| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2007 10:36:15 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by doctornick:
 |
Man, I'm sooo gonna get fat on all this popcorn. :-/ |
Man, I'm sooo gonna fart of all this popcorn. :-/ |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:47:42 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by doctornick:
|
Man, I'm sooo gonna get fat on all this popcorn. :-/ |
Man, I'm sooo gonna fart of all this popcorn. :-/ |
Yet another useful and germane post, eh? Shall we take a vote on how the SC should address it, or should we just take of it ourselves? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:51:19 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Bad day at the office? :) |
Pretty much like that ... you know, we all have other stuff we're supposed to be doing too. Believe it or not, we are not all simultaneously monitoring the site 24/7 and communicating by perpetual tele-conference ... :-) |
I most certainly hope that this is not directed at me General because I earnestly believe that I have to date managed to be a bastion of civility and decorum.
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to.
When occupying a position of authority, it behooves the incumbent to ensure that all activities undertaken are not only justifiable but beyond reproach, and I fear that of late some of the actions taken do leave a tad to be desired.
It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the SC, but rather an attempt to enlighten them as to the perception that sometimes exists that certain matters could be dealt with in a more pro-active and conciliatory manner.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:53:04 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by doctornick:
|
Man, I'm sooo gonna get fat on all this popcorn. :-/ |
Man, I'm sooo gonna fart of all this popcorn. :-/ |
Yet another useful and germane post, eh? Shall we take a vote on how the SC should address it, or should we just take of it ourselves? |
Actually General, when the post start degenerating to this level, I personally would simply let it go as it would seem that this is a sign that the thread will soon be a thing of the past.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:54:01 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Louis:
If forum behaviour drains resources from other areas, I seriously think you should have more volunteers monitoring the forums and doing nothing else. They're a big part of the site, and most members enjoy using them. And I think you'd have no shortage of volunteers for this job. Some with scruples even! |
This is the best thing I have heard on this entire subject. solid idea Louis. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:56:57 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to.
When occupying a position of authority, it behooves the incumbent to ensure that all activities undertaken are not only justifiable but beyond reproach, and I fear that of late some of the actions taken do leave a tad to be desired.
It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the SC, but rather an attempt to enlighten them as to the perception that sometimes exists that certain matters could be dealt with in a more pro-active and conciliatory manner.
Ray |
Hi Ray,
Can I jump in with some comments, or did you only want GeneralE to respond? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:58:41 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to.
When occupying a position of authority, it behooves the incumbent to ensure that all activities undertaken are not only justifiable but beyond reproach, and I fear that of late some of the actions taken do leave a tad to be desired.
It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the SC, but rather an attempt to enlighten them as to the perception that sometimes exists that certain matters could be dealt with in a more pro-active and conciliatory manner.
Ray |
Hi Ray,
Can I jump in with some comments, or did you only want GeneralE to respond? |
Please feel free to respond... As I indicated previously, I am merely seeking some enlightenment on the subject.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 10:59:18 PM · #58 |
Correct me if I'm wrong but this whole thing got started when Frisca got upset over a post Judi made. Wouldn't it have been prudent to just take the issue up with Judi privately rather than make that public post? Isn't that what the post directed at Judi was asking her to do? There seems to be a little contradiction going on here. I don't fault anybody for getting upset. I'm sure the SCs are very busy and dealing with some of the childish antics in the forums can get old but I do believe this could have been handled better if not to at least set an example for others to follow.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:06:09 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this whole thing got started when Frisca got upset over a post Judi made. ... |
As far as I am concerned, this thought-police issue has been bothering me for months. Any incidence along those lines just stirs up and reinforces those negative feelings. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:07:11 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by yanko:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this whole thing got started when Frisca got upset over a post Judi made. ... |
As far as I am concerned, this thought-police issue has been bothering me for months. Any incidence along those lines just stirs up and reinforces those negative feelings. |
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:09:55 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by yanko:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this whole thing got started when Frisca got upset over a post Judi made. ... |
As far as I am concerned, this thought-police issue has been bothering me for months. Any incidence along those lines just stirs up and reinforces those negative feelings. |
I understand there has been some unresolved issues that have been lingering but it seems to me this latest event could have been avoided with just a little more care. If you know there's a mine field don't go running.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:16:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by doctornick:
|
Man, I'm sooo gonna get fat on all this popcorn. :-/ |
Man, I'm sooo gonna fart of all this popcorn. :-/ |
Yet another useful and germane post, eh? Shall we take a vote on how the SC should address it, or should we just take of it ourselves? |
Feel free to do whatever you wish to do. I know this thread will be locked sooner or later, because of some reason SC will give us. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:23:12 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to.
When occupying a position of authority, it behooves the incumbent to ensure that all activities undertaken are not only justifiable but beyond reproach, and I fear that of late some of the actions taken do leave a tad to be desired.
It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the SC, but rather an attempt to enlighten them as to the perception that sometimes exists that certain matters could be dealt with in a more pro-active and conciliatory manner. |
SC and the site admins do not have to justify what they do or answer to anyone.
