PDA

View Full Version : moderating quotas ?



clash
September 3rd, 2008, 12:42 AM
Do the mods needs to close so many threads a day to remain mods or something ?

Honestly, LaRoza closes every single thread that can be taken in the least bit anti-Christian way.

So people are complaining about christians knocking on their doors talking rubbish about god and heaven and hell etc and thats not ok ?

You get more freedom to talk about what you want in North Korea then in the off-topic section.

clash
September 3rd, 2008, 12:50 AM
Oh for god sake, I just saw that a thread about an article on the onion was closed. On the Onion! :mad:

Any IDIOT, yes IDIOT that could possibly get offended by anything on the onion shouldn't be allowed near a computer.

Do you honestly think that ANY Irish person would ever get offended by any of the stories about us on there ?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29582

Oh look, the IRA going to start bombing if we don't get year-round shamrock shakes.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29096

Soap for us dirty filthy Paddys.

Honestly, are we adults or kindergarten students ?

KiwiNZ
September 3rd, 2008, 01:50 AM
I will look at this and respond in due course.

It may be a while as there is a few entried in the res centre today. Please be patient

clash
September 3rd, 2008, 02:01 AM
I will be patient.

Theres 'offence' and then theres just pure utter madness, and the modding in purple ponies has descended into the latter.

Threads are being closed because a mod doesn't personally agree with them and then makes up some reasons to make it sound half plausible.

I'm not the only one who thinks this and this is not a recent occurrence, it has been happening for months and it just keeps getting worse.

There should be some control on lower mods.

KiwiNZ
September 3rd, 2008, 02:22 AM
Can we have some links please .

Thanks

clash
September 3rd, 2008, 02:35 AM
Thread about christians annoying people in their homes
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=908638&page=2

Onion article thread
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=908220

KiwiNZ
September 3rd, 2008, 02:52 AM
Progress report

I have opened the "onions" thread with a rider

As for the religious visitors, thats a hard one .

I understand the frustration at these things it seems to me to fall under the same umbrella as spam and telemarketers DON'T get me started on telemarketers, remember my blood pressure

Anyway I digress ,I want to give this some more thought

clash
September 4th, 2008, 11:41 AM
Progress report

I have opened the "onions" thread with a rider

As for the religious visitors, thats a hard one .

I understand the frustration at these things it seems to me to fall under the same umbrella as spam and telemarketers DON'T get me started on telemarketers, remember my blood pressure

Anyway I digress ,I want to give this some more thought

Have you forgotten about this Mike ?

Howabout this for a proposal.

Theres a LOT of people who think the mods go completely over the top in the off-topic section.

Why can't we have an off-topic section for "adults" ? Not a subforum but on an equal footing as purple ponies.

I'm not suggesting a lawless area where there are no COC's but a place where common sense prevails against over the top political correctness.

90% of the time in purple ponies a thread is locked or a member is given an infraction etc for something completely over the top.

The new adult forum should ..
1. Have common sense prevail in decisions. e.g > a comment which COULD be offensive to someone is very different from a comment which is intentionally meant to be offensive. You can find offence in anything if you look hard enough and thats the current norm.

2. Bad language. I don't know what you call it, cursing, cussing or whatever. We're adults and as adults I should be able to say any word I want to say. Actually if I wanted to, I could complain to you that the current COC is racist because I can't use words that normally make up 60 - 70% of my vocabulary. Irish people use curse words in everyday conversation all the time to just about everyone and 99% of the time they are not meant to be offensive. e.g > Its f*ing p*ing rain today.

Can we at least have a discussion about this on purple ponies ?

KiwiNZ
September 4th, 2008, 11:52 PM
My apologies . I havent forgotten , just that life has been making demands on my time

Its still on my radar

clash
September 7th, 2008, 11:58 PM
Mike.

Are you waiting for this to blow over ? I believe I have relevant points here.

KiwiNZ
September 8th, 2008, 01:44 AM
Not forgotten

I have been very busy here and in my life out of here. I also am about to go to hospital , in a hour or so where I find out if I have also developed a secondary condition.

