Censorship here excessive?...

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Here? PM us, I'd like to see this example.

Sure: Huge Nozzle on Earth? (help with explanation)


Ok, well, I'm Kidding.
But if I spot examples during my browsing through the day, I'll make a note of each and send.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

However, I do think that most/all issues have two sides. I think that if one side is presented the other side should also be presented as well.

But, Mom, he started it...

If the sides are political, then the thing the board owners seem to want you to do is report the presentation of the first political side, and let moderation occur. Right?

I don't come to BAUT to hear political arguments. I don't want to hear both sides. I've been around. I've heard them before. I don't want to hear one side, but hearing both sides is worse, and invites infinite rebuttal.

Don't do it. Or, do it and then accept the consequences.

[nauthiz]

Originally Posted by Swift

I have resigned myself to the fact that no matter how I do it, large chunks of the membership will think it is too much or too little. So I'll continue to try to find the best path I think I can.

I've run into this problem on the forum I moderate. The mod staff over there settled on the goal of having the number of accusations of fascism be about equal to the number of accusations of letting the place turn into a lord of the flies situation. Personally, I'm not sure that's optimal because it seems to be too tolerant of people getting nasty with each other and that creates all sorts of factions and spats that can carry on for ages. The place would probably be more pleasant for everyone if we were all fascist all the time.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Or, do it and then accept the consequences.

You know, that is an interesting tactic, that is rarely followed.

Let's say you have something that you just have to get off your chest, be it political or whatever, but it is something that isn't allowed under BAUT rules. One way to handle that need, particularly if you are a member in good standing, is to just do it and accept the consequences. Mostly like you will get a stern warning or a 24 hour suspension (unless it is something very onerous, such as threatening another member with physical harm). So you say your bit, take your punishment, and just move on. If you keep your record clean for several months, it probably won't even be held against you in the future.

Yet, I only recall a handfull of members who own up to what they have done (one in particular who recently turned themselves in and asked to be suspended).

Now, I'm not encouraging people to break the rules. As others have said, it really isn't that tough to remain within them, IMHO. But it isn't the end of the world when you do (in the vast majority of cases).

[Swift]

Originally Posted by nauthiz

The place would probably be more pleasant for everyone if we were all fascist all the time.

I could start a poll and let people vote for their favorite dictator, then model myself after the winner.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Swift

Let's say you have something that you just have to get off your chest, be it political or whatever, but it is something that isn't allowed under BAUT rules. One way to handle that need, particularly if you are a member in good standing, is to just do it and accept the consequences.

Yep, that's my plan.
I've promised myself one truly spectacular loss of equanimity on my way out.

Grant Hutchison

[Swift]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Yep, that's my plan.
I've promised myself one truly spectacular loss of equanimity on my way out.

Grant Hutchison

You would not be the only one who has entertained that thought on more than one occasion.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by Swift

OK, I'll own that one.

No, flynjack1's post was not deemed appropriate, it was inappropriate. It was posted within a couple of minutes of my warning. It is quite possible that he was typing his in and hadn't seen my warning when he hit enter. I decided to give him the benefit of doubt.

I also had some grave doubts about some other recent threads including the Harvey Milk one and the two different ones about the Noble Peace Prize.

It is a very fine line we walk. I try, believe it or not, not to over-moderate, not to call foul on every single possible infraction. I try to assume that people are adults and just sometimes stray a little over the line. If necessary, I'll give them a little push back - for example, my warning in the CERN scientist thread was very gently written, as was Captain Swoop's later one.

Yet, judging by half the threads in this part of the forum, our moderation is onerous and heavy handed (over-moderation, censorship). I'll admit, it often makes me wonder and even threatens sometimes to make me both gun-shy to act, or to say "what the heck" and just embrace my inner censor and go on a banning spree (if you are going to be accused of the crime anyway, you might as well go commit it).

I have resigned myself to the fact that no matter how I do it, large chunks of the membership will think it is too much or too little. So I'll continue to try to find the best path I think I can.

Well the Harvey Milk thread is a fine example of the issues. BigDon can post his comments about wanting a day of his own which tend to be highly offensive to some of us. But the warnings begin to arrive when we begin to protest that comments such as his are in bad taste. The only way we can do this in this type of forum is to show examples as to why his comments are offensive.