The fact that they choose to abide by a decent set of standards and do their best to accomodate members even when they call the entire workings of the site into question is pretty damn magnanimous if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:24:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... I earnestly believe that I have to date managed to be a bastion of civility and decorum.
Ray |
Indeed you have, yet you felt the need to start this thread ... |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:26:10 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Feel free to do whatever you wish to do. I know this thread will be locked sooner or later, because of some reason SC will give us. |
And they have to justify themselves to someone that makes a comment such as this in a sarcastic manner why?
And on what basis do you feel you have any right to denmand a reason?
Do you people really feel that this whole tack and its demeanor is civil and appropriate?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:27:05 PM · #66 |
| I wholeheartedly believe this thread (Ray or no) was inevitable. He's not alone. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:28:36 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to. |
A significant number? How many are we talking here? Aside from yesterday's thread which I think has been discussed to death, can you point out some threads for which you were able to discern no apparent reason for locking? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:30:17 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...Please feel free to respond... As I indicated previously, I am merely seeking some enlightenment on the subject.
Ray |
Thanks. :) I'll hasten to point out here that I cannot speak for all SC on this, but am trying to address your concerns from my own POV which admittedly is a bit of both personal/SC.
Ok, so I'd like to address the first point you made which was regarding posts that were removed from threads, and entire threads locked seemingly without reason. Of concern (if I understand it correctly) is that sometimes posts are removed and threads locked without enough explanation.
To this, I can say that the SC will usually remove a post from a thread for some of the following reasons: 1) If the post was a personal attack and it was reported by the person who felt attacked 2) if it is a clear violation of the Forum Rules regarding outtakes, calling out commenters in a hostile way, if someone has publically accused another of a rules violation, if someone has baited and/or provoked another user in such an inflammatory way that it cannot be reasonably chalked up to general argumentative discussion, or there is a pattern of disruptive behavior. These are all Forum Rules. Yes, there are times when this occurs and we don't know about it so nothing happens. Yes, there are also times when such behavior is reported but it's minor, and we also feel the violation doesn't necessarily warrant removal. We try to use judgment here, and for simplicity let's just say there is a difference between "You are mean, you suck" and "your argument is so weak it makes me laugh." Yes, one user's insult is another's funny witticism, and in borderline cases we use the TOS as the guideline. I would venture to say that users who exhibit a pattern of disruptive behavior are more likely to see a hammer than a fluffy bunny.
Next, you assert that that the SC always take actions that are justifiable and beyond reproach. This is a great goal, and it's one we all aspire to. It's also why sometimes things aren't taken care of instantly, because we are conferring as our individual lives and time permit in order to make sure that we do the best thing for the community. By community, I mean the userbase at large and not just the most vocal users. As a forum participant, it's very easy to see just one side of a story and draw an erroneous conclusion. In reality, there is often much going on behind the scenes. It's because we often handle things privately with users that other forum participants don't always see the entire story. To preserve individual user dignity, SC will often "take the heat" so to speak, so that a particular individual can come back to the forums with no stigma. Often, we are just unable to provide a detailed explanation because of individual privacy concerns. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: every SC member is very aware that we exist to serve you, the userbase. Without "you", there is no reason for "us".
Finally, you note your concern about conciliation. To this I'll respond: currently the SC does not suspend forum posting suspensions of a temporary nature as other sites do. For example, say an individual user is having a little temper tantrum and is disruptive to normal state of forum general good mood. By this I don't mean general whinging, but rather a deliberate attempt to stir up drama and other trouble, perhaps even targeting other users for ridicule and mockery. As it stands now, our usual recourse is to remove inflammatory posts and/or lock threads. Another option would be to simply give a particular user a "time-out" forum suspension of say, 24 hours.
As a community, would simple forum time-outs be more palatable than our current method of dealing with forum dramatics? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:39:54 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by mk:
[quote=RayEthier]
Aside from yesterday's thread which I think has been discussed to death, can you point out some threads for which you were able to discern no apparent reason for locking? |
I wish I could be bothered to keep records, then I would now be able to point out quite a few of them.
There are times where SC members lock/remove posts/threads for at least some reason. I don't always agree with those steps, but at least I can see the sense behind it.
Other times, however, I happened to be around to see a thread unfold. I read what was said. A minute later I would try to read it again, or reply to it, only to find it was gone. On some of those occasions I tried very, very hard to understand WHY that was done, but truly could not work it out. They were threads that were very civil, moving along in a perfectly sane manner, but obviously something, somewhere, bothered some SC person. Then the post/thread was simply gone. No explanation, no chance to ask about it, no chance to continue the conversation.
It is those times that upset me, and obviously some other people, too.
Just because you have the power to do something, doesn't always mean it is the correct or wise thing to do at the drop of a hat, instead of figuring out some less power-hungry way of dealing with whatever it is that is bugging you (general, plural "you").
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:40:04 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Feel free to do whatever you wish to do. I know this thread will be locked sooner or later, because of some reason SC will give us. |
And they have to justify themselves to someone that makes a comment such as this in a sarcastic manner why?
|
No they do not have to justify and I did not say so. I know that lately some of the threads were locked, and I feel this will also be locked.
Personally I do not like locking a thread. Why people are not allowed to say what they want to say?
Why just because SC members think that there is nothing constructive is going to come by this thread others shall not be allowed to add what they want to add.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yet another useful and germane post, eh? Shall we take a vote on how the SC should address it, or should we just take of it ourselves? |
This post is nothing but a bait to another user for confrontation for argument. If I had written this this would have been removed very easily. My post was not personal just a silly comment to keep things light (and smelly).
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:42:49 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by mk:
[quote=RayEthier]
Aside from yesterday's thread which I think has been discussed to death, can you point out some threads for which you were able to discern no apparent reason for locking? |
I wish I could be bothered to keep records, then I would now be able to point out quite a few of them.
There are times where SC members lock/remove posts/threads for at least some reason. I don't always agree with those steps, but at least I can see the sense behind it.
Other times, however, I happened to be around to see a thread unfold. I read what was said. A minute later I would try to read it again, or reply to it, only to find it was gone. On some of those occasions I tried very, very hard to understand WHY that was done, but truly could not work it out. They were threads that were very civil, moving along in a perfectly sane manner, but obviously something, somewhere, bothered some SC person. Then the post/thread was simply gone. No explanation, no chance to ask about it, no chance to continue the conversation.
It is those times that upset me, and obviously some other people, too.
Just because you have the power to do something, doesn't always mean it is the correct or wise thing to do at the drop of a hat, instead of figuring out some less power-hungry way of dealing with whatever it is that is bugging you (general, plural "you"). |
The only threads that completely disappear are flat-out spam. We don't disappear any kind of regular threads.
I understand that you aren't keeping records but it would be much more helpful if you contacted us at the time and either asked specifically or requested that we be more clear in our actions rather than just make vague accusations of "thought policing" several months down the line, you know? |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:44:43 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to. |
A significant number? How many are we talking here? Aside from yesterday's thread which I think has been discussed to death, can you point out some threads for which you were able to discern no apparent reason for locking? |
No... but now armed with the fact that I could be called upon to provide statistical data to substantiate my comments I might henceforth strive to maintain such records.
Seriously, I doubt we as a collective want to engage in an activity where we maintain statistical data to substantiate our arguments.
My intent is not to analyze this to death or cast aspersions on the SC, but rather one where I had hope to convey the message that, on occasion, we as a collective are left wondering as to the reasons why certain actions were undertaken.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-09-28 23:45:59. |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:55:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by mk:
The only threads that completely disappear are flat-out spam. We don't disappear any kind of regular threads.
|
No way !!! Some of them made NO sense at all - "spam" threads would make sense. I am NOT talking about those at all.
Originally posted by mk:
I understand that you aren't keeping records but it would be much more helpful if you contacted us at the time and either asked specifically or requested that we be more clear in our actions rather than just make vague accusations of "thought policing" several months down the line, you know? |
Yes, it would be helpful if I had concrete examples, however, some of them I couldn't have even if I wanted to, because the were disappeared !!! Someone poofed my evidence !!!
Saying something at the time would also be very helpful, but that only works when that thread still exists so that one COULD add to it and ask/comment. It would also help if certain SC members wouldn't have a tendency to get very caustic and downright mean.
I HAVE mentioned the "thought police" concept several times over the months, even attempted to ask for reasons. I usually get ignored, or at times I get one of those nasty replies thrown my way - not very encouraging at all.
Sometimes some of you guys make it very hard to remain sweet and positive.
All I am asking for is for you all to only police/disappear things that really NEED to vanish because other methods didn't work, not do it just because you don't agree with it. If it is civil and sane, then I think people are entitled to an opinion, even if it does differ from yours (again, general you). |
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:57:08 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that I would also hasten to point out that there have been a significant number of comments that have summarily been removed from threads, and entire threads locked with no apparent reason. If someone is not behaving, surely that can be dealt with in some fashion other than the "Censorship" you allude to. |
A significant number? How many are we talking here? Aside from yesterday's thread which I think has been discussed to death, can you point out some threads for which you were able to discern no apparent reason for locking? |
No... but now armed with the fact that I could be called upon to provide statistical data to substantiate my comments I might henceforth strive to maintain such records.
Seriously doubt we as a collective want to engage in an activity where we maintain statistical data to substantiate our arguments.
My intent is not to analyze this to death or cast aspersions on the SC, but rather one where I had hope to convey the message that, on occasion, we as a collective are left wondering as to the reasons why certain actions were undertaken.
Ray |
No, you're right, but with the quantity of things magically disappearing multiplying exponentially with every post, it's sometimes nice to put things into actual perspective.
As to the rest, see my response to Karen. :)
|
|
|
|
09/28/2007 11:59:04 PM · #75 |
Just asking a question here...
If an SC is misbehaving, how effective would it be to report the incident "right then"? Couldn't he/she just delete the complaint? |
|