I will get to this when I can

KiwiNZ
September 8th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Your suggestion of a further "adult" section is out of the question. This is the official support forum for Ubuntu. The standards reflect that of the owners of this Forum.

There are already many social comment forums on the www for the purposes you are suggesting.

This is a moderated forum and staff will moderate according to the brief they have been given.

clash
September 8th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Your suggestion of a further "adult" section is out of the question. This is the official support forum for Ubuntu. The standards reflect that of the owners of this Forum.

There are already many social comment forums on the www for the purposes you are suggesting.

This is a moderated forum and staff will moderate according to the brief they have been given.

My idea was a suggestion to a problem you haven't addressed.

There are many forums etc for topic discussions. I just so happen to enjoy talking about them here in the ubuntu forums off-topic section because, strangely enough, thats what folk seem to think it is. An off-topic section.

There is a problem with moderation here on the forums and it is getting worse and its quite a few people who believe this strongly.

I ask you, is this the Ubuntu support forums with an off-topic section for general fun and intelligent discussion about random topics or is it the Christian ubuntu forums where every topic is ok except for criticism of a certain religion ?

KiwiNZ
September 8th, 2008, 08:31 PM
Threads get closed , not by the actions of staff , but by the actions of posters in the thread.
If the rules are followed threads will not get reported and action need not happen.

Is there moderating quotas? No

clash
September 9th, 2008, 12:43 AM
Threads get closed , not by the actions of staff , but by the actions of posters in the thread.
If the rules are followed threads will not get reported and action need not happen.

Is there moderating quotas? No

So your ignoring the problem ?

Disappointed in you Mike.

I won't bother talking about this again.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 01:28 AM
Disagreeing with you is a seperate issue to ignoring you

I have assessed your requests here and do not agree with them

clash
September 9th, 2008, 04:15 AM
I have assessed your requests here and do not agree with them

I made a request which you disagree with. Fair enough.

I made a point which you are ignoring. i.e > The modding is biased and is an unfair system.

My post was not flamebait anymore then 90% of the threads in the off-topic section.

The problem with my thread was that it hit a personal note with the mods.

If you read my post you will see that I purposely try and request intelligent discussion and I don't go about insulting anyone.

What I posted there are facts which occurred to me lately, its something which really hits a note with me and I wanted some discussion on the subject.

You've seen my posts before, I haven't flamebaited anyone, I haven't insulted anyone and I haven't ever got an infraction or warning before.

What I said in my post was that many people of a particular religious section of one particular religion are acting in a way which I find extremely disagreeable and I want to know A) other peoples opinions and B) do they do this everywhere or just here (Asia).

I did not insult the religion, I did not insult all members of the religion and i didn't even insult all members of the particular 'Way' of following that religion.

In fact I didn't insult anyone, I said I find their behaviour disgusting.

There was another thread here not that long ago about China persecuting Buddhists in Tibet, that thread was left alone. Why ?

There was another thread about the Phelps family (godhates*.com) and it was left alone. Why ?

There are constantly threads about Israel vs Palestine, Bush, Iraq etc etc yet I post a thread which is talking about SOME christian evangelists and it gets shut down.

The only reason I can possibly see for it being shut down is the fact i'm saying some christians are like this and its influence is mostly from American churches.

i.e > Speak not of America or Christians unless you are prasing them. Is that in the COC now ?

Mike it is NOT just me saying this, there are a LOT of us. I have gotten emails about it, private messages about it.

There is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Please look at my thread again.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 04:34 AM
OK ,I will revisit your points and review your thread again.

clash
September 9th, 2008, 04:44 AM
OK ,I will revisit your points and review your thread again.

Just a quick question Mike.

As I said, a lot of people have been emailing and messaging me about this issue. Someone has just suggested I should repost my thread but take out references to 'Catholics' and 'christians' and 'America'. I'm not going to do this btw just telling you it was suggested to me.

Now personally I am being 100% honest with you, I do NOT know what I did wrong, what part of my thread is wrong or what part of it I should change to make it ok.

