Rules and Moderator information

[Marcus]

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

That was more of a thought provoking question, not a dig for information, RI. If you feel it appropriate, and if I were you, I'd raise the issue in the MF. If the suspensions were predicated on specific behavior patterns, and if you haven't already, I think you guys should discuss whether or not that behavior has been modified and if not, what the next step might be.

From this side of the screen, I don't see that anything has changed at all. If I don't see change, then I'm assuming there has been no change. Apparently I'm not the only poster who sees no change.

No, you're not.

[Res Ipsa]

I posted publicly in red, not to "red font Philo..."
"Red fonting" a person isn't actually a thing.

Minor point, but yes, it is. And it is exactly as you defined it. I used the phrase "red-font Philo" to indicate that you "posted publicly in red," (your words) to Philo. Shades has made it absolutely clear who is allowed to use red font, and under what circumstances.

It's not a minor point to me and, no, "red-fonting" a poster is not a thing. The way you've chosen to describe a moderator comment personalizes it in a way that is new to me and does not reflect the intent of a moderator comment. For the record, here's the post in question:

A plea to all. Please don’t bump old threads to try to push other peoples threads off the front page. If you want to empower us, please use the report function. Thanks.

If I had wanted to address this comment "to Philo," I would have said so instead of addressing it "to all." I have seen "bumping" wars break out in forums for the purpose of driving other people's threads off the first page. The purpose of my public post in red was to try and discourage retaliation.

[Jersey Girl]

What is unique about moderating an exmormon forum with nonmormon subforum?

Would there not be similar turf wars and BSD contests in a forum about diesel motors in a Mercedes Benz?

The upper kingdoms on this board, Celestial, Terrestial, and Telestial, are NOT exmormon forums.


DiscussMormonism.com
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!


There are no turf wars in progress.

[Res Ipsa]

What is unique about moderating an exmormon forum with nonmormon subforum?

Would there not be similar turf wars and BSD contests in a forum about diesel motors in a Mercedes Benz?

I don't understand your questions. Are you talking about here? This is not an exmormon forum with a nonmormon subforum. It is divided by subject matter into Mormon Discussions and Non-Mormon Discussions. Anyone, Mormon, former Mormon, and never Mormon, is welcome to post in any forum.

In my experience, both phenomena you describe are common to online forums.

[Binger]

What is unique about moderating an exmormon forum with nonmormon subforum?

Would there not be similar turf wars and BSD contests in a forum about diesel motors in a Mercedes Benz?

I don't understand your questions. Are you talking about here? This is not an exmormon forum with a nonmormon subforum. It is divided by subject matter into Mormon Discussions and Non-Mormon Discussions. Anyone, Mormon, former Mormon, and never Mormon, is welcome to post in any forum.

In my experience, both phenomena you describe are common to online forums.

This is awesome.

Oh man. Do I have a lot to say about this answer. All these are great.

[Binger]

Do you find the words on George Carlin's list to be offensive?

or,

Do you merely treat them as rule violations when some posters go a little tiny bit barely a slight amount over the line every now and then?

[Res Ipsa]

Do you find the words on George Carlin's list to be offensive?

or,

Do you merely treat them as rule violations when some posters go a little tiny bit barely a slight amount over the line every now and then?

When moderating here, it's not really a matter of the words being offensive. It's a matter of which forum, if any, they can be in. Because the MPAA ratings are not clear rules when it comes to language, frequency and context play a role. Only one of the words on that list is prohibited in any kingdom. If another started appearing in posts, I'd recommend that it be banned as well. Two are judgment calls in Terrestial/Paradise, as the MPAA permits them occasionally in PG-13 rated movies. Personally, it would be much easier on me to just declare them R so we have a clear rule to apply. I don't think any of the rest would stay in Terrestial/Paradise, but there might be contexts where they would.

Because there is no bright line test, it's largely a line drawing exercise. Every decision that is close to the line on either side will appear arbitrary -- it's the nature of a line-drawing exercise. All lines are, at their margins, arbitrary.

We're in the midst of a huddle on the mod forum to see if we can tweak the approach to language in a way that reduces the appearance of arbitrariness.

[Marcus]

Minor point, but yes, it is. And it is exactly as you defined it. I used the phrase "red-font Philo" to indicate that you "posted publicly in red," (your words) to Philo. Shades has made it absolutely clear who is allowed to use red font, and under what circumstances.

It's not a minor point to me and, no, "red-fonting" a poster is not a thing. The way you've chosen to describe a moderator comment personalizes it in a way that is new to me and does not reflect the intent of a moderator comment.

Ok. I said it was a minor point because I didn't want to distract from the larger discussion. And I disagree with you. You admitted that you made your comment about zombie posts in response to Philo's strategy, it stretches credulity to imagine you weren't speaking primarily to him, in spite of your "plea to all." or maybe you don't realize what is experienced by non-moderators, in which case I'm happy to share. Regarding not reflecting your intent, I can't speak to that, I can only share how your messages are received. Putting something in red font changes that.

For the record, here's the post in question:

A plea to all. Please don’t bump old threads to try to push other peoples threads off the front page. If you want to empower us, please use the report function. Thanks.

