The Fate of the Buster - Looking for Input

[southsider2k5]

My biggest issue with everything 2k5 just said is tht I think, for example, I can say every single thing e just said about any thread where Joe Cowley is the subject. Constant snide remarks, one upmanship, a pissig contest. Game threads too. The NBA thread too. And Hell, the pet thread too. But people only let it get under their skin back here.

 

Except this is the one place it is expressly prohibited.

[kapkomet]

My biggest issue with everything 2k5 just said is tht I think, for example, I can say every single thing e just said about any thread where Joe Cowley is the subject. Constant snide remarks, one upmanship, a pissig contest. Game threads too. The NBA thread too. And Hell, the pet thread too. But people only let it get under their skin back here.

 

 

I disagree. A lot. It gets under people's skin all over the place, which is why a lot of this is being brought up. It's not just this forum.

[southsider2k5]

Rules-as-written and rules-as-enforced-or-interpreted are never the same thing.

 

Which is why this place is miserable to moderate.

[iamshack]

How is anyone to know what the board policy actually is if these things aren't discussed in the open or at least explained to members afterwards?

SS,

I'm sure you have a pretty good idea of what posts and posters push the envelope.

 

They just discuss how to keep things productive, while allowing the most freedom of expression possible.

 

The issue I have always had with th Buster is that it's most frequent posters are mods/admins, and it's always difficult to apply the rules to those people fairly.

 

As for the Martin thread, I'm actually very proud of the discussion in that thread. That is a topic that has a very high polarization potential, and the vast, vast majority of posts were respectful, yet argumentative. I think the risk of a few unnecessary comments here and there is a cheap price to pay for the ability to have a discussion such as tht with one's peers.

Edited April 19, 2012 by iamshack

[DukeNukeEm]

Its a really bad, bad, bad forum. Its never thought provoking, its full of people rooting for scandal and, for the internet, the political correctness here is out of control. I say destroy it on behalf of making the world a better place.

[StrangeSox]

And for example, if you knew I felt you should be suspended for X, and it did or didn't happen, what would your thought be after that?

 

 

If I were suspended, I'd be confused since I personally don't feel any post I made would be worthy of that. More importantly I would be upset that moderation policy discussions weren't been held out in the open or at least communicated with membership when it concerns grey areas or potentially grey areas. It isn't fair to membership to have unclear lines and boundaries.

 

Honestly, I would not hold any resentment that you and other mods/admins may have a different interpretation of the rules than I do and that mods/admins have final say.

[kapkomet]

Its a really bad, bad, bad forum. Its never thought provoking, its full of people rooting for scandal and, for the internet, the political correctness here is out of control. I say destroy it on behalf of making the world a better place.

 

Seriously?

 

Wow.

[southsider2k5]

If I were suspended, I'd be confused since I personally don't feel any post I made would be worthy of that. More importantly I would be upset that moderation policy discussions weren't been held out in the open or at least communicated with membership when it concerns grey areas or potentially grey areas. It isn't fair to membership to have unclear lines and boundaries.

 

Honestly, I would not hold any resentment that you and other mods/admins may have a different interpretation of the rules than I do and that mods/admins have final say.

 

The moderation policies are all out in the open, and always have been. It is the discussion behind the enforcement of them that isn't, and won't be. If you were to receive a punishment of some sort we would tell you why you got it, but it wouldn't be public, unless there were extraordinary circumstances.

 

It might not upset you, but trust me when I say this, you would be an exception to the rule.

[StrangeSox]

SS,

I'm sure you have a pretty good idea of what posts and posters push the envelope.

 

They just discuss how to keep things productive, while allowing the most freedom of expression possible.

 

I do not have a good idea if multiple posts within the Martin thread were over the line in the view of some mods and admins. I recall one post near the end having a mod's edit notes. I would like to have a better understanding.

 

FWIW the other board I frequently post at is 100% openly democratic in everything. This has it's own negative aspects e.g. endless rules-lawyering, but everyone knows where individual moderators and admins stand on board policy and what is or isn't appropriate. That board is that way for board history/cultural reasons, and I don't believe that's necessarily the best policy for SoxTalk to follow. But that may give you some idea of where I'm coming from.

 

I don't have a problem with the SoxTalk moderation and never have. I've been suspended once, deserved it and knew it when I hit "Add Reply." Something to consider is that while some may not like the loose moderation policies at SoxTalk and post less or leave because of it, others may not like a more heavy-handed approach.