I've been told its flamebait which is as vague as you can get because I and many other people clearly do not agree.

Are you saying the thread is closed because of future possible replies which could be offensive ? If so why did I get an infraction and then why not open with a warning that X and Y language/reference will not be tolerated ?

Thanks again.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 04:55 AM
In this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=913492 you may well have valid points. I don't know as I have not had the privilege to visit Korea.

Its not what you are saying , you have , like all others the right to hold the opinion you have. It is in the way in which you are delivering it.

In fact one could say you are delivering your beliefs here in the same vane as you are objecting to in the quoted thread.

There are much better ways in which you could word your posts that still deliver what you feel with out the confrontation and the subsequent breach of the Forum Code of conduct

To that end ,while I review your threads , I challenge you to review them in someone else's eyes. see ways in which you could reword them to make them more acceptable

e.g your post number four in the above thread you said this ...

"You don't think its disgusting that some guy is walking around the streets telling me if they follow buddhism they are going to hell ?

Thats not the way decent human beings act."

A better way would be ...Do you not agree that the person addressing public in the streets should use a more polite and balanced way to deliver their message. As the way they are currently doing this is incorrect behavior in public in a multi ethnic society...

This is non aggressive and is unlikely to offend .

Do you see where I am coming from?

clash
September 9th, 2008, 05:12 AM
In this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=913492 you may well have valid points. I don't know as I have not had the privilege to visit Korea.

If it helps I can provide proof.

I can almost guarantee you that I have a lot of people on these forums who disagree with and subsequently don't like me but I am almost 100% they will tell you I haven't lied yet and if proven wrong I admit it.


e.g your post number four in the above thread you said this ...

"You don't think its disgusting that some guy is walking around the streets telling me if they follow buddhism they are going to hell ?

Thats not the way decent human beings act."

A better way would be ...Do you not agree that the person addressing public in the streets should use a more polite and balanced way to deliver their message. As the way they are currently doing this is incorrect behavior in public in a multi ethnic society...

This is non aggressive and is unlikely to offend .

Do you see where I am coming from?

I understand your point. I don't know if I agree with it or not but I'm going to argue against it in another way.

Your suggesting I should be more conservative/polite/pleasant in my points yet there are dozens of threads left open that are far worse then the 'way' I am talking in that thread.

For one simple example, this thread -> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=913959

And the OP posts "These must be the most loathsome people in the world, I never agreed with the war in Iraq but protesting at funerals and telling mothers their children are going to hell is despicable. I know their are only 71 of them but that's 71 to many."

The third poster "It must be a pretty sorry excuse for a life being involved with a group like that."

This thread -> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=908638

The OP says "...After I halfway crack open the door, I realize it's the damned religious people.. I felt like I was just suckerpunched....."

And thats from the first page Mike.

I agree that my ""You don't think its disgusting that some guy is walking around the streets telling me if they follow buddhism they are going to hell ?

Thats not the way decent human beings act.""

Is not as polite as yours but I'm still not insulting anyone, I'm asking a poster do they not agree with my feelings on the subject i.e > disgusted and then I state its not the way decent people act, which I believe it isn't.

clash
September 9th, 2008, 05:21 AM
Did I just get this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=913959 closed because I was using it in my argument ?

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 05:25 AM
I really dont know , I will have to look

matthew
September 9th, 2008, 06:35 AM
Since I am currently in the middle of some circumstances keeping me very busy in real life, I haven't been around as much recently and haven't had the time to post a response. I'm going to make an exception here and take a break from other stuff to see if I can help bring some clarity to the discussion.

I have been reading this thread with interest. clash, it is not your points that are generally offensive, but the manner in which you choose to express them. Your current method is directly confrontational and will almost always give rise to grumpy responses, not to a civil or healthy exchange of ideas.

Consider your thread on Korean Christians and their methods of evangelism. Had you stated your case this way, I would not see any problem.


