a right to know who the stupid people are.

Again, I appreciate what you're doing. I hope you don't take my criticism personally. I really think you have a lot of potential; but there is room for improvement.

Another case in point.

Longwatch, do what you gotta do and let the chips fall where they may.

Moderation can never be done by committee.



Tarzan
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
longwatch wrote:
I'm not sure which thread you are talking about, I've only deleted one that had some NSFW links on it.
The "Should people be allowed to have 'dirty bombs'?" one, I believe he is referring to.

I agree with CA_Libertarian's comments, and also would like to add that while you allege that you've only deleted one thread, it seems as though the padlock is underused and thread deletion is overused. If a thread is promoting illegal activity, or has kiddie porn embedded in it, contains spam, or something of the ilk, then by all means delete the thread. But if a thread is merely off-topic or inflammatory, then a padlock would suffice, leaving it open for reading in the future... it might even be very useful for posters to gauge what's acceptable and what's not. Don't get me wrong, longwatch, I have no way of telling who makes threads disappear so I'm not accusing you of doing it, but in my opinion, at least, locking threads on a forum like this should be much more common than complete deletion.



Now, if my account suddenly gets deleted, y'all know who to blame... :uhoh:;)

Another case in point.

Gee moderation is fine as long as it doesn't apply to me....

If I deserve it I should get it. I have and I have.



Tarzan
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

Tess wrote:
....Frankly, I wish the moderation were stronger. I'd like to see a warning issued when three or more posts to a thread start to become bickering, and the thread locked completely if it goes beyond that.

There are a half-dozen or so posters who can't let an argument drop, or at least bring it back to an OT sense.


Tess I resemble that remark

Seriously. I have got sucked into and even started more than one such argument.

I like Tess's suggestion and I would support stronger moderation.


It would be the best if we could moderate ourselves, BUT that hasn't been working and moderation is better than anarchy.



Tarzan
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

longwatch wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
On a more general note regarding moderation... I'm a bit disheartened that openryan's recently posted thread about Fred Thompson and abortion was locked. While a thread of "cool YouTube videos" is relevant to the purposes of this forum, it seems that a debate about the freedom a woman has over her body is somehow not even tangetally relevant to freedom. Hmpf.

I have the odd feeling that the response will be, "We, the moderators, can lock/delete any thread at any time for any reason and in a completely arbitrary or politically-motivated manner."


:uhoh:
Nothing I do is arbitrary, my motivation is to do what I think is best for the forum. I figured that thread had no chance of not producing flames, even the OP tghought so. However I've reopened it, I'll be happy to be wrong on that one.


Unfortunately, you don't always seem to do the best thing for the forum. You're a little quick on the trigger. And slow on the accountability.I wonder what the purpose is of locking athread with absolutely no replies, then to reopen itseveralhours later. You've done that before.

BTW, longwatch, is there any further information that I can offer to the questions in my post of 7:32AM? If not, do you intend to answer them?

Thanks.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
longwatch wrote:
I'm not sure which thread you are talking about, I've only deleted one that had some NSFW links on it.
The "Should people be allowed to have 'dirty bombs'?" one, I believe he is referring to.

I agree with CA_Libertarian's comments, and also would like to add that while you allege that you've only deleted one thread, it seems as though the padlock is underused and thread deletion is overused. If a thread is promoting illegal activity, or has kiddie porn embedded in it, contains spam, or something of the ilk, then by all means delete the thread. But if a thread is merely off-topic or inflammatory, then a padlock would suffice, leaving it open for reading in the future... it might even be very useful for posters to gauge what's acceptable and what's not. Don't get me wrong, longwatch, I have no way of telling who makes threads disappear so I'm not accusing you of doing it, but in my opinion, at least, locking threads on a forum like this should be much more common than complete deletion.



Now, if my account suddenly gets deleted, y'all know who to blame... :uhoh:;)

Another case in point.

Gee moderation is fine as long as it doesn't apply to me....

If I deserve it I should get it. I have and I have.



Tarzan
I'm glad to see that thread locking is being used now rather than outright deletion. But that's a little like saying that it's better to be able to only have long-barrel rifles than no guns at all. Regardless, though, it's gotten better.

Moderation is one thing, censorship another. There was an instance over in the Pennsylvania forum that led to my concerns about agenda-motivated censorship.

