This site is ever increasingly becoming a joke... (1 Viewer)

[Kryst51]

I think, (drum roll....)

If somebody makes a dig at somebody else and it's unwarranted then the other users can harass the person that made the unwarranted remark. Kind of like reality. Us grownups don't need anyone baby sitting us. If Col makes snide remarks at me I simply ignore him, duh... Get it? In my mind the only thing a mod should do is zonk spam, keep the help forum going forward and maybe bleep four letter words. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I do thank you all for doing that stuff, I wouldn't because I don't have the time...

IF this were a company.... and co-workers were talking to/about each other publicly the way you all do, it would be stopped by management.... That's reality.

Besides, I can't remember the last time that in "real life" conversations happened with anybody the way they do around here.

If someone is determined to have made a post with the intention to annoy or harrass a moderator, it then becomes all OTHER moderators jobs and the administrator's job to determine this conclusion. Bob, myself, and all other members of staff here look to each other to determine the correct course of action when something is done against us. None of us have ever taken action since I have been moderator again (this year) that wasn't agreed upon after discussion in private forums or messaging between us. Perhaps Bob should not have been the one to delete the post that was made in the restaurant thread and it should have been me or DCrake, since we both agreed it should not have been there. This is something we can look at doing from now on so all member's know it was an agreed upon conclusion between other members of staff, not just one moderator deciding what should or should not be removed. Is this fair?

Yes, I think this is fair.

 

[Vassago]

I think, (drum roll....)

If somebody makes a dig at somebody else and it's unwarranted then the other users can harass the person that made the unwarranted remark. Kind of like reality. Us grownups don't need anyone baby sitting us. If Col makes snide remarks at me I simply ignore him, duh... Get it? In my mind the only thing a mod should do is zonk spam, keep the help forum going forward and maybe bleep four letter words. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I do thank you all for doing that stuff, I wouldn't because I don't have the time...

Here is the problem with this logic. This is not something the site owner wants on the forum. He considers this a professional forum that is attached to a business venture of his on the main site. If we allow this sort of behavior on the forum, it could damage the forum's reputation as well as the reputation of the business it's attached to, being on the same domain and all. The problem is also when someone tries to ignore snide remarks, sometimes the person becomes persistent in their remarks and decides to respond to every post by the individual they are after. It's much easier to stop it before it gets to that point.

 

[Rich]

This site used to have a really chilled out atmosphere when it was first attached to attached to a business venture of his on the main site, I have to wonder what's changed

 

[Vassago]

This site used to have a really chilled out atmosphere when it was first attached to attached to a business venture of his on the main site, I have to wonder what's changed

The atmosphere was much more chilled when no one was personally seeking to harrass another member. Feelings and times have apparently changed from our friendly times. Honestly, I think it all stems from when the political talk started on the forum. I remember before the hacking when we NEVER spoke of politics, not because it was a rule, but because we had no need to, and all of us got along great without incident. A few members decided to let the political talk get too much to them and cause a harsh reaction, which led to an opposing harsh reaction, and it only escalated from there.

When this happens, it causes reactions from staff that something more needs to be done to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

[Rich]

You mean we should never have discussed the illegal war in Iraq and who's being harassed?

 

[KenHigg]

Here is the problem with this logic. This is not something the site owner wants on the forum. He considers this a professional forum that is attached to a business venture of his on the main site. If we allow this sort of behavior on the forum, it could damage the forum's reputation as well as the reputation of the business it's attached to, being on the same domain and all. The problem is also when someone tries to ignore snide remarks, sometimes the person becomes persistent in their remarks and decides to respond to every post by the individual they are after. It's much easier to stop it before it gets to that point.

If all col does is hijack threads and takes cheap shots at bob then ban him for good and quit screwing around. And take bobs mods rights away and let him do what he does best, help people with access. Those two things would fix 90% of the friction around here. What grown person asks another if they want a time out...

You may as well lock this thread as far as I'm concerned, i' said my 2 cents worth...

Btw - thanks for unlocking the thread and spending your personal time mod'n. I'll try to shut up for a while...

 

[ColinEssex]

Larson, in some threads I have been harrassing you for 2 years for an answer to a question, I agree and have previously stated that publically.