I was walking down the street and I saw people being quite pushy and even a bit rude in their insistence that we all listen to their ideas. Whatever their beliefs, the methods they are using to express them is counter productive and only serves to make them look bad, while causing more and more people to reject their beliefs without even hearing them. This includes me. These people came across as arrogant, disrespectful, and self-righteous.

The people in question are Korean Christians (perhaps not all of them are like this, but those I have witnessed recently and consistently are) and their actions seem to stand in direct contrast to what I was taught is the foundation of their beliefs. As an Irish Catholic, I have some familiarity with the Bible from my classes in school, and I have never seen people from a Catholic background attempt to proselytize in this manner. Neither have I seen the local Buddhists act in this manner.

What do you think leads people to behave this way?
Please note the complete absence of the sort of language that immediately puts people either on the defensive, or encourages them to join in the rabid attack. Words like "disgusting behavior" and "really sickens me."

The staff member in question was right to close the thread, not because your content was disallowed, but because the manner in which you chose to convey it was provocative in its tone, in the sense of giving rise to an argumentative and confrontational atmosphere for the "discussion" to take place, rather than a polite tone, which expressed strong disagreement with full force while remaining respectful overall.

I fully support the actions of the staff in closing the thread, as well as the description of your post as "flamebait," because the style you are choosing to use to express yourself is confrontational, self-righteous, and does not lend itself well to peaceful discussions of ideas...ironically, much like the "disgusting behavior" you have described in others.

clash
September 9th, 2008, 07:34 AM
I have 2 main seperate points to ask here.

point 1



I have been reading this thread with interest. clash, it is not your points that are generally offensive, but the manner in which you choose to express them. Your current method is directly confrontational and will almost always give rise to grumpy responses, not to a civil or healthy exchange of ideas.[/quotes]

Seems to be my personality to be perfectly honest. I hadn't realised anything of the sort but if you take what I say that way then I accept it.

I would however point out that to me and to people from my culture, the way I expressed myself is not at all the way you take it up to be.

[QUOTE]Please note the complete absence of the sort of language that immediately puts people either on the defensive, or encourages them to join in the rabid attack. Words like "disgusting behavior" and "really sickens me."

While accepting your point, as I did with Mikes let me state this.

There are hundreds of threads in the off-topic section which use far worse language and are far more confrontational then the one in question.

The difference seems to be the actual subject, so while you may be right that the reason it was closed was because of my confrontational language etc. I am right that other threads that go the same and worse then mine are let go because the mods do not have a problem with the content.

So while my thread may have been closed under the rules for the 'way' I expressed myself. It was actually closed because of the content because there are any number of threads searchable right now in the off-topic section which do far worse then mine against the rules in question.

i.e > Other threads which break the same rule (and worse) are not closed because the 'content' isn't disagreeable to certain mods.


The staff member in question was right to close the thread, not because your content was disallowed, but because the manner in which you chose to convey it was provocative in its tone, in the sense of giving rise to an argumentative and confrontational atmosphere for the "discussion" to take place, rather than a polite tone, which expressed strong disagreement with full force while remaining respectful overall.

Well then let me either A) edit my original thread posting and change my wording or B) let me start a new thread and I will literally copy and paste what you wrote above as the first post.

Is that acceptable ?

Because while I do see your points and I can sort of understand how different cultures can take things up differently, overall I see no difference between what I wrote and the way you reworded it so I have no problem continuing the thread but using your language.

Point 2

I also hope that you can look at the original reason I started this particular thread.

Apart from my latest thread that has been shut down, there has been numerous threads shut down (and usually reopened) by mods in the off-topic section.

These threads are been targetted by mods for their own personal reasons and not for any breach of the rules. Although they can give a psuedo-reason based on the rules, usually the threads I am talking about are re-opened by Mike.

btw I am not talking about my threads alone here but many peoples threads. I have gotten many emails and private messages about these issues especially some 'certain' mods who shall remain nameless. They target threads because of content which disagrees with their own personal beliefs.

Can you please look into this issue ? And if possible can we please have a discussion/poll on this subject in the main off-topic forum so everyone can voice their concern ?