If I had wanted to address this comment "to Philo," I would have said so instead of addressing it "to all."

Sure. Philo was the only one doing it, and you posted it in direct response to someone applauding his efforts:

The Terrestrial Forum does look different than last night. I applaud Kerry's efforts and support the empowering of Res Ipsa and Canpakes.

A plea to all. Please don’t bump old threads to try to push other peoples threads off the front page. If you want to empower us, please use the report function. Thanks.

[bolding added by me]

But I understand. You were worried that Kerry the Pied Piper might lead everyone down the path of zombie bumping. The horror!!

I have seen "bumping" wars break out in forums for the purpose of driving other people's threads off the first page. The purpose of my public post in red was to try and discourage retaliation.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. God forbid our forum is overtaken by zombie bumping. The Trolling we are currently experiencing is bad enough.

[Res Ipsa]

It's not a minor point to me and, no, "red-fonting" a poster is not a thing. The way you've chosen to describe a moderator comment personalizes it in a way that is new to me and does not reflect the intent of a moderator comment.

Ok. I said it was a minor point because I didn't want to distract from the larger discussion. And I disagree with you. You admitted that you made your comment about zombie posts in response to Philo's strategy, it stretches credulity to imagine you weren't speaking primarily to him, in spite of your "plea to all." or maybe you don't realize what is experienced by non-moderators, in which case I'm happy to share. Regarding not reflecting your intent, I can't speak to that, I can only share how your messages are received. Putting something in red font changes that.

For the record, here's the post in question:



If I had wanted to address this comment "to Philo," I would have said so instead of addressing it "to all."

Sure. Philo was the only one doing it, and you posted it in direct response to someone applauding his efforts:

A plea to all. Please don’t bump old threads to try to push other peoples threads off the front page. If you want to empower us, please use the report function. Thanks.

[bolding added by me]

But I understand. You were worried that Kerry the Pied Piper might lead everyone down the path of zombie bumping. The horror!!

I have seen "bumping" wars break out in forums for the purpose of driving other people's threads off the first page. The purpose of my public post in red was to try and discourage retaliation.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. God forbid our forum is overtaken by zombie bumping. The Trolling we are currently experiencing is such a small thing compared to that /s /s /s

But maybe in a similar spirit, you could address some red-fonted comments to us all about the disruption methods being used by our two trolls to discourage their use?

I can only speak to my intent in making a post, not in how it is interpreted by any given individual. And what you describe as "straining credulity" actually illustrates my point. I did not post publicly in response to Philo. If I addressed Philo directly, it was in private. I posted in response to Moksha's public praise of the conduct. I'm not suggesting that Philo has magical powers of suasion. It's not rocket science to understand how bumping old threads to control what appears on the first page can escalate into an all-out tit-for-tat war for control over the front page. Especially when one has seen it happen a few times. When I was logged in this morning, I was happy to see that no one had retaliated or jumped on the bandwagon. But if non-moderators interpreted my post as somehow picking on Philo, then I'll just stick with rule enforcement rather than making any attempt to prevent a situation that would present a significant disruption of the smooth operation of the board.

So, what do you suggest I post as a plea to the community when someone starts a thread that you think is 100% intended to disrupt?

[Binger]

I can only speak to my intent in making a post, not in how it is interpreted by any given individual. And what you describe as "straining credulity" actually illustrates my point. I did not post publicly in response to Philo. If I addressed Philo directly, it was in private. I posted in response to Moksha's public praise of the conduct. I'm not suggesting that Philo has magical powers of suasion. It's not rocket science to understand how bumping old threads to control what appears on the first page can escalate into an all-out tit-for-tat war for control over the front page. Especially when one has seen it happen a few times. When I was logged in this morning, I was happy to see that no one had retaliated or jumped on the bandwagon. But if non-moderators interpreted my post as somehow picking on Philo, then I'll just stick with rule enforcement rather than making any attempt to prevent a situation that would present a significant disruption of the smooth operation of the board.

So, what do you suggest I post as a plea to the community when someone starts a thread that you think is 100% intended to disrupt?

Actually, there is a piece missing from this. An important one, frankly.

Moksha may have subtly encouraged Philo with a cryptic nod. But, before Res posted and addressed the so-called zombie posts, another poster flat out supported Philo and offered to donate money to him as a compliment for putting an exclamation on his fondness and the usefulness of the boards. That post was IMMEDIATELY kicked out of the conversation, reposted with an explanation that it was indeed about the Mormon topics, and then sent off to foreign lands with a stupid half retarded explanation - also in red.

If Philo was indeed doing something he should not, by being a zombie, or whatever, I suppose that Res had a reason or basis for addressing that. At no point, ever, did I think there was threat that what Philo was doing would be escalated, because, at least one of the so-called trolls was on his side. And, if you look at the outcome of the zombie posts and large fonts with bold colors, there are some really really really good threads going on up in the North.

I support what Philo was doing. I think he was a bit off the mark, but he damn sure was not wrong. That sort of vigor is long overdue.

ETA: after re-checking the threads up North, I think it is very clear that the so-called trolls want the same thing that Philo said he wanted. Even if their forms of entertainment or whatever were different. The proof is in the threads going now, imnsho.