Moderation and Rachel's role at JC

[Jon Abbey]

this is an open thread for Lois, Rachel and whoever else. obviously I know Lois is dealing with a lot now, this isn't an emergency to discuss, but I do think that it needs to be addressed. Tom Storer asked on that silly rap thread:

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Why the sudden decision to have more active moderation? Is it to cut down on all the bitter flaming and feuding that is chronic? Or is it because Lois has had feedback complaining about rude language and shocking topics of discussion?

and I think the rest of us would like some answers about that too. I'm personally all for informed moderation, but this is a huge jump for this site, and it's gone too far in some cases.

[chuckyd4]

Well, as much as I love JC and as much of a part of my daily life as it's been for more years than I'd like to remember, it seems like there are more and more rules (none of which are spelled out) about what you can and can't say around here. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of influence leads to less and less interesting discussion, and gives me less of a reason to keep coming here. I was never the most active poster on this board, but it also seems like I hardly ever actually post anything here anymore, cause I can hardly ever find something that seems truly interesting to me.

[Scott Dolan]

It is ironic to see "moderation" and "Rachel" used in the same sentence.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

Absolutely awful. The only thing that makes the lunatic fringe around here tolerable is that anyone's always been allowed to respond to stupidity however they see fit. Again, I had literally zero posts deleted before this ridiculousness started, and since then it's been a half-dozen or so.

I've enjoyed this place as a hangout for the last 2 years or so, but this excessive moderation has made it worthless, the online equivalent of hanging out in the school library. Posts are deleted arbitrarily, the moderator feels the need to interject when it's completely unnecessary, and the overall tone has changed from an open discussion to a place where the lunatic fringe can rant about whatever idiocy they choose, because if anyone responds to their stupidity, the helpful moderators will just delete it anyway.

I have yet to see a single person say that this censorship has somehow improved the board, and I have yet to hear any sort of explanation as to why it's necessary to stop every single argument on the board, rather than letting the parties involved work through it.

It's almost as if you're intentionally trying to ruin the board. So, if that's the case, kudos.

[crawjo]

I see the new turn on JC as an attempt at a virtual historic reconstruction of Stalinist Russia, which is why I'm all for it. Again, I suggest a button next to every post so that each one of us can quickly and easily alert Rachel to any and every post that is offensive for any reason. Hopefully if we keep this up we can censor ourselves into complete silence.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

^^^
This post offends me.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

I've enjoyed this place as a hangout for the last 2 years or so, but this excessive moderation has made it worthless, the online equivalent of hanging out in the school library.

I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make, but I can tell you that myself and the other members of the Chess Team and Anti-Swirly League at London Central High School had absolutely no problem with the school library as hangout venue. Thank you very much. True, the other members were imaginary.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

Absolutely awful.

The only thing I agree with in your post is that the deleting of posts has an arbitrary feel about it because no one knows exactly why a given post has been deleted unless squawking brings an explanation. My own suggestion, as everyone knows, is that the rules be defined and posted; I also think that deleted posts, rather than being disappeared like Chilean dissidents, should have a memorial plaque saying "Post deleted because...". That not only removes the suspicion of arbitrary deletion, it also teaches posters exactly what they should avoid posting.

I disagree with an awful lot:

The only thing that makes the lunatic fringe around here tolerable is that anyone's always been allowed to respond to stupidity however they see fit.

For me the true blight on this site is posts whose only purpose is to insult and demean. For example, in one thread you kept throwing nasty darts at Sandi just because you find her annoying. Those posts had no content other than hostile sniping. As Rachel keeps suggesting, use your ignore list if somebody gets to you that much. Insult-and-demean posts are much less tolerable, to me anyway, than any other kind of post. Not to mention that they fan the flames of all the rivalries and feuding that waste so much space and energy in the threads.

I've enjoyed this place as a hangout for the last 2 years or so, but this excessive moderation has made it worthless, the online equivalent of hanging out in the school library.

Lois's main business here is the musician sites she houses, a reference resource; she needs to keep web readership high to attract those customers and to get advertising revenue. So yes, she has reason to impose a certain decorum that might conflict with your desire to be entirely uninhibited. Knocking out the gratuitously nasty stuff is absolutely good anyway, and discouraging obscene language is a constraint but not something that I think would make the place "worthless."

the overall tone has changed from an open discussion to a place where the lunatic fringe can rant about whatever idiocy they choose, because if anyone responds to their stupidity, the helpful moderators will just delete it anyway.