Thank you.

matthew
September 9th, 2008, 03:46 PM
I have edited down your reply to just the main points.


I have 2 main seperate points to ask here.

point 1

... to me and to people from my culture, the way I expressed myself is not at all the way you take it up to be.

There are hundreds of threads in the off-topic section which use far worse language and are far more confrontational then the one in question.

The difference seems to be the actual subject, so while you may be right that the reason it was closed was because of my confrontational language etc. I am right that other threads that go the same and worse then mine are let go because the mods do not have a problem with the content.
There are really a few different issues here, all connected into one. I'll address them each individually.

In a worldwide forum like this, it is best to attempt to communicate in the simplest manner possible. Irony, satire, sarcasm and the like are often very closely tied to culture and do not communicate the same way across borders. As a rule of thumb, if you do not wish to offend, and if you would like to have the most profitable exchange of ideas in the best of atmospheres, then it is wise to default to the most polite and clear expression possible.

Next, whether others have "crossed the line" into inappropriate behavior is a secondary issue and not directly germane to this conversation. Bringing it up is like asking a traffic cop who stopped you for speeding why he didn't stop all the others who were driving next to you. Most will respond by asking if you have ever gone fishing, then go on to ask whether you ever caught all of the fish.

We have a limited staff who are not able to see everything, and honestly, we would prefer to be participants in the forums more often than policing them. We like to answer tech questions, write how-to articles, and be a positive influence and example to the community. This is why we were asked to staff the forums, and it is what we are best at. We have no interest in turning the forums into a "police state" style of society.

Most of the time, we do not find problems ourselves, but we respond to reported posts. Unless a staff member happens to stumble across a bad or problematic post at random, post reports are all we have to know when problems arise. Your posts have been reported regularly, and not only by members of a specific faith. Whether other posts are equally offensive and missed is not going to influence whether yours are dealt with when discovered. The volume of posts we have in the forums prevents us from reading every post, and we don't really want to be a surveillance society anyway. We will deal with issues that are brought to our attention, and always appreciate when this is done politely and clearly.


Well then let me either A) edit my original thread posting and change my wording or B) let me start a new thread and I will literally copy and paste what you wrote above as the first post.

Is that acceptable ?Go ahead and start a new thread. You have my permission. :) If you can word it in a way that allows for a free and open exchange of ideas that does not devolve into name calling or general grumpiness, I'm all for it.



Point 2

I also hope that you can look at the original reason I started this particular thread.

Apart from my latest thread that has been shut down, there has been numerous threads shut down (and usually reopened) by mods in the off-topic section.

These threads are been targetted by mods for their own personal reasons and not for any breach of the rules. Although they can give a psuedo-reason based on the rules, usually the threads I am talking about are re-opened by Mike.

btw I am not talking about my threads alone here but many peoples threads. I have gotten many emails and private messages about these issues especially some 'certain' mods who shall remain nameless. They target threads because of content which disagrees with their own personal beliefs.
Point taken. It has been and is being discussed among the Forum Council. I won't report back on this as it is an internal affair. I will say that we expect the staff to treat all members with respect regardless of whether they agree with the member's ideas or are dealing with misbehavior.

If you find instances that do not live up to this standard, you are invited to send me a copy of the correspondence via PM, or post a politely and clearly worded thread with appropriate quotes in the Resolution Center.

I think you will find that we are consistently kind and gentle when approached with kindness and gentleness, and that we give people and honest and fair shake when they can present their case clearly and without hyperbole or derogatory language. Even when we end up not agreeing, most people will walk away from the exchange satisfied that they have been heard, respected, and their thoughts and opinions honestly considered.

clash
September 9th, 2008, 05:22 PM
In a worldwide forum like this, it is best to attempt to communicate in the simplest manner possible. Irony, satire, sarcasm and the like are often very closely tied to culture and do not communicate the same way across borders.

Point taken and accepted.


Next, whether others have "crossed the line" into inappropriate behavior is a secondary issue and not directly germane to this conversation.

