| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2007 03:02:25 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
... But also, if 1 person reports a post, that also shouldn't be grounds for immediate closure. ... |
How would that "be grounds for immediate closure"? It still requires a look by a SC member (perhaps more than one), and then there's no guarantee that SC will act on it. I'd wager there are numerous thread "Reports" that go by without needing action. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:33:30 PM · #152 |
| Im saying it shouldn't be. Im saying that just because someone complains doesn't mean it should be closed, and that its not the SC's job to act for a single person, but the masses. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 03:37:45 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Im saying it shouldn't be. Im saying that just because someone complains doesn't mean it should be closed, and that its not the SC's job to act for a single person, but the masses. |
It takes a single person to bring it to their attention. SC has guidelines to use in determining whether or not corrective action needs to be taken.
To borrow from another analogy posted today - if one person yells fire, the firemen must wait until they get x number of calls before responding?
What's your magic number to deem the "masses" are complaining? More than 1, more than 10...what? |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:46:07 PM · #154 |
You're good at the word twisting game.
If one person yells fire, and its someone standing with a match, there is no need to put out that "fire" just so the alarmist stops yelling about it.
Make sense?
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 04:55:50 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
You're good at the word twisting game.
If one person yells fire, and its someone standing with a match, there is no need to put out that "fire" just so the alarmist stops yelling about it.
Make sense? |
No it doesn't, because the implication is that we base our response on the call, rather than analyzing the situation ourselves and determining whether the fire needs extinguishing or not.
We apply the forum rules to the best of our judgement and ability -- the opinion of the person who reports the post does not determine our action. We get lots of reported posts -- relatively few of those are edited or hidden, and far fewer threads are locked or hidden.
And you hypothetical makes no allowance for context -- if the person's standing in a gas station, then that match certainly needs extinguishing, despite its small size and seeming insignificance. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 07:18:15 PM · #156 |
Jesus. Alright.
YES MASTERS. THREADS DESERVE LOCK NOW IMMEDIATE!
ASSIMILATE OR DIE.
THE SC BORG WILL ASSIMILATE YOU AND YOU WILL OBEY.
Just playing, but seriously, the Mets fell apart, and the Phillies had one of the best Septembers in baseball history. Who gives a shit about message boards when the post season starts in 2 days?! |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 07:42:33 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
...but seriously, the Mets fell apart, and the Phillies had one of the best Septembers in baseball history. |
Hmm... wonder what would happen if the umpires left the players to police themselves? Just wait until several players report a problem and then the umps can come out and see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure that would make the masses happy and things would run much more smoothly. All the players are grown ups and it's just a game anyway, so let them curse on loudspeakers, ignore the rules and argue all they want. What's the big deal? Oh, right... those pesky spectators and the reputation of the sport. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 07:48:02 PM · #158 |
| Well, the obvious difference is those umpires can't subjectively interpret the rules... |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 08:03:51 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Well, the obvious difference is those umpires can't subjectively interpret the rules... |
Oh, yeah... that strike zone never moves. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 08:08:14 PM · #160 |
LOL - this reminds me of arguing with my wife - I use analogies and metaphors all the time but she then shifts the focus of the argument to the details of the analogy. I really think she wants to see my head explode sometimes.
On that note, I think they should use some sort of laser sensor technology to establish the strike zone. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 08:46:30 PM · #161 |
Well they can protest bad ump calls...
edit: actually some sort of appeal system wouldn't be bad here either.
Just thought I'd open that can of worms. A thread hasn't matured until it hits 768 posts.
Message edited by author 2007-10-01 20:47:58. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:07:04 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Well they can protest bad ump calls...
edit: actually some sort of appeal system wouldn't be bad here either.
Just thought I'd open that can of worms. A thread hasn't matured until it hits 768 posts. |
If they lose the appeal, they lose a time out.
No wait....
they lose a limb. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:28:46 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
some sort of appeal system wouldn't be bad here either. |
We already have that- they're called tickets, and sometimes they do result in overturned calls. However, it's worth noting that few threads/posts are locked or hidden without multiple SC opinions. Usually, there's a series of reported posts and/or an SC discussion on the issue, and several SC will agree that a situation is getting out of hand, seriously off-topic, etc. before action is taken. Typically, a thread will be locked by a "3rd-party" SC member (even though one who was part of the discussion gets the blame). In urgent cases such as porn spammers or serious personal attacks, one SC will act, then ask the others if that was the right course of action. The forum rules aren't as subjective as a single person's judgement, and that's why we have multiple "umpires." |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:33:58 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
...but seriously, the Mets fell apart, and the Phillies had one of the best Septembers in baseball history. |
Hmm... wonder what would happen if the umpires left the players to police themselves? Just wait until several players report a problem and then the umps can come out and see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure that would make the masses happy and things would run much more smoothly. All the players are grown ups and it's just a game anyway, so let them curse on loudspeakers, ignore the rules and argue all they want. What's the big deal? Oh, right... those pesky spectators and the reputation of the sport. :-/ |
Yo you guys seriously need to get together on this. One of the SC is bitchin (at least that what it sounds like) because they have so much other stuff to do for the site then worry about the forums, so I make a suggestion (which wasn't even a suggestion against SC) that we should be primarily be held to police ourselves, leaving the SC to do the "important" stuff, unless they receive a report. The idea of policing ourselves seems lame to you I guess?