Finally, you deemed to sort of answer it, I accepted that answer and publically said the matter was closed, asked for the thread to be locked and move on - which I have.

NOW - you rekindle the situation by your stupid comment on the restaurant thread, which is directly aimed at me, despite me saying I have moved on.

Don't you dare say that I would harrass you when I have publically stated I have moved on.

Remember Larson, it is you that has restarted this with your stupid childish announcement aimed directly at another long term member. If you want to restart the harrassment then ok, just remember, I haven't got the power to delete posts or members like you have so make it a fair fight if that's what you want.

Col

 

[KenHigg]

If all col does is hijack threads and takes cheap shots at bob then ban him for good and quit screwing around. And take bobs mods rights away and let him do what he does best, help people with access. Those two things would fix 90% of the friction around here. What grown person asks another if they want a time out...

You may as well lock this thread as far as I'm concerned, i' said my 2 cents worth...

Btw - thanks for unlocking the thread and spending your personal time mod'n. I'll try to shut up for a while...

Come to think of it, ban me rich and Paul as well and you can rid the forum of the remain 10% and have a big hug a buddy thread and sing kumbaya...

(just kidding...)

 

[ColinEssex]

I posted that because I knew that Colin could not resist attacking me. He has shown a blatant disregard for just letting things go. Perhaps he would like another vacation as it was given last time for personal attacks.

So there's the proof, we have an announcement aimed directly at me, plus a threat to ban me.

Is that a personal attack on another member? Or doesn't it count if Larson does it.

Why is Larson not warned / banned / suspended?

One rule for one and Larsons rule for others - wow! what a great democracy.

Col

 

[MrsGorilla]

Re: Not a good way to manage a site...

'You've been warned!' <= Arrogant

What's really sad is that he had to put that warning out there to begin with. If people would grow up and act like adults and stop making disparaging towards other people, countries, or skin colors none of this would even be necessary.

Free speech is reserved for the world outside in public. These are private forums and are expected to be held to certain standards where posts made with an intention to harrass or annoy another member and not made in good natured humor are not welcome. Obviously, I've personally always allowed good humored (or humoured ) discusstion and debate, such as Colin's example of "You're a tit!" in response to a team's playing ability. Judgement calls on someone's true intention to annoy and harrass someone are subject to debate, but it become's a moderators job to determine where this lies. If someone harrasses or annoys another member intentionally without good humor as determine by the moderators, their post may be removed. If said member disagrees with the notion, it can be taken up with the admin and owner of the site in private. There's no need to degrade the forum and discourage new members from becoming active participants in all parts of the forum by posting such disagreements here.

If someone is determined to have made a post with the intention to annoy or harrass a moderator, it then becomes all OTHER moderators jobs and the administrator's job to determine this conclusion. Bob, myself, and all other members of staff here look to each other to determine the correct course of action when something is done against us. None of us have ever taken action since I have been moderator again (this year) that wasn't agreed upon after discussion in private forums or messaging between us. Perhaps Bob should not have been the one to delete the post that was made in the restaurant thread and it should have been me or DCrake, since we both agreed it should not have been there. This is something we can look at doing from now on so all member's know it was an agreed upon conclusion between other members of staff, not just one moderator deciding what should or should not be removed. Is this fair?

I agree that this sounds fair.

NOW - you rekindle the situation by your stupid comment on the restaurant thread, which is directly aimed at me, despite me saying I have moved on.

Now Col, you may have moved on from that one issue (finally!) but you still have a way of slagging off on other members, even if you haven't been as bad as you were before.

I remember a time when I could come here and enjoy making pleasant conversation with the other members without every...single...thread turning into a shouting match. If we could go back to those days and people could act civil again then this wouldn't even be an issue. But it obviously is an issue. I think this site has been a joke for the last few years, but not for the same reasons Ken thinks so.

 

[KenHigg]

Re: Not a good way to manage a site...

What's really sad is that he had to put that warning out there to begin with. If people would grow up and act like adults and stop making disparaging towards other people, countries, or skin colors none of this would even be necessary.



I agree that this sounds fair.



Now Col, you may have moved on from that one issue (finally!) but you still have a way of slagging off on other members, even if you haven't been as bad as you were before.