The end result is that such offensive comments seem to slide through, but the protests are warned off and result in locked threads.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

I think we're at cross-purposes.
I was suggesting that posters (like the OP) who immediately suspect censorship and secret agendas simply because their posts go through a moderation process are behaving in an oddly paranoid manner.
I have no objection to that moderation process or to the (mild) paranoia about unwanted posts that it reflects.

Grant Hutchison

I have been very careful NOT to suggest "secret agendas". I freely acknowledge that such calls are hard. I am also pointing out that the system appears to be flawed in some ways.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by 01101001

But, Mom, he started it...

If the sides are political, then the thing the board owners seem to want you to do is report the presentation of the first political side, and let moderation occur. Right?

I don't come to BAUT to hear political arguments. I don't want to hear both sides. I've been around. I've heard them before. I don't want to hear one side, but hearing both sides is worse, and invites infinite rebuttal.

Don't do it. Or, do it and then accept the consequences.

Neither do I which is why I find such threads as BigDon's thead on Harvey Milk offensive. If BAUT doesn't want to hear the other side, they should not allow such posts.

Attitudes like yours is why I will soon be leaving this forum. It is obvious that some rather offensive posts are allowed, and others must just swallow and accept them.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Neither do I which is why I find such threads as BigDon's thead on Harvey Milk offensive. If BAUT doesn't want to hear the other side, they should not allow such posts.

Did you report it?

Grant Hutchison

[01101001]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

It is obvious that some rather offensive posts are allowed, and others must just swallow and accept them.

You reported it as a violation of the rules? And didn't find relief? And appealed the decision to the owners? And didn't find relief?

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Attitudes like yours is why I will soon be leaving this forum.

And it's that important to you? OK. Sounds like you're doing the right thing.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by 01101001

You reported it as a violation of the rules? And didn't find relief? And appealed the decision to the owners? And didn't find relief?

I don't plan on doing that. I think it doesn't go well with the moderators.

Originally Posted by 01101001

And it's that important to you? OK. Sounds like you're doing the right thing.

I thank you for your support.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by 01101001

And it's that important to you? OK. Sounds like you're doing the right thing.

TheHalcyonYear

We seem to have a bit of enmity between us. That is to say, we most often disagree- to the point of argument.

Although I do not dislike you as a person, I dislike the arguments and on an internet forum, that can come very close to being the same thing.
And it seems the same for you- that you'de rather watch teletubbies than have to deal with much that I post.

That said and on the record...:

01101001,

Is that really a proper response? It IS an attitude laden reply.

You could just as easily say something encouraging and productive or your own opinion to be helpful- even if the person in question disagrees with your opinion; you will have tried.

Are you at fault for not doing so and saying what you said?
No.
Should you be punished by the Mods for having said it?
I think not.

I may disagree with your attitude, but it would have to get VERY extreme before I'd report to Mods (Which is one of the Mods chief complaints about me, that I really do not like reporting posts.)

You see, we are all different. What one person finds offensive, another finds enjoyable and amusing.
We process information differently. Look at things from different angles. Analyze things differently and reach different conclusions.

I have no idea at all what it was that THY found offensive in BigDOns thread. It's a mystery to me. Perhaps if she explained it, I might understand- maybe agree or disagree.
BigDon is quite easy going and approachable most of the time.
I'm sure he can be talked to if he said something offensive.

I am certain I offend a great many people on the board often. I cannot sit and think about who might react to what way from a post all the time.

Telling someone to "take a hike" if they are unhappy about something is not the best response. It may be allowable as you CAN say it if you want. It will only reflect upon yourself.

But for myself...
TheHalcyonYear- I would urge you to stick around.

We often don't agree, but that's actually a healthy thing for me. Because it kind of forces me to examine facets of topic I normally would not.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Neither do I which is why I find such threads as BigDon's thead on Harvey Milk offensive.

I've just read the thread in question, and I find I must agree with THY...it is in very poor taste...if it hasn't been reported yet, it will be in a few moments...

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

Neither do I which is why I find such threads as BigDon's thead on Harvey Milk offensive. If BAUT doesn't want to hear the other side, they should not allow such posts.

Uhm.