Also - my point about not locking a thread at the request of one person...how the eff did that get so twisted and misunderstood? Half of you guys should run for politics because the spindoctoring was mind blowing. Simply put, I suggest that just because one person finds content objectionable, that doesn't mean you need to act just to please that person. Im not saying this is always the case, or ever the case, it was simply a statement. But we got people turning it into a guy blowing up a gas station?
A mind boggler indeeeed.
Sorry I had suggestions or ideas that were different then yours.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:35:07 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
some sort of appeal system wouldn't be bad here either. |
We already have that- they're called tickets, and sometimes they do result in overturned calls. However, it's worth noting that few threads/posts are locked or hidden without multiple SC opinions. Usually, there's a series of reported posts and/or an SC discussion on the issue, and several SC will agree that a situation is getting out of hand, seriously off-topic, etc. before action is taken. Typically, a thread will be locked by a "3rd-party" SC member (even though one who was part of the discussion gets the blame). In urgent cases such as porn spammers or serious personal attacks, one SC will act, then ask the others if that was the right course of action. The forum rules aren't as subjective as a single person's judgement, and that's why we have multiple "umpires." |
Honestly, if that was said at the beginning of this thread, I think it would have been a much shorter thread. Instead everyone jumped to the defense and a he said she said contest. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:39:18 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
One of the SC is bitchin (at least that what it sounds like) because they have so much other stuff to do for the site then worry about the forums |
Speaking of spindoctoring...
She was very careful to talk about having OTHER important stuff to do.
Not MORE important things.
There's a difference.
AND, she wasn't complaining. She was saying that maybe *we* would want these other things taken care of in a timely fashion. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:42:39 PM · #167 |
"She was saying that maybe *we* would want these other things taken care of in a timely fashion."
Which is where the concept of policing ourselves came from. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 09:59:49 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Simply put, I suggest that just because one person finds content objectionable, that doesn't mean you need to act just to please that person. |
You just need to take time to read what was written. I made this response to your above (repeated) statement a little earlier.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
It takes a single person to bring it to their attention. SC has guidelines to use in determining whether or not corrective action needs to be taken. |
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 10:01:59 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
some sort of appeal system wouldn't be bad here either. |
We already have that- they're called tickets |
Don't be silly. Appealing a decision to the same body that made the decision in the first place is like appealing to the same court that convicted you and hoping the original judge happens to be out of town that day.
I know that makes about as much sense as term limits to prevent the abuse of power and I don't really care anyway, so just consider it a retarded joke of an idea.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2007 10:16:56 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
"She was saying that maybe *we* would want these other things taken care of in a timely fashion."
Which is where the concept of policing ourselves came from. |
*nodnod*! Wasn't trying to say anything about the policing ourselves part. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 10:17:23 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
One of the SC is bitchin (at least that what it sounds like) because they have so much other stuff to do for the site then worry about the forums |
Speaking of spindoctoring...
She was very careful to talk about having OTHER important stuff to do.
Not MORE important things.
There's a difference.
AND, she wasn't complaining. She was saying that maybe *we* would want these other things taken care of in a timely fashion. |
This is one part I really appreciate SC. Because I know it takes up lot of their time and efforts to keep this whole system running well. There are places and chances where we do not agree with them but these incedents are very rare compared to good work they do. I know I haven't said anything new, but this is how I feel.
Message edited by author 2007-10-01 22:36:50. |
|
|
|
10/01/2007 10:21:59 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
The idea of policing ourselves seems lame to you I guess? |
It should be evident from the fact that forum rules had to be imposed in the first place that self-policing wasn't very effective.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I suggest that just because one person finds content objectionable, that doesn't mean you need to act just to please that person. |
As you've been told multiple times, we don't. One person may object, but it takes other people to agree before something happens.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Appealing a decision to the same body that made the decision in the first place is like appealing to the same court that convicted you and hoping the original judge happens to be out of town that day. |
The initial decision may have been made by three or five SC who happened to be around at the time, but appeals attract more scrutiny, so, in effect you DO get different judges... and the person who took action usually defers to the others for objectivity's sake. However, since the action is typically taken for obvious infractions, the others usually agree. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 01:27:24 AM EDT.