I remember a time when I could come here and enjoy making pleasant conversation with the other members without every...single...thread turning into a shouting match. If we could go back to those days and people could act civil again then this wouldn't even be an issue. But it obviously is an issue. I think this site has been a joke for the last few years, but not for the same reasons Ken thinks so.

Please share your concerns, there may be common ground

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I see a lot of folks here talking about "we're all adults here" and (paraphrasing) let us be free to take our discussions where we take them.

I've seen the childish sniping that occurs when we do that, enough to make me sometimes wonder about how many adults really ARE here.

Adult behavior is so rarely exhibited by adults. Some of the ghetto wars are about not being able to walk away from it, not being adult enough to recognize a lost cause. So many people here prove my contention about the fact that common sense is so uncommon. And that is NOT specifically directed to any one person or group here.

I am not a religious person, but the serenity prayer's goals are worthy. Let me have the courage to change what must be changed, the patience to accept that which cannot be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference.

To those who talk of free speech - it was not, is not, and is never free. It always comes with a price. Free speech comes about when you do not abuse the privilege. The old USA Supreme Court rule about "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" is an example. Daring to say, "I'm about to explode" (meaning "in anger") while walking through an airport near humorless airport guards is a good example. Say what you want, but think about what you say.

Free speech must be paid for in various ways. Your speech is more likely to be taken seriously if you happen to not abuse others when you speak. Was Bob right? I'm not going to guess, but I recognize that as a moderator, he could certainly warn folks of his intent to enforce the no-insult rule. I know if it were my forum, I would do so.

I'll offer this thought, which isn't original. Post some simple rules about what penalties you are likely to get for common infractions. Maybe nobody will read the rules, but put the link in a prominent place. When someone breaks the rules, point them to the link. Advise them of their status as first warning, second warning, etc. Whatever you decide. But then - and here's the key - enforce the rules fairly.

Also, folks, consider peer pressure. When Col, Rich, Bob, or Vassago go off the deep end, TELL THEM. Feedback helps us realize when we are exceeding societal norms. Jabbering in a vacuum does nobody any good.

Or was I just jabbering in a vacuum just now, too?

 

[KenHigg]

I see a lot of folks here talking about "we're all adults here" and (paraphrasing) let us be free to take our discussions where we take them.

I've seen the childish sniping that occurs when we do that, enough to make me sometimes wonder about how many adults really ARE here.

Adult behavior is so rarely exhibited by adults. Some of the ghetto wars are about not being able to walk away from it, not being adult enough to recognize a lost cause. So many people here prove my contention about the fact that common sense is so uncommon. And that is NOT specifically directed to any one person or group here.

I am not a religious person, but the serenity prayer's goals are worthy. Let me have the courage to change what must be changed, the patience to accept that which cannot be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference.

To those who talk of free speech - it was not, is not, and is never free. It always comes with a price. Free speech comes about when you do not abuse the privilege. The old USA Supreme Court rule about "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" is an example. Daring to say, "I'm about to explode" (meaning "in anger") while walking through an airport near humorless airport guards is a good example. Say what you want, but think about what you say.

Free speech must be paid for in various ways. Your speech is more likely to be taken seriously if you happen to not abuse others when you speak. Was Bob right? I'm not going to guess, but I recognize that as a moderator, he could certainly warn folks of his intent to enforce the no-insult rule. I know if it were my forum, I would do so.

I'll offer this thought, which isn't original. Post some simple rules about what penalties you are likely to get for common infractions. Maybe nobody will read the rules, but put the link in a prominent place. When someone breaks the rules, point them to the link. Advise them of their status as first warning, second warning, etc. Whatever you decide. But then - and here's the key - enforce the rules fairly.

Also, folks, consider peer pressure. When Col, Rich, Bob, or Vassago go off the deep end, TELL THEM. Feedback helps us realize when we are exceeding societal norms. Jabbering in a vacuum does nobody any good.

Or was I just jabbering in a vacuum just now, too?

I read it typical long winded response from you doc but noble thought alls the same...

Btw - what are they to do when I go off the deep end?

 

[Vassago]

If all col does is hijack threads and takes cheap shots at bob then ban him for good and quit screwing around. And take bobs mods rights away and let him do what he does best, help people with access. Those two things would fix 90% of the friction around here. What grown person asks another if they want a time out...