I point to posts #19, 21, 25, 27, and 30 of that particular thread as evidence that you have had plenty of chance to give the "other side".

And if you were warned, well, so would the other party be if you reported their post. Like you're supposed to.

Attitudes like yours is why I will soon be leaving this forum. It is obvious that some rather offensive posts are allowed, and others must just swallow and accept them.

I don't plan on doing that. I think it doesn't go well with the moderators.

And "I don't plan to follow the rules" attitudes like yours is probably why you should.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I've just read the thread in question, and I find I must agree with THY...it is in very poor taste...if it hasn't been reported yet, it will be in a few moments...

What is the title of the thread?

I'm not seeing a thread called Harvey Milk...

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

And "I don't plan to follow the rules" attitudes like yours is probably why you should.

To be blunt...
I have watched you countlessly lose your temper to the point of degrading other people.
THY has actually stayed well within the rules most of the time, even if she voices her disagreement with certain rules- and does so fearlessly.

You are not one to talk.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

Uhm.
And "I don't plan to follow the rules" attitudes like yours is probably why you should.

That was not what was meant by my post. I am saying that reporting all posts that I think should be toned down a little doesn't exactly appeal to me. Most of the posts that I make that are considered on the political side are of the type: "perhaps you should think a little harder about the fact that there is another side to this". I am not looking for all such threads to be locked.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

What is the title of the thread?

I'm not seeing a thread called Harvey Milk...

It was something about "I want my own day too".

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

What is the title of the thread?

Can I have a day too....started by BigDon....in off topic Babbling

[SolusLupus]

It's really not that hard.

A) Discussion of politics is not allowed on this board.
B) Someone brings up politics.
C) You respond with more politics
D) You get warned for doing so (presumably).

Saying, "I'd rather give the other side to it, and thus discuss politics" is essentially saying, "I do not respect the rules of this board, but I expect them to respect my actions in going against the rules of this board, because I want to get people to think about this political issue".

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

It's really not that hard.

A) Discussion of politics is not allowed on this board.
B) Someone brings up politics.
C) You respond with more politics
D) You get warned for doing so (presumably).

All I am saying is that I believe that some posts tend not to draw warnings. I think they should. I know it's a tough call, but "report them" seems insufficient.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

I don't plan on doing that. I think it doesn't go well with the moderators.

I would much, much rather you report questionable posts than not (there is such a thing as over-reporting, but it is very rare). I also have absolutely no problem with you appealing anything to the two administrators (ToSeek and antoniseb) or the two owners (The Bad Astronomer and Fraser) - though the owners rarely get involved in such issues. I am highly confident that all the moderators feel this way, though I can only speak definitively for myself.

[nauthiz]

I don't think I've ever had the moderators say anything to me about reporting posts that (I presume) they ended up determining were not a problem. Even in the cases where, in retrospect, it was pretty obvious that I was being grumpy and filing spurious reports and they would have been well within the rights to at least send a PM saying, "Y'know, that was a really silly use of the report button."

[Swift]

I'll start off by saying I'm uncomfortable talking about the "Can I Have A Day Too?" (Harvey Milk) thread. That is because I am unsure if it proper for me to discuss publicly details of the moderation process (my uncomfort has nothing to do with that thread's topic). But maybe it would be helpful, so I'll give it a go.

I saw the thread shortly after it was started. I had a pretty good guess as to at least some of what Big Don was getting at. But the first post was rather vague, it didn't even mention Harvey Milk, nor did Big Don's only other post in thread. Still it was rather borderline in being allowable. It shortly changed direction to more of a fun thread and I decided to just let it go and fade away.

It stayed that way for a bit, then worked back into a more serious thread about Harvey Milk. Again, it was somewhat borderline, but it seemed to me that people were keeping it a polite discussion, and that intervention wasn't necessary (very much like the second Noble Peace Prize thread).

That's is why I acted (or in this case "non-acted") the way I did. It all goes back to my early post about the fine line between over and under moderation.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

All I am saying is that I believe that some posts tend not to draw warnings. I think they should. I know it's a tough call, but "report them" seems insufficient.

