RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

angelikaJ -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 6:58:17 AM)

Do we really have to push the envelope this far to see what is and is not acceptable in terms of personal attacks?

JEEZE!

(and before you wonder who reported your post, I did.)

edit: removal of a stow-away s



angelikaJ -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:03:41 AM)

As for post reporting: yup, I do it frequently if I see posts that I think cross the line.

I do not police the boards, I do not seek out those types of posts for the sole purpose of reporting them but if I happen to spot them... and sometimes when I report a post it gets pulled and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes (because I am such a reasonable person [8|] ) when it doesn't get pulled I wonder why they don't see things my way. [:D]

Edit to add: and once in a great while something will rile me and I will get more than a little snarky (much to VC's delight, because she is ebil like that [8D] ).

I am not perfect. I do not always follow my own general rules for posting:
Will it add something to the discussion; is it helpful?
Is it true to the best of my knowledge?
Is it kind?

I sometimes fall short on the first and third criterias... and sometimes #2 is in trouble when I am feeling exceptionally bitchy.




HannahLynHeather -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:21:04 AM)

balaclava made it to this side of the pond, not sure if it got south though. we do tend to keep hold of warm things pretty fucking tightly up here in the arctic wastes.



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:24:39 AM)

I just got through reading pages of back n forth discussion over needles' use of the term "mine."

As with so many terms in the English language, it can have layers of meaning.

There is "mine" as in something I own. This house is mine. That means I live there, I own it (or pay rent on it) and therefore have some responsibility for it.

Then there is "mine" as in, the thing I started. It could be a thread, it could be a child, it could be a  relationship. Your actual ownership and responsibility varies on what precisely is owned.

I could easily see my saying, "My thread on XYZ" not meaning mine as in I control it, but mine as in I started it. Starting something does in many cases give you some responsibility. How many begin a thread and then abandon it, even though posters have questions that need answered in order to have the full picture? That is just so annoying.

When I start a thread, I do feel some responsibility in terms of paying attention to it in case I need to make clarifications. Other than that, I don't care much if it's moderated, hijacked, it turns into a pissing contest, whatever. It goes where it goes and the mods will do whatever they deem appropriate. That's what I signed on for and it works for me.

Speaking of pissing contests, could Red and Icarys just get a room, please?




VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:28:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88
Why would anyone assume mods can't post?


i must indeed not hang out in OT or PORS very much, i don't even know what it is.
i never assumed moderators could not post as i have seen their participation in threads at times, but i think it is strange, and not quite right.
If they get all buddy buddy with people it just looks wrong to me. like it always looks wrong to me to see people supposedly in authority positions playing around with their charge.... i remember footage of prime ministers playing guitar or base ball.... eeeewww

am i right in understanding that moderators also have another user name under which they post too?



I'm not sure why you feel the need to know this answer unless it is because you have a concern as to whether a moderator might possibly post as a regular user on a thread then moderate the same thread, possibly giving the perception of furthering their viewpoint, as has been alleged about past moderation. It does NOT happen in this moderation, and I personally do not post as a regular poster at all anymore, unless it is to answer on a totally fluff thread that there is no contention possible, and that is VERY rarely. Because of that, for those that wonder why we DO post on threads, not only is it because basically we are human, but in some cases, it is the only posting that particular moderator may do on the boards at all. It is my personal choice not to post, because I know there are those that know who I am, and I never want there to be the appearance of impropriety since I am the supervisor of  the whole site. That is not a site directive, that is my personal choice. Some of the moderators may or may not have user accounts that post on the boards, some do not. There are clear guidelines on moderators responsibilities and choices of courses of actions depending on subject matter and area. There are moderators in other areas that do not moderate in the forums but in other areas. There is absolutely no reason that they should not be able to post in the forums. They have all willingly accepted the mantle of responsibility that varies in area and scope for each moderator, and have all become moderators after doing other even more thankless work for the site. I absolutely believe 100% that they moderate their "areas" as close to their given directives as closely as humanly possible, and when they have a concern that they may be not totally objective, they discuss their concerns with me rather than make a decision on their own. Something for everyone to consider....they moderate the site according to the site guidelines, and at times, IF THE CHOICE WAS BASED ON THEIR OPINION, would not handle some matters as they do. There are times that some do not agree with the site policy, that is to be expected. What is exemplary about that is although they may voice a concern or opinion to me, (or not) they follow the site's choices and not their own, and do so willingly.

Sorry if I just gave a cheerleading moment to the moderators, but, at least in this forum and some other areas, the moderators without fail put in more hours every week than most put in at a full time job, and that is in addition to their real time life responsibilities that includes paying employ. This is true from moderators to support staff, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I understand it will not be possible to please everyone, but site policy is constantly reviewed, and at times there are changes made.

I will also add: although I know everyone is not always going to be happy, I personally want to thank every moderator and staff member that puts forth all these hours to help Me, the site, and ultimately the users. There is no way the site could run without them, and personally, I would not want to even try.

Editted to add: I just saw Mod21's post in another as I was going backwards to my last point of reading..........[;)] 



sunshinemiss -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:28:46 AM)

quote:

could Red and Icarys just get a room, please?



I almost wrote the same thing! *ding*



GreedyTop -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:33:38 AM)

dammit, VAA!! PARAGRAPHS, woman!!!  LOL

*waits for my gold letter*

THAT being said:

I agree with Chatte's take: 

quote:

There is "mine" as in something I own. This house is mine. That means I live there, I own it (or pay rent on it) and therefore have some responsibility for it.

Then there is "mine" as in, the thing I started. It could be a thread, it could be a child, it could be a  relationship. Your actual ownership and responsibility varies on what precisely is owned.