 

The issue I have always had with th Buster is that it's most frequent posters are mods/admins, and it's always difficult to apply the rules to those people fairly.

 

I do not view the moderators and admins as any different than the rest of membership, except they have a few more buttons to play around with. I mean this in the most positive way possible, in that I don't hold them to any different standard than I expect from anyone else and I haven't witnessed any biased moderation imo.

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

Strange, that's some good feedback actually.

[StrangeSox]

The moderation policies are all out in the open, and always have been. It is the discussion behind the enforcement of them that isn't, and won't be. If you were to receive a punishment of some sort we would tell you why you got it, but it wouldn't be public, unless there were extraordinary circumstances.

 

It might not upset you, but trust me when I say this, you would be an exception to the rule.

 

I feel it's only fair that, if mods and admins are discussing a specific member's posts, that that member is informed and perhaps even brought into the discussion.

[southsider2k5]

I do not have a good idea if multiple posts within the Martin thread were over the line in the view of some mods and admins. I recall one post near the end having a mod's edit notes. I would like to have a better understanding.

 

FWIW the other board I frequently post at is 100% openly democratic in everything. This has it's own negative aspects e.g. endless rules-lawyering, but everyone knows where individual moderators and admins stand on board policy and what is or isn't appropriate. That board is that way for board history/cultural reasons, and I don't believe that's necessarily the best policy for SoxTalk to follow. But that may give you some idea of where I'm coming from.

 

I don't have a problem with the SoxTalk moderation and never have. I've been suspended once, deserved it and knew it when I hit "Add Reply." Something to consider is that while some may not like the loose moderation policies at SoxTalk and post less or leave because of it, others may not like a more heavy-handed approach.

 

 

 

I do not view the moderators and admins as any different than the rest of membership, except they have a few more buttons to play around with. I mean this in the most positive way possible, in that I don't hold them to any different standard than I expect from anyone else and I haven't witnessed any biased moderation imo.

 

It has always been our goal to stand as a group. A lot of that comes out where people came from before here where the perception was that people were routinely suspended for essentially personal grudges of individual admins/mods. It has always been our goal to interfere as little as possible and to keep the discussion as respectful as possible. It isn't an easy balance. There have been times where I have wanted to drop the hammer, when others didn't and vice versa. A solid discussion ensues about the specific instance and a decision is made as a group. If it makes it out the moderation team, there is always a good reason for whatever we decide. I promise you that much. I can honestly say while we may argue internally about specific decisions, it has worked well for the site as a whole.

 

I will say this much about the Martin thread, the edited post wasn't the only one that brought up discussion. I'd venture to say everyone who posted in the thread violated the letter and intent of the filibuster rules at some point.

[iamshack]

It has always been our goal to stand as a group. A lot of that comes out where people came from before here where the perception was that people were routinely suspended for essentially personal grudges of individual admins/mods. It has always been our goal to interfere as little as possible and to keep the discussion as respectful as possible. It isn't an easy balance. There have been times where I have wanted to drop the hammer, when others didn't and vice versa. A solid discussion ensues about the specific instance and a decision is made as a group. If it makes it out the moderation team, there is always a good reason for whatever we decide. I promise you that much. I can honestly say while we may argue internally about specific decisions, it has worked well for the site as a whole.

 

I will say this much about the Martin thread, the edited post wasn't the only one that brought up discussion. I'd venture to say everyone who posted in the thread violated the letter and intent of the filibuster rules at some point.

The letter and intent are a bit unrealistic.

[southsider2k5]

I feel it's only fair that, if mods and admins are discussing a specific member's posts, that that member is informed and perhaps even brought into the discussion.

 

It has happened in the past, and it caused really, really big issues.

[Balta1701]

And IMO, I thought that the line in that thread wasn't crossed until the insults that were removed from that post. Just like id say about the other forums here.

[southsider2k5]

And IMO, I thought that the line in that thread wasn't crossed until the insults that were removed from that post. Just like id say about the other forums here.

 

And IMO, it happened on the very first page.

[iamshack]

And IMO, it happened on the very first page.

Let's be honest, if we're going to go by the letter of those rules, the debate will be bland, humorless, and not mentally stimulating for anyone.

 

Change the rules...

[StrangeSox]

It has always been our goal to stand as a group. A lot of that comes out where people came from before here where the perception was that people were routinely suspended for essentially personal grudges of individual admins/mods. It has always been our goal to interfere as little as possible and to keep the discussion as respectful as possible. It isn't an easy balance. There have been times where I have wanted to drop the hammer, when others didn't and vice versa. A solid discussion ensues about the specific instance and a decision is made as a group. If it makes it out the moderation team, there is always a good reason for whatever we decide. I promise you that much. I can honestly say while we may argue internally about specific decisions, it has worked well for the site as a whole.