If no-one reports them, then they may actually never be seen by a mod, especially if they're at the start or in the middle of a thread which builds rapidly, and especially if that thread has a nondescript title that doesn't ring alarm bells. The mods are spread thin enough that we can't reasonably expect them to read every post, let alone read every post in detail.
Click the triangle. If you're in doubt, phrase the report as a polite question to the mod team. Give them a reasonable time period in which to discuss and act. Then decide if the offending post is not drawing the warning you think it deserves.

My personal experience is that, after a report, stuff usually happens the way I expect it will. But sometimes it doesn't: that's a moderator call, and for all I know there's more going on behind the scenes than I'm aware of. So far, there's never been a case in which I was so baffled by apparent mod inaction that I entered into PM dialogue about it, but that's the obvious next step.

Grant Hutchison

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Swift

I'll start off by saying I'm uncomfortable talking about the "Can I Have A Day Too?" (Harvey Milk) thread. ...

It stayed that way for a bit, then worked back into a more serious thread about Harvey Milk. Again, it was somewhat borderline, but it seemed to me that people were keeping it a polite discussion, and that intervention wasn't necessary (very much like the second Noble Peace Prize thread).

...

I made pretty much the same assessment.
THY and others seem to hope for uniformity of action, but there isn't really a uniform way to weigh the various factors being considered.

[TheHalcyonYear]

Originally Posted by Swift

I'll start off by saying I'm uncomfortable talking about the "Can I Have A Day Too?" (Harvey Milk) thread. That is because I am unsure if it proper for me to discuss publicly details of the moderation process (my uncomfort has nothing to do with that thread's topic). But maybe it would be helpful, so I'll give it a go.

I saw the thread shortly after it was started. I had a pretty good guess as to at least some of what Big Don was getting at. But the first post was rather vague, it didn't even mention Harvey Milk, nor did Big Don's only other post in thread. Still it was rather borderline in being allowable. It shortly changed direction to more of a fun thread and I decided to just let it go and fade away.

It stayed that way for a bit, then worked back into a more serious thread about Harvey Milk. Again, it was somewhat borderline, but it seemed to me that people were keeping it a polite discussion, and that intervention wasn't necessary (very much like the second Noble Peace Prize thread).

That's is why I acted (or in this case "non-acted") the way I did. It all goes back to my early post about the fine line between over and under moderation.

Which is exactly why I wouldn't want to report such a thread. I completely missed what the thread was about with his first post, but as I saw the thread unfold, I thought it was a good idea to balance out the issue. There were no angry words and I felt that it might some people to rethink their idea of humorous remarks.

The problem is that I applied the same logic to the CERN thread and was warned.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by TheHalcyonYear

All I am saying is that I believe that some posts tend not to draw warnings.

Without any snark whatsoever (and noting that all instances of "you" in this post should be read in the generic sense), is there a belief at play that the moderation team should have the ability to read every post on this forum, 24 hours a day? It often happens that a thread that would ordinarily draw our attention manages to settle itself down on its own before we've seen it. If the problem is relatively minor, and isn't current anymore, we'll usually simply let it pass and keep an eye on it rather than derail a thread.

Contrary to certain misguided perceptions, we're interested in ensuring good behavior _today_. We're not interested in revenge, and we don't count coup except where it speaks to a pattern of behavior.

On the flip side, if you're issuing multiple reports about the same thread on the same day, having to deal with each report can slow down our response time dramatically. If you have to report multiple things in one thread, it helps if you report once and include post numbers (or links to problematic posts).

On another note, we frequently do depend on the reported posts feature to draw our attention to threads that are heating up or are otherwise becoming problematic. If nobody reports it, there's a fair chance we won't see it.

It's also (contrary to equally misguided perception) why we want people to use the report post facility if they have concerns about a certain action. Threads like this (or meta-discussions in thread) generally don't (and can't) have our undivided attention, and the mod team can't take the time to consider the issues as a group when we have to respond off the cuff like this. Not efficiently anyway.

If you make our job harder (this includes deliberate testing of the board's boundaries), we simply won't have time to spend addressing your concerns. If you genuinely would like something to change, you need to make it easy for the mod team to consider and discuss your ideas as a group. The best way to do that is to use the report posts facility. That facility creates a discussion thread for us, complete with useful links to relevant post, threads, and an easy way to PM a response if one is required.

For what it's worth, R.A.F., the "can I have a day too" thread has indeed been reported and has been handled. Thanks.