I don't see it that way. I think what you mean is that is has changed from a place where you could goad the posters you dislike with nasty posts ad infinitum to one where you have to be less childish. If "responding to stupidity" means taunts and insults, isn't that just compounding the stupidity?

I have yet to see a single person say that this censorship has somehow improved the board, and I have yet to hear any sort of explanation as to why it's necessary to stop every single argument on the board, rather than letting the parties involved work through it.

If insult-and-demean posts are curbed through moderation, that's an improvement. If arguments are hindered, that's a problem--but if an argument is stopped by removing insult-and-demean posts, it probably wasn't an argument at all, in the sense of a debate, but a flame-fest. And the fewer of them, the better.

(And also, consider that "improving the board" for the regular posters' experience and improving it for Lois's business purposes are not necessarily the same thing.)

[Surfer]

IMO, the only time posts should be deleted are when they are:

1. Spam
2. Pornography
3. Physical threats to another poster

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

You (Tom) make fair points, and there's no question that Sandi and Goodspeak have both gotten to me to the point where I've said some things that weren't very nice. I tried ignoring Goodspeak (not using the feature, but just not reading his posts), but he repeatedly makes references to my brother or myself, and I don't see why I should have to ignore that. He wants me (or anyone) to respond to him, so he has something to be outraged against. He comes into threads and adds personal insults that have nothing to do with that thread, or anything. Yes, finally, he got a recent ban, but I don't see why I should be subject to different standards.

99% of these things work themselves out amicably if no one intervenes; Scott and I get along really well now, when we were at each other's throats at a time. I'm sure Uli has a lovely eulogy planned for Jon.

There's no question that I'm easily riled up, but I think you overstate the case, probably because you don't read the threads on which I'm more of an active participant. If the implication is that all I bring to the table, or most of what I bring to the table is an insulting attitude, I don't think that's an accurate representation.

And, while I agree that the posts towards Sandi were obnoxious and rude, I felt her attitude on that thread was unbelievably rude and condescending, even after a few people had repeatedly told her that. So, my feeling was, if she wasn't going to take that hint, I would be more explicit. Was that necessary, or mature? No, of course not, but I felt it served a purpose. Similarly, when Goodspeak feels compelled to speak on behalf of all black people, I can only stomach that for so long without feeling the need to point out how I feel. Believe me, the garbage in that thread offended me as much as anything I posted might've offended anyone else.

Should I ignore threads like that? Yes, of course, but then he carries the same crap to the threads I do care about, and I feel compelled to say something.

The problem I have with the moderation is that they don't know the history, what's been said on both sides, and posts are deleted seemingly arbitrarily.

Finally, it seems to me that if someone is going to continually post logic-impaired thoughts and ramblings on every topic, and then insist that everyone else agree with them, someone should be able to call bullshit on that, whether that person be me, Goody, or anyone else.

[Sandi22]

Even handed applications would be a plus.

Does everyone really run to the moderator for help?

If so, this is what I find funny.

Grownups?

I discuss things with those I think of as friends, but to run to a moderator about things is, well, small.

[Rachel G]

I'll get to this thread as soon as I can. I'd like to post about deletions especially.

edit - I wanted to explain who has been deleting posts: me, Lois, and in many, many cases, the posters themselves (without being asked to). I wanted to reply to some later posts here too.

But I'm assigned to a large tech project and will have to let this go for now.

[Scott Dolan]

Oh my!!

This is so exciting!

[Pete C]

The whole thing is starting to sour me on the place. Maybe somebody will overtake me as post king.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

You (Tom) make fair points, and there's no question that Sandi and Goodspeak have both gotten to me to the point where I've said some things that weren't very nice. I tried ignoring Goodspeak (not using the feature, but just not reading his posts), but he repeatedly makes references to my brother or myself, and I don't see why I should have to ignore that. He wants me (or anyone) to respond to him, so he has something to be outraged against. He comes into threads and adds personal insults that have nothing to do with that thread, or anything. Yes, finally, he got a recent ban, but I don't see why I should be subject to different standards.