 

I will say this much about the Martin thread, the edited post wasn't the only one that brought up discussion. I'd venture to say everyone who posted in the thread violated the letter and intent of the filibuster rules at some point.

 

First, let me say that I think you have done a very commendable job in achieving your goal of impartial and fair moderation.

 

I think this still points out an important issue--decisions on what is or isn't over the line are simply handed out by the moderation group black box without talking to the poster in question and then informing the community as a whole as to what was over the line. Sometimes, as when Y2HH and I got ourselves banned with essentially a "go f*** yourself" exchange, it's crystal-clear as to what happened and why. If Y2HH or iamshack made a post that resulted in a suspension but it wasn't exactly clear as to why they were suspended, how are the rest of the members supposed to check that they're in line with policy? With a quadrennial stickied thread?

 

On the other hand, I also understand not wanting to drag every member/post discussion out into the public and that finding a way to communicate issues without doing so isn't necessarily an easy task.

[StrangeSox]

Let's be honest, if we're going to go by the letter of those rules, the debate will be bland, humorless, and not mentally stimulating for anyone.

 

Change the rules...

 

This can also result in long-winded or passive aggressive insults and snark cloaked in a bunch of words as some people constantly try to walk right up to that line without going over it.

[kapkomet]

Let's be honest, if we're going to go by the letter of those rules, the debate will be bland, humorless, and not mentally stimulating for anyone.

 

Change the rules...

 

You, of anyone, should know why that doesn't work.

[Soxbadger]

Busterites-

 

1. Should there even BE a Filibuster? Should it be its own site?

 

2. If there should, are the rules as posted satisfactory? What would you add, remove or change from them?

 

3. How should enforcement be handled? We've been pretty hands-off recently... should we do more to corral certain types of posts?

 

4. Should there be any limitation on topics discussed? Anything we should simply not discuss at all?

 

5. How has SoxTalk performed with handling this forum? What can we do better? What do we already do well?

 

6. Are there any "soft" measures we could take to improve things? By soft, we mean not suspensions and bans and the like, but smaller measures.

 

Your input is important here, as we look to decide where to go with this forum. How people respond will have a strong bearing on the decisions made. So please discuss (and remember, NOT about individual posters).

 

We thank you for your support.

 

1. Sure, I see no reason to remove it.

 

2. I dont care for rules. So whatever you guys feel is fine.

 

3. I like hands off.

 

4. No limits.

 

5. Better than most sites.

 

6. I dont know, I dont really have any issues with this forum.

 

 

 

[iamshack]

You, of anyone, should know why that doesn't work.

So having a bunch that aren't followed, nor enforced, is somehow a better idea?

 

Those rules are violated all over the forum every day. They have been rendered useless because they are too restrictive.

 

The rules should be based on common sense, not some inclusive set of instructions which ultimately result in a chilling of expression so great as to ruin the entire purpose of a message board.

[StrangeSox]

It has happened in the past, and it caused really, really big issues.

 

One thing that I pointed out to balta when I was suspended is that all board functionality is completely removed. You cannot even view the board without logging out, but more importantly, you cannot respond to administrators and mods. I don't believe that's fair, to not give the member a chance for input. In my case, I simply wanted to apologize, to admit that I knew my post was over the line.

 

IMO mods and administrators should be at least somewhat accountable to the membership. This cannot happen without discussion.

[Balta1701]

So having a bunch that aren't followed, nor enforced, is somehow a better idea?

 

Those rules are violated all over the forum every day. They have been rendered useless because they are too restrictive.

 

The rules should be based on common sense, not some inclusive set of instructions which ultimately result in a chilling of expression so great as to ruin the entire purpose of a message board.

The problem there is that we keep those rules because occasionally everyone gets tired of the snark in PHt and we wind up enforcing stronger for a while.

[kapkomet]

One thing that I pointed out to balta when I was suspended is that all board functionality is completely removed. You cannot even view the board without logging out, but more importantly, you cannot respond to administrators and mods. I don't believe that's fair, to not give the member a chance for input. In my case, I simply wanted to apologize, to admit that I knew my post was over the line.

 

IMO mods and administrators should be at least somewhat accountable to the membership. This cannot happen without discussion.

 

 

I cannot disagree with that. In fact, I think we can change that, if I remember correctly. Good point.