You may as well lock this thread as far as I'm concerned, i' said my 2 cents worth...

Btw - thanks for unlocking the thread and spending your personal time mod'n. I'll try to shut up for a while...

I didn't say any names. I don't plan on making any decisions that affect permanent bans on my own unless I see attitude that warrants it. I also can't take anybody's mod rights away. As I said before, that's a conversation in private between you and someone above my head if you disagree with a mod's decisions.

No problem, I just wanted to let everyone get their feelings out.

 

[Vassago]

You mean we should never have discussed the illegal war in Iraq and who's being harassed?

I mean any politics at all. It seems to be what has caused the greatest amount of stress on these forums and cause a lot of members and friends to leave.

 

[Vassago]

Come to think of it, ban me rich and Paul as well and you can rid the forum of the remain 10% and have a big hug a buddy thread and sing kumbaya...

(just kidding...)

Oh, come on Ken, you know you'd want to join the group hug and sing-a-long.

 

[Vassago]

I'll offer this thought, which isn't original. Post some simple rules about what penalties you are likely to get for common infractions. Maybe nobody will read the rules, but put the link in a prominent place. When someone breaks the rules, point them to the link. Advise them of their status as first warning, second warning, etc. Whatever you decide. But then - and here's the key - enforce the rules fairly.

Also, folks, consider peer pressure. When Col, Rich, Bob, or Vassago go off the deep end, TELL THEM. Feedback helps us realize when we are exceeding societal norms. Jabbering in a vacuum does nobody any good.

Or was I just jabbering in a vacuum just now, too?

The rules are shown when you sign up about no tolerance on insulting or harrassing other members if I'm not mistaken. I know they are very generic and no one ever reads them. I'm going to work on creating rules that are very clear and concise so everyone can understand them. They won't be "Big Brother" style rules or anything, just basic rules that are a part of all forums I visit and/or moderate on. Some of the forums I moderate or have moderated on had much more non-professional ideals behind them, so you can imagine how lax the rules are. I just think that with my descriptions, they will be more clear that the intent is not to take away anyone's rights to opinions or to punish someone for calling a member they are friendly with a "tit". I'll post them for the moderators, admin, and owner to discuss shortly and if they all agree, we'll make them public with a forum announcement.

Oh, and I never go off the deep end!

 

[Vassago]

Man I wish we had one of those mods that combines multiple posts by the same person consecutively into one post.

 

[PNGBill]

In a "real office" a group around the water cooler would move off when another approaches that has a reputation of side tracking the conversation and or personal comments.

In a forum, the opportunity to "move the conversation" does not exist.

Freedom of speech - what about the freedom to have a good and pleasant conversation ?

If a member really has to make a comment about another member why not start a new thread about this and if there are none or very few postings then maybe this issue is not shared.
Why break into a good conversation to get an unrelated point across - maybe because if it was a new thread, no one would respond.

I know I would rather be in a conversation about food then to have to resort to Freecell when I want to have a break from "work" but the conversation must be enjoyable.

If I want a political conversation then I will go to or start such a thread, not annoy another unrelated thread. I do not consider such an act as my freedom of speech rights but rather a rude interruption of a group conversation.

 

[Vassago]

In a "real office" a group around the water cooler would move off when another approaches that has a reputation of side tracking the conversation and or personal comments.

In a forum, the opportunity to "move the conversation" does not exist.

Freedom of speech - what about the freedom to have a good and pleasant conversation ?

If a member really has to make a comment about another member why not start a new thread about this and if there are none or very few postings then maybe this issue is not shared.
Why break into a good conversation to get an unrelated point across - maybe because if it was a new thread, no one would respond.

I know I would rather be in a conversation about food then to have to resort to Freecell when I want to have a break from "work" but the conversation must be enjoyable.

If I want a political conversation then I will go to or start such a thread, not annoy another unrelated thread. I do not consider such an act as my freedom of speech rights but rather a rude interruption of a group conversation.

That's sort of the point I am getting at with the rules I am typing out. I'll be using very similar analagies since this is a professional forum and I assume most members here have worked in some form of professional setting. I figured the office analagies would be adequate.