I believe it is because.

1. USually the mod that misses 20 other posts will catch the 1 post that he/she personally (is known) to have an issue with. Shall we say, one mod might be of a particular religious background. 10 posts will go on and break the same rules but only the 1 post which talks about their religion in any way critically will be closed.

This is not an issue of the fish that got away, its targeting fish. Very different from your point which I do agree with by the way. I'll well aware you can't be everywhere, but that's a separate issue.


Your posts have been reported regularly, and not only by members of a specific faith. Whether other posts are equally offensive and missed is not going to influence whether yours are dealt with when discovered.

See above.

And, really ? My posts get reported quite regularly ? I find that hard to believe unless someone has a particular love of animals and don't like eating live animals and ... etc because I can only actually remember 2 or 3 posts where I talked about faith. The vast majority of my posts are harmless fun.

I'm not arguing, just honestly surprised if what you say is indeed true.

Were you told this or you seen this yourself ?


Go ahead and start a new thread.

Will do.


Point taken. It has been and is being discussed among the Forum Council. I won't report back on this as it is an internal affair. I will say that we expect the staff to treat all members with respect regardless of whether they agree with the member's ideas or are dealing with misbehavior.

Well may I make a suggestion ?

A lot of people that email/message me etc make a couple of points very clear.

1. Threads that are closed, fairly or unfairly generally just get left to die because its only the OP who can defend the thread here in the resolution center. I don't know what possible other solution you could have but this is unfair since it comes down to a mod vs a member and theres usually only one winner.

2. People are not allowed voice their opinion of the modding especially for a particular case.



I think you will find that we are consistently kind and gentle when approached with kindness and gentleness, and that we give people and honest and fair shake when they can present their case clearly and without hyperbole or derogatory language. Even when we end up not agreeing, most people will walk away from the exchange satisfied that they have been heard, respected, and their thoughts and opinions honestly considered.

Can I use inappropriate language when talking about myself ?

I know I'm a disagreeable stubborn ******* and I usually deserve what I get and I rarely argue against it.

But I make a real concious effort here to NOT do what comes natural. If for only one example, you have no idea how difficult it is for me not to curse in every sentence. Its inbuilt into me from my culture but I don't think I've cursed once here.

But certain mods are abusing their power and making sure that issues they don't like don't come up in discussion. This is not fair, it is not open and it is really annoying a lot of people here.

The users simply have no power here. They are voiceless.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 08:20 PM
Clash, I am impressed and very pleased.

I feel we have made a huge step forward with the re word of your thread.

It now leaves that subject free to be debated as you wanted and keeps it inline with the Forum rules. Its a win win

Thank you very much for listening . And in that spirit I commit to re reading all your points again.

matthew
September 9th, 2008, 08:27 PM
1. Usually the mod that misses 20 other posts will catch the 1 post that he/she personally (is known) to have an issue with. Shall we say, one mod might be of a particular religious background. 10 posts will go on and break the same rules but only the 1 post which talks about their religion in any way critically will be closed.

This is not an issue of the fish that got away, its targeting fish. Very different from your point which I do agree with by the way. I'll well aware you can't be everywhere, but that's a separate issue.

This is something we try to prevent. The general policy is that when a moderator sees an issue involving an issue about which they feel strongly, they should report the post and let other staff review it and act as necessary. That doesn't always happen, but it is the guideline that has been given in the past and which we reiterate from time to time. Because I understand the concern, I will remind the staff of this.

At the same time, we recognize that there are times when there may only be one staff member online and when something may need to be done. We want to leave some flexibility in the guideline to allow for this, but we certainly do not want to see this abused.

Again, I understand your point.

One part of the issue in the realm of your personal experience is that we only have two or three staff who read the off-topic areas regularly, at least the OPP. When I have the time to be around regularly (not at the moment, though), I am among them. I don't think the appearance of abuse which you point out exists in any other area of the forums, so let's limit our discussion to those areas (unless I am horribly mistaken, then please correct me).

