So do we even have any form of moderation here?
So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.
What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere. Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.
Why? Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that? Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?
Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?
Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?
So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like? Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…
Views: 9026
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
Dave is a very reasonable person. Once again, I thought he addressed the situation appropriately.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
Don't flatter yourself into thinking there is anything personal about this. Had anybody else acted like you do and been granted exception for it I would have had the same things to say.
What are my true intentions Gabe? All I want is to see rules enforced evenly whatever they are.
Vilda said:Hi David, You seem very even keeled. Other parties, including me, not so much. There are parties who in real life have felt slighted by me that would use a forum such as this to that end. If we are looking to draw the line, as some would say, than any name calling would be crossing the line into a personal attack.
I've told the moderators, and Julie directly, that if someone takes issue with my behavior please feel free to ban or boot me. I just dislike the vail of "proper behavior on a website" being used to mask true intentions.
In reality I have no issue with being called names by anyone on a website. Especially those I don't have much respect for in the first place. You are absolutely correct that my comment was tongue in cheek.
-
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on
-
I like Dave's story about the school exercise.
I also have to think about an experience I had when I went through a jury selection/elimination process.
The judge asked if I could be 100% fair and impartial, and I refused to answer affirmatively, explaining that I didn't think there was any human alive that could be 100% fair and impartial. We went 'rpund and 'round for a while. He handled it well, explaining (among other attempts) that it's expected that jurors bring the wealth of their experience with them, and "that's why we don't have children sitting on juries."
Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually. Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.
-
-
Dave came and visited me in the hospital in 2001!
(I think)
Anne Alt said:Dave is a very reasonable person. Once again, I thought he addressed the situation appropriately.
-
-
I don't disagree with this but I think that the judgement used here is not always fair and impartial.
As I have said before there were two people acting out, but only one of them was sanctioned for it, I think the difference in how they were dealt with to have been favoritism on a large scale.
h' 1.0 said:Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually. Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.
-
-
Not an answer to my question.
Vilda said:Always being me Douglas.
-
-
Hard to know without having access to the same information and input that the site leadership does. Which the site leadership has no obligation to share with you.
But, for the sake of argument-- let's say Julie wakes up one morning and decides she's going to make unfair and partial decisions all day...
It's her site.
notoriousDUG said:I don't disagree with this but I think that the judgement used here is not always fair and impartial.
As I have said before there were two people acting out, but only one of them was sanctioned for it, I think the difference in how they were dealt with to have been favoritism on a large scale.
h' 1.0 said:Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually. Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on
-
Yes, as h' says, it is her site. Doug, your opinion has been repeated more than several times. You are entitled to your opinion. But Julie is not under any obligation to respond, although I am sure your opinion has been duly noted.
Sometimes I think what is lost in these discussions is the notion that we CHOOSE to be here and to participate. No one has compelled us. Nothing ties us here. We don't "have any skin in the game". We always have the ability to tune out or tune off.
h' 1.0 said:Hard to know without having access to the same information and input that the site leadership does. Which the site leadership has no obligation to share with you.
But, for the sake of argument-- let's say Julie wakes up one morning and decides she's going to make unfair and partial decisions all day...
It's her site.
notoriousDUG said:I don't disagree with this but I think that the judgement used here is not always fair and impartial.
As I have said before there were two people acting out, but only one of them was sanctioned for it, I think the difference in how they were dealt with to have been favoritism on a large scale.
h' 1.0 said:Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually. Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.
-
-
I can make bad decisions all day long as well and I would expect the people they effected to question them. I expect and am willing to explain my choices, I guess it is unreasonable to expect others to step up and be accountable for their actions...
Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'
Having run an online community for some time I think that an important part of building 'community' is being accountable to the users. Without the members there is no community and if the membership has questions I feel there is an obligation of the leadership to answer them. Failing to address questions and concerns from the membership is dismissive of the fact that without members there is no forum.
Each one of us, every click, is revenue for The Chainlink.
Here is some food for thought.
We may have 10,000 members, but how many of them actually participate?
Why do so many remain silent?
How many active members do we have?
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
In addition to my previous suggestion of a "basement" area for sequestering red-hot threads without having to close them down and causing them just spill out elsewhere, I think the best addition to the new site would be the ability to mute/ignore other users.
It seems that some folks here really want/need to shut other people up and silence their self-expression here because for one reason or another they just don't like hearing what they have to say, or how they say it. Failing that, the next best thing is to not have to see the offending person in a thread or conversation. If thine eyes offend you pluck them out. I'm sure there are a number of people in the community who would love to block me and I'm totally good with that. Let them have at it. No loss.
If someone doesn't like what Richard has to say, then they shouldn't have to see his words or his avatar cross their path here. Would that make people happy? Or do they really just need to have the power to block everyone from seeing them too and silence thoughts and ideas they are uncomfortable with -even if they are very unpopular thoughts and ideas?
-
-
I agree being able to block people would go a long way to solving a lot of issues.
I don't think there is anything wrong with taking issue with how people say something. People have a right to speak their mind and I don't think moderation should step on that. I do, however, think it is OK to moderate how people say stuff. Nobodys freedom to express themselves is being stifled by making them have to use different language.
The previous blow up is a great example of that; do you really believe that not letting Gabe use the word 'retard' would stifle his ability to express himself?
Self-sealing Stembolt said:In addition to my previous suggestion of a "basement" area for sequestering red-hot threads without having to close them down and let them just spill out elsewhere, I think the best addition to the new site would be the ability to mute/ignore other users.
It seems that some folks here really want/need to shut other people up and silence their self-expression here because for one reason or another they just don't like hearing what they have to say, or how they say it. Failing that, the next best thing is to not have to see the offending person in a thread or conversation. If your eyes offend you pluck them out. I'm sure there are a number of people in the community who would love to block me and I'm good with that. Let them have at it. No loss.
If someone doesn't like what Richard has to say, then they shouldn't have to see his words or his avatar cross their path. Would that make people happy? Or do they really just need to have the power to block everyone from seeing them too and silence thoughts and ideas they are uncomfortable with -even if they are very unpopular thoughts and ideas?
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
