Discussion about moderation

MissionABS

I didn't see the thread that was removed, but I think you make some really good points. I think it is reasonable to want to take the fitness journey with people you share interests with. For some people on this site, fitness is their life. It is the only topic that seems to interest them. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not me.

No one seems to take issues with stay at home mom groups, age 50+, singles, etc. etc. Politics shouldn't be any different.

frostiegurl

Tross, get out of my head. I couldn't have said it better. While i understand that there are specific rules to prevent controversy, the fact of the matter is that other non-forbidden topics often cause more vitriol than the ones expressly forbidden.

The deletion of an entire thread doesn't target the offender ( person or persons causing issues) it merely stifles the voices of the folks involved who are wanting to stand on common ground.

catcrazy

As just another user.......

I like this site and I abide by the rules because I want to continue using this site, I have a warped and wicked sense of humour (think B3TA) but I curb it on here because its required in the rules. The way i see it is....you would not going into a none smoking establishment, light up a cigar and expect no one to challenge you and then complain to management how other patrons had challenged you for breaking the rules would you...people complaining about their religious/political/sexuality posts being closed down are doing just that tho, its baffling!

I volunteered as a moderator because I saw some very ugly threads on here when Mike was moderating alone, I wanted to help keep it friendly and supportive and I think overall we (volunteer mods) are doing just that



As a moderator.....

There were very few rules in place in the beginning (before my time) and the religion/sexuality/political topics used to get very heated so Mike put some rules in place.

I've seen first hand some of the results of "forbidden" topics being posted, feelings genuinely get hurt, they could have avoided that hurt by following the site rules.

In an ideal world people should be able to talk freely about their religious,.sexual or political preferences but we don't live in an ideal world and until we do rules are needed and those rules need to be adhered to.

The deletion of an entire thread doesn't target the offender ( person or persons causing issues) it merely stifles the voices of the folks involved who are wanting to stand on common ground.

If this is the LGBTQ thread you are on it would have been deleted because it was against forum rules. I haven't read it but if there were personal attacks on top of the already "forbidden" topic then there really would be no choice but to delete. As for none forbidden topