Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Transparent Discussion on Dappered Threads' Moderation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • schigleymischke
    replied
    Originally posted by bruschetta View Post
    Yes, it's highly inappropriate to speculate that Dappered might mistreat its readers when there's no history of that occurring. Joe's worked to build his site up since 2009. He has maintained a 100% ethical track record. He goes above and beyond to ensure that Dappered's readers come first.

    To insinuate that those ethics, ethics that he's worked hard to maintain, would suddenly disappear is inappropriate. If you disagree, well, we will have to agree to disagree.

    Here's an analogy: MemberXYZ writes a post where he insults [MENTION=2855]schigleymischke[/MENTION]'s character. I would delete that post and warn MemberXYZ. At that point my concern would be for the poster who was on the receiving end of the insult, not the instigator. I would hope that the readers would understand why the insulting post was deleted.
    He didn't speculate on anything other than why some other person might want to buy Dappered. Speculating why someone's property might be worth buying is not an insult.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Yeah, at this point we are basically arguing about angels dancing on pinheads. The number of comments that have been deleted is, as Greg noted, probably less than a tenth of a tenth of a percent of the total posts; the number of members who have received warnings for questionable conduct is probably no more than a dozen or so; and the number of members who have actually been banned can be counted on one hand.

    People seem to be imagining that there is a lot of shady action going on behind closed doors when there really, really isn't. People are getting worked up over nothing, as far as I can tell. The idea that there is a real threat of being arbitrarily banned without warning is ill-founded.

    If you really NEED forum rules to live by, here is a rule of thumb: If, as you are about to click "post," there is any question in your mind as to whether your comment is "polite" enough to pass muster, odds are good that your comment could probably be rephrased in a way that leaves no question.
    Last edited by LesserBlackDog; December 22, 2014, 07:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bruschetta
    replied
    Originally posted by schigleymischke View Post
    Was he uncivil? Is it appropriate to delete posts that speculate that Dappered might mistreat its readers? How did you think that kind of action or the potential for that kind of action would be received by LCDR or other readers? How would you have responded to the threat to delete something you've posted?
    Yes, it's highly inappropriate to speculate that Dappered might mistreat its readers when there's no history of that occurring. Joe's worked to build his site up since 2009. He has maintained a 100% ethical track record. He goes above and beyond to ensure that Dappered's readers come first.

    To insinuate that those ethics, ethics that he's worked hard to maintain, would suddenly disappear is inappropriate. If you disagree, well, we will have to agree to disagree.

    Here's an analogy: MemberXYZ writes a post where he insults [MENTION=2855]schigleymischke[/MENTION]'s character. I would delete that post and warn MemberXYZ. At that point my concern would be for the poster who was on the receiving end of the insult, not the instigator. I would hope that the readers would understand why the insulting post was deleted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Vicious49 View Post
    2876
    I, for one, can't wait until I have enough posts to get fired up. I'm a madman when the shackles come off!

    Leave a comment:


  • greg_s
    replied
    This thread is getting dumb. Perhaps it was our mistake for assuming folks on the Internet could be civil adults for too long. I mean, four-ish years is a good run. There are like 2 banned former members. One is a temp ban. They were dicks and that's what happens when you're a dick. There's no issue of transparency. There's no issue with over-moderation. There just isn't. We delete maybe .001% of non-spam posts. MAYBE that much. And have banned 2 members in several years.

    Leave a comment:


  • schigleymischke
    replied
    Originally posted by bruschetta View Post
    You only need one post to state an opinion. Notice that you haven't been warned, banned, etc. We may disagree, but that's fine since the discussion is civil.



    The warning was that I'd delete any further posts speculating that Dappered would mistreat its readers.
    Was he uncivil? Is it appropriate to delete posts that speculate that Dappered might mistreat its readers? How did you think that kind of action or the potential for that kind of action would be received by LCDR or other readers? How would you have responded to the threat to delete something you've posted?

    Leave a comment:


  • bruschetta
    replied
    Originally posted by schigleymischke View Post
    How many posts do I need?
    You only need one post to state an opinion. Notice that you haven't been warned, banned, etc. We may disagree, but that's fine since the discussion is civil.

    Originally posted by onerany View Post
    Honestly, my first take on that specific text was that LCDR was being warned about being banned. I thought the rest of [MENTION=2325]bruschetta[/MENTION]'s post was, as [MENTION=3421]Vicious49[/MENTION] said, just like arguing about politics, but you can't make a warning without implying a consequence (esp. If you're a mod). It sounds like [MENTION=2325]bruschetta[/MENTION] didn't intend to do that, but that is the problem of communicating only in written form.

    Not trying to get in on the argument one way or another. Just hoping to convey that what was said could very easily be interpreted in that manner.
    The warning was that I'd delete any further posts speculating that Dappered would mistreat its readers.

    Leave a comment:


  • onerany
    replied
    Transparent Discussion on Dappered Threads' Moderation

    Originally posted by schigleymischke View Post
    You don't respond with the words, "this is a warning," or "I almost deleted."
    Originally posted by bruschetta View Post
    LCDR suggested that Dappered would share readers' information with an outside party. That deserved a warning. He received a warning. I didn't threaten to ban him, I didn't send him an infraction through the forum system, etc. I warned him that he had been impolite.
    Honestly, my first take on that specific text was that LCDR was being warned about being banned. I thought the rest of [MENTION=2325]bruschetta[/MENTION]'s post was, as [MENTION=3421]Vicious49[/MENTION] said, just like arguing about politics, but you can't make a warning without implying a consequence (esp. If you're a mod). It sounds like [MENTION=2325]bruschetta[/MENTION] didn't intend to do that, but that is the problem of communicating only in written form.

    Not trying to get in on the argument one way or another. Just hoping to convey that what was said could very easily be interpreted in that manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • noyz
    replied
    Originally posted by Vicious49 View Post
    2876
    Can you spare me a couple of posts on credit? Also, are post counts inflation-adjusted?

    Leave a comment:


  • noyz
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewlcraft View Post
    Including a list of all our email addresses. Read, bro. You're getting awfully fired up for someone with 24 posts.
    Wouldn't the email addresses just be a part of the business transaction? It's like when you buy a car, you get the wheels, seats and all. I don't see where LCDR was implying that Joe would be unethical by selling the email list. He was just replying to a question about what makes the site valuable to a buyer. I don't think the message from bruschetta was particularly harsh, but I can understand being how being accused of making an accusation could be frustrating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vicious49
    replied
    Originally posted by schigleymischke View Post
    How many posts do I need?
    2876

    Leave a comment:


  • schigleymischke
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewlcraft View Post
    Including a list of all our email addresses. Read, bro. You're getting awfully fired up for someone with 24 posts.
    How many posts do I need?

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewlcraft
    replied
    Originally posted by schigleymischke View Post
    But, he didn't. He suggested that Dappered might be sold to an outside party.........
    Including a list of all our email addresses. Read, bro. You're getting awfully fired up for someone with 24 posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • schigleymischke
    replied
    Originally posted by bruschetta View Post
    LCDR suggested that Dappered would share readers' information with an outside party. That deserved a warning. He received a warning. I didn't threaten to ban him, I didn't send him an infraction through the forum system, etc. I warned him that he had been impolite.

    I would have deleted the post, but I felt it important to stop that rumor in its tracks and point to Dappered's privacy policy.
    But, he didn't. He suggested that Dappered might be sold to an outside party. You could've said that's a false rumor, and left it at that. If he had suggested that Dappered might share readers' information with an outside party, you could've pointed out the privacy policy. Regardless, what he said wasn't impolite. You might not have liked what he said, but that doesn't make it impolite. Statements that you don't like does not equal rudeness. If any of you who are moderators want any kind of open exchange of ideas here, you're going to have to tolerate things you don't like.

    Leave a comment:


  • bruschetta
    replied
    Originally posted by teerockness View Post
    Yeah, pretty much what others have said. To be blunt, as somebody who has been involved in a few business transactions of this sort, once a business is sold, all bets are off.

    The tone of your response is totally over the top - we're all adults here, and as far as I can tell people generally behave themselves.

    Based on a variety of issues similar to this, I'd strongly suggest the moderators develop a one-page handbook standardizing what, exactly, is off limits behavior as well as response protocols. It seems like it is needed.

    Rich
    Rich, what business transactions are you referring to? You've completely lost me here.

    Originally posted by Sudonihm View Post
    Then others disappear or are banned without public explanation. That's a decision process by the mods that I accept.
    I just checked through our ban list. Apart from spammers, there are currently two users banned. One permanently and one temporary. Two users over the (4?) years of this forum.

    Originally posted by schigleymischke View Post
    You don't respond with the words, "this is a warning," or "I almost deleted."
    LCDR suggested that Dappered would share readers' information with an outside party. That deserved a warning. He received a warning. I didn't threaten to ban him, I didn't send him an infraction through the forum system, etc. I warned him that he had been impolite.

    I would have deleted the post, but I felt it important to stop that rumor in its tracks and point to Dappered's privacy policy.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X