Anyhow, I'll admit that I'm one of the more controversial posters around here. But I guess I've seen the light and realized that it's not always a bad thing to not go with the status quo, to be skeptical, to ask questions. Especially now that I've seen, in the last few weeks, the ugliness and hypocrisy among some members of the forum. Nonetheless, I still support their ability to post those things on here.

And LW, perhaps "arbitrary" was the wrong word I was using. I meant more along the lines of "inconsistant".
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I have been a moderator and/or administrator on several forums over the years and for those of you who have never done it, it is a time consuming, often thankless job. Those who do it well have to really like the forum, be good communicators and sometimes negotiators and have lots of patience at times. There is definitely a learning curve involved to find the most effective ways to moderate both within the technical limitations of forum access and configuration, and within the particular forum community. The balance can be delicate at times.

I would offer one and only one suggestion for the forum assuming WowBB allows the configuration (I've never mod/admin'd on WowBB so don't know) and an admin is willing to do so: I would limit editing to a certain time period -- probably <15 minutes. That allows a moderator to edit a post in a thread without the poster being able to go back and change the edit. It greatly reduces the need to delete posts entirely or sometimes to even lock threads as the mod can pop through the few problem posts, edit them in part or in whole posting a mod note in the post's place to clarify to the membership what happened and why. I have done it both ways and while as a member I prefer open editing, as a mod/admin, especially as thinly spread as here, that time limit is very helpful to keep up with any problems. Overall though, most of the problems I have seen over the years between mods and members is when mods act without explanation on a regular basis. It at first confuses and over time upsets the members. An edit in a post such as "Mod edit: edited due to _____" goes a long way towards keeping the mods and membership on the same page.

And with that little tid-bit of advice/opinion, I'll just add that I have generally found no reason to complain about the moderation of the forum. Keep up the good work!
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
It's my personal opinion that HankT argues just for the sake or arguing.

That is true as it is for imperialism2024and openryan and, I am sad to say, me, and most of the rest of us that have been posting on this thread.

I can do nothing about you other guys, I have to work on me.



Tarzan
I argue just for the sake of arguing?
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

openryan wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
It's my personal opinion that HankT argues just for the sake or arguing.

That is true as it is for imperialism2024and openryan and, I am sad to say, me, and most of the rest of us that have been posting on this thread.

I can do nothing about you other guys, I have to work on me.



Tarzan
I argue just for the sake of arguing?
See, there you go again, Openryan, quit arguing. :p
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
openryan wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
It's my personal opinion that HankT argues just for the sake or arguing.

That is true as it is for imperialism2024and openryan and, I am sad to say, me, and most of the rest of us that have been posting on this thread.

I can do nothing about you other guys, I have to work on me.



Tarzan
I argue just for the sake of arguing?
See, there you go again, Openryan, quit arguing. :p
Ahaha.... honestly though, this is news to me!
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

openryan wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
openryan wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
It's my personal opinion that HankT argues just for the sake or arguing.

That is true as it is for imperialism2024and openryan and, I am sad to say, me, and most of the rest of us that have been posting on this thread.

I can do nothing about you other guys, I have to work on me.



Tarzan
I argue just for the sake of arguing?
See, there you go again, Openryan, quit arguing. :p
Ahaha.... honestly though, this is news to me!
I haven't noted that about you, but then I have only been active on the forum for a short time. I lurked for about 6 months though. *shrug*
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

openryan wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
openryan wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
It's my personal opinion that HankT argues just for the sake or arguing.

That is true as it is for imperialism2024and openryan and, I am sad to say, me, and most of the rest of us that have been posting on this thread.

I can do nothing about you other guys, I have to work on me.



Tarzan
I argue just for the sake of arguing?
See, there you go again, Openryan, quit arguing. :p
Ahaha.... honestly though, this is news to me!

In all honesty openryan, I think you are more like me, we hate to not say something, when we have an opinionand so we do. If you said the same thing about me I would probably have responded as you have. Some people want to be argumentative, and some just want to make a point. The end may be the same, but with different intent. I like to believe that you and I are more of the latter than the former.

If you feel differently, then that is fine too.

Tarzan
 

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
imported post

Now I'm pissed off. Last night, I posted a blog about how Hillary Clinton was probably in on the 'hostage crisis'. Today, it's gone. Gee, I wonder why that happened. Could it be a Clinton sympathizer or anti-gunner hiding as a moderator who removed it? This is ******* bullshit.
 
Top