99% of these things work themselves out amicably if no one intervenes; Scott and I get along really well now, when we were at each other's throats at a time. I'm sure Uli has a lovely eulogy planned for Jon.

There's no question that I'm easily riled up, but I think you overstate the case, probably because you don't read the threads on which I'm more of an active participant. If the implication is that all I bring to the table, or most of what I bring to the table is an insulting attitude, I don't think that's an accurate representation.

And, while I agree that the posts towards Sandi were obnoxious and rude, I felt her attitude on that thread was unbelievably rude and condescending, even after a few people had repeatedly told her that. So, my feeling was, if she wasn't going to take that hint, I would be more explicit. Was that necessary, or mature? No, of course not, but I felt it served a purpose. Similarly, when Goodspeak feels compelled to speak on behalf of all black people, I can only stomach that for so long without feeling the need to point out how I feel. Believe me, the garbage in that thread offended me as much as anything I posted might've offended anyone else.

Should I ignore threads like that? Yes, of course, but then he carries the same crap to the threads I do care about, and I feel compelled to say something.

The problem I have with the moderation is that they don't know the history, what's been said on both sides, and posts are deleted seemingly arbitrarily.

Finally, it seems to me that if someone is going to continually post logic-impaired thoughts and ramblings on every topic, and then insist that everyone else agree with them, someone should be able to call bullshit on that, whether that person be me, Goody, or anyone else.

About my posts, getting you to the point of being rude; here's how I see it, what I didn't like and still don't, is how so many of you were coming down on Scott and Goodspeak, when they weren't around to stick up for their own selves. It was piling on like I couldn't believe. So that was rude to defend that belief? Rude because so many of you told me to hush about the matter and I didn't? I have never liked that in someone, it's something I do rail against, and probably always will. I do see it like I said, as a character flaw. Speaking out like that was't kind, but it's how I believe.

Several of you did tell me it wasn't any of my business, that I should have kept quiet; leave; that I wasn't wanted around here, that my posts were ranting on; or words to that effect. One of you even sent a patronizing letter backing up these thoughts that several of you had posted; which I found comical, and a bit aggravating, as it was none of her business. The need to pile on is really something I don't like or understand. I never have.

If I should alienate, or even want to alienate everyone of you, that's my concern, and perhaps my own problem. All of you are capable of just hitting Ignore, and there will be no problem, nothing to see and get all in a wad about.

So telling me to leave, or stick to the Lighthouse, that nothing I say is wanted to be heard by any of you, and more, was pushing it, as I decide what I say, and you decide if you want to read whatever it is I post. There were plenty of insults, and again it was piling on. That was ok, because I was here to say what I wanted to say, I could take the heat, I was here to. Scott and Goodspeak had no recourse. It seemed everyone was getting some sort of odd thrill out of it.

You're all grownups, you can ignore me just as I can ignore anyone of you if I should feel the need. I haven't gone there, as this is nothing to get so upset over. I don't like a lot of it, to me it's as silly as all getout. It can be aggravating, but for such a short period of time, it's not worth a whole lot of time worrying about it,

I can't change how you feel any more than you can change how I do. I can take it or leave it, there's no need to go off in a oneupmanship contest with any of you. It was Scott and Goodspeak that I defended while all of you seemed to take some sort of inordinate thrill in being able to do what you were doing without them on-site to speak up for themselves. I could have cared less how much you all fight, but they weren't here to handle it. Had they been able to say their piece as well, I would have just read it and forgotten about it. They're big boys. They can take care of themselves - when around to do it. Privately, after all of this I might ask, and some times do ask, someone what your problem is, but that's about the extent of it.

You know, this is a public forum for all of us; sure it's a member site; we are all members, but I don't see where any of you have the right to say who should and shouldn't post, or what they should post, Perhaps just because any number of you have been here for a long time, you've decided it's something you can, and will do.

If someone wants to discuss any number of things, why should you care? You aren't paying the bill, nor can you say what I should and shouldn't say. You can tell me you don't like it and why, but the strong-arming doesn't work. You don't have to listen, you don't have to read my posts. What I do - it's really none of your affair now is it? Cry, gripe and ridicule if that's your schtick, but after all, remember, you're not the only member; you may be the oldest, but you're not the one who controls who says what. Only a moderator does this.