I could easily see my saying, "My thread on XYZ" not meaning mine as in I control it, but mine as in I started it. Starting something does in many cases give you some responsibility. How many begin a thread and then abandon it, even though posters have questions that need answered in order to have the full picture? That is just so annoying.

When I start a thread, I do feel some responsibility in terms of paying attention to it in case I need to make clarifications. Other than that, I don't care much if it's moderated, hijacked, it turns into a pissing contest, whatever. It goes where it goes and the mods will do whatever they deem appropriate. That's what I signed on for and it works for me.





LillyBoPeep -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:34:13 AM)

and now i want some baklava.

i don't really understand all the uproar over the word "mine" when people throw insults and f-bombs and all sorts of other things around like rice at a wedding. =p

when i say "my brother" it doesn't mean that i own my brother, and will assert ownership rights over him. it simply means "in relation to me."
"my thread" is similar -- i started a thread so it is in relation to me, in some general sense, or a more concrete sense if it's concerning a specific issue in my life. but that doesnt mean i think i own it.
i say "my house" even though it's a rental. "my neighborhood" just because i live here. hell, Nebraska is MY STATE! does that mean i own it and intend to act upon ownership rights in relation to it? certainly not, and no one would assume as much.
i do, however, get annoyed when people characterize Nebraska as being full of corn and rednecks, or i get peeved if someone says "that neighborhood sucks," and it's the one i live in. i get irritated if someone mouths off about my brother, or my little plain-jane white house.
that annoyance doesn't come out of "perceived ownership of X."
it's in relation to me, and i think it's doing fine, and YEAH it is annoying when someone saunters along and says "yeah, no it's not." =p if people deny that they've had feelings like that, then they must be dead bodies or something. =p

"mine" is really not that scary of a word. =p sheesh.



LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:35:01 AM)

I always wondered what type of person the kids in school that went running screaming "TEACHERRRRRRRRR, Tommy peed under the sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide!!!!!" grew up to be...

This place kills me[:D]



Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:35:48 AM)

quote:

I almost wrote the same thing! *ding*

Funny!

I actually find her attractive at face value in a purely superficial sort of way but that's about it. I like redheads and she's a redhead but that's where the attraction ends.[:D]

Now I can say that in all honesty but writing this I'm thinking that so many will believe they have validation of a schoolboy crush and pigtail pulls.You'd be wrong.[:D]



sunshinemiss -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:38:08 AM)

quote:


"mine" is really not that scary of a word. =p sheesh.



Unless it's a land mine!

(I'm here all week, folks).



LillyBoPeep -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:39:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

quote:


"mine" is really not that scary of a word. =p sheesh.



Unless it's a land mine!

(I'm here all week, folks).


ba-dum -CHI!



Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:42:58 AM)

quote:

I don't care if you wonder who reported your post.
I just care that you know that she didn't.

You assumed I cared to begin with. You were wrong.

quote:

Do we really have to push the envelope this far to see what is and is not acceptable in terms of personals attacks?
What part of the context of that did you not understand.


I understood it completely that's why I said what I did. My post is TOO FAR while with some of you, others get a pass. It's okay, I expect it but I just like to point it out.

quote:

This is not grade school where UMs engage in: Well, she started it, or she said something so I am going to say something worse.


That wasn't my point..see above. I say what I say because I feel like saying it. I take full responsibility for what I do and am fully aware of what I do and how it may be seen as and the possible ramifications for it. Most people don't think two steps in front or just far enough to get them by..That isn't the case for me, maybe it is for you.

Edit.



sunshinemiss -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:44:16 AM)

give it a rest, man.

Seriously.



Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:46:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

give it a rest, man.

Seriously.


Hush woman.

Seriously.



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:49:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

quote:

could Red and Icarys just get a room, please?



I almost wrote the same thing! *ding*



*winks at the sunny one*

I love the conga line, BTW !!



LillyBoPeep -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:51:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys


I understood it completely that's why I said what I did. My post is TOO FAR while with some of you, others get a pass. It's okay, I expect it but I just like to point it out.



while i think the bickering has gone on long enough, i do actually have to agree with him here. i've seen much snarkier/flat out hateful things posted by other people and nobody seems to notice.



ranja -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:51:14 AM)

again... i don't mind a good exchange at all, so the tell tale reporting person is just an over sensitive interfering little so and so in my opinion, if they can't stomach the content of what they are reading then i think they should just stay off the boards all together... go to a site about fluffy teddybears or growing pretty flowers or something.

about the moderators and being anonymous...
if they are... then how do any of the users know who they are?
and how does anybody know that there are more than one for sure...
and how does anybody know the site is owned by more than one person...
and who are they?
and how does anybody know the site owner is not the moderator too...
and it seems he might be operating under an inconspicuous user name too
or maybe many

maybe i am totally scitzophrenic... maybe i am the only person here

Edit to add (no the answer is not really important at all, that is my whole point)



angelikaJ -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:53:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

Do we really have to push the envelope this far to see what is and is not acceptable in terms of personals attacks?
What part of the context of that did you not understand.


I understood it completely that's why I said what I did. My post is TOO FAR while with some of you, others get a pass. It's okay, I expect it but I just like to point it out.




Well, you see, your logic button is broken in that case.

If someone makes a personal attack towards you (and do you report them btw: because as was explained previously unreported posts are often not seen nor read by the moderators), you don't make your point about the unfairness of it all by posting something that goes TOO FAR.


Edit: missing a



Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/21/2011 7:55:45 AM)

quote:

Well, you see, your logic button is broken in that case.

If someone makes personal attack towards you (and do you report them btw: because as was explained previously unreported posts are often not seen nor read by the moderators), you don't make your point about the unfairness of it all by posting something that goes TOO FAR.

No, no hun..I was commenting on your actions alone and how I thought they might be one sided. My logic button is just fine but thanks for playing.



Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.785156E-02