I'll remind staff to please report posts and allow other staff to review threads in which the staffer finding a potential problem may be too close to to be objective.

In return, will you allow the possibility (maybe even the probability) that there is not a sinister scheme among the staff to promote or put down any specific religion or philosophy, other than the right for people to be addressed in a polite and gentle manner?


And, really ? My posts get reported quite regularly ? I find that hard to believe unless someone has a particular love of animals and don't like eating live animals and ... etc because I can only actually remember 2 or 3 posts where I talked about faith. The vast majority of my posts are harmless fun.

I'm not arguing, just honestly surprised if what you say is indeed true.

Were you told this or you seen this yourself ? I have observed it personally.


Well may I make a suggestion ?

A lot of people that email/message me etc make a couple of points very clear.

1. Threads that are closed, fairly or unfairly generally just get left to die because its only the OP who can defend the thread here in the resolution center. I don't know what possible other solution you could have but this is unfair since it comes down to a mod vs a member and theres usually only one winner.

Unfortunately, that is how life works. We try to be fair and balanced and give an honest listen to all sides in every issue raised. Ultimately, a decision will have to be made.

It is an imperfect system, but it is the best we have come up with. If you have a better idea, please feel free to write up a proposal and come to a Forum Council meeting and present it. We will listen.


2. People are not allowed voice their opinion of the modding especially for a particular case.

I don't think this is actually true. I have listened to many voices express their opinions on our staff and their activities. I have even sided with them at times. The overall trend, though, is people simply complaining because they didn't like what happened, even though they were on the wrong end of the code of conduct. We have an objective standard for many things, and a clearly implied subjective standard for almost everything else.

Porn? Wrong, immediate ban and jail of posts.

Insulting another member? It depends on the severity and frequency of the offense by the perpetrator, but it will always receive some sort of aknowledgement from staff and a demand for the behavior to be modified in the future.

Using a naughty word? It depends on the context. We may ignore a word in some contexts that we will definitely not allow in another, such as when directed toward another member.

Really, most things fall within the bounds of common courtesy and reasonable sense. The typical forum member never has the slightest issue with staff or their activities. That says a lot in an internet forum, which are generally difficult places to run or participate for long periods. I think it is a huge complement that we have members who joined in October 2004 that are still active and love this place.


Can I use inappropriate language when talking about myself ?

I know I'm a disagreeable stubborn ******* and I usually deserve what I get and I rarely argue against it.

But I make a real concious effort here to NOT do what comes natural. If for only one example, you have no idea how difficult it is for me not to curse in every sentence. Its inbuilt into me from my culture but I don't think I've cursed once here. See above. This is one of those moments where I have no interest in intervening.

I appreciate your efforts to moderate your normal mode of communication. Thank you. This shows an effort, is well mannered, and courteous. That is an example of being polite.


But certain mods are abusing their power and making sure that issues they don't like don't come up in discussion. This is not fair, it is not open and it is really annoying a lot of people here.

The users simply have no power here. They are voiceless.
I simply do not agree with this premise, for the reasons I gave above, and also because of the example of you using the voice you have to express yourself to me and receive an answer. Others have done likewise many times. This is why the Resolution Center exists. This is why we have open meetings of the Forum Council on irc that anyone may attend and that anyone is permitted to put an item on the agenda for and come to discuss it with us.

A small number of forum members may feel voiceless because they may not have the type or convenience of expressing themselves in the manner of their choosing, but that is how interaction and communication work--you adapt yourself to fit the surroundings and circumstances and find a way to make yourself heard within the given and prearranged constraints. This is in no way the same as not having a voice.

Also, this is a moderated forum. That is stated clearly in our terms of service, called the Forum Code of Conduct, that is presented upon registration and never more than a click away for any member to read. Requiring people to operate and conduct themselves within clearly advertised and available guidelines is not inappropriate in a private place. We do absolutely nothing which would limit the ability of any forum member to start their own website or blog and express themselves to the world in whatever manner they may choose. Opting to become a part of a community that is intentionally self-limiting is not the same as not having a voice.