Now, to quote Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?"

Simplistic, but it seems to be the best question around.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Pete C

The whole thing is starting to sour me on the place. Maybe somebody will overtake me as post king.

You could always be banned and have your post total deleted.

Then you could come back a new man.

Speaking of Lois/Rachel ruling this place with an iron hand now... I recently got in trouble for suggesting that one of our favorite posters here (Damen) was "as full of xxxx as a Christmas turkey."

My mouth was washed out with soap for that one.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Originally Posted by rollhead

You could always be banned and have your post total deleted.

Pete's so into brevity they should probably divide it by two even if he behaves himself.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Squaredancecalling Steve

Pete's so into brevity they should probably divide it by two even if he behaves himself.

I've always contended that Sisco way exceeds me in word count. Probably Sandi by now too, and she's just a posting pup in these parts .

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

Now, to quote Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?"

Simplistic, but it seems to be the best question around.

First of all, it's "cain't." And I've been saying that for years, far's that goes.

My take is that there would be no need for moderating if there weren't a bunch of babyass whiners complaining all the time. So shut up, whiners.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I've always contended that Sisco way exceeds me in word count. Probably Sandi by now too, and she's just a posting pup in these parts .

I think Scott would beat you in post total, too, if he hadn't risen from the dead so many times.

[tippy]

I think what is best is what the community wants. I can only hope - though it's not looking so positive at present - that my recent contribution in the me, myself and I conflagration could surve as some kind of watershed or something other than the complete downfall of a community that so many of us enjoy, are addicted to or what have you.

The community accepts profanity. The community tolerates insults. They can be worked out or people can learn to ignore. The interjections - the hand slaps - a large volume of deleted posts - I hate to be critical but it is just too too much.

I think what we had before worked better ala surfer's post:

Originally Posted by Surfer

IMO, the only time posts should be deleted are when they are:

1. Spam
2. Pornography
3. Physical threats to another poster

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I've always contended that Sisco way exceeds me in word count. Probably Sandi by now too, and she's just a posting pup in these parts .

A bit house bound so it's a fun thing to do.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by rollhead

I think Scott would beat you in post total, too, if he hadn't risen from the dead so many times.

I'd be pretty close. My previous user account was right at 12,000 posts.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

First of all, it's "cain't." And I've been saying that for years, far's that goes.

My take is that there would be no need for moderating if there weren't a bunch of babyass whiners complaining all the time. So shut up, whiners.

Right! Spot on.


What is this running to moderators all the time? I just turn to those I enjoy and like, to sound off.

Bitchey me!

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Rachel G

I'll get to this thread as soon as I can. I'd like to post about deletions especially.

I love it when you tease me, Rach.

[tippy]

Maybe the censorship litmus could be "What would HBO do?"

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by rollhead

You could always be banned and have your post total deleted.

Then you could come back a new man.

Speaking of Lois/Rachel ruling this place with an iron hand now... I recently got in trouble for suggesting that one of our favorite posters here (Damen) was "as full of xxxx as a Christmas turkey."

My mouth was washed out with soap for that one.

You see that, stupid ass Monte? I'm not the only one who stuffs my Christmas turkey with shit.

I'm tellin you, me and rollie are like two pods in pee!!

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

My take is that there would be no need for moderating if there weren't a bunch of babyass whiners complaining all the time. So shut up, whiners.

actually, this was the case much more before Rachel came on board. Lois barely had time to read the boards herself, so she relied on others to notify her of problems, primarily Rita (to the point where I actually thought Rita was a moderator, if you'll recall).

Rachel seems to be relying much more on her own perceptions, which I'd say is a step forward for the board. the problem is that she doesn't always know the history, and she's being a bit aggressive at times, IMO.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

The problem I have with the moderation is that they don't know the history, what's been said on both sides, and posts are deleted seemingly arbitrarily.

With all due respect, isn't that statement a bit arbitrary and presumptuous?

How do we know what Rachel (or any moderator) knows about the history of this board or specific threads/posters? The simple answer is . . . we don't.

[Scott Dolan]

She has been asked that question, Ron. And she refuses to answer it.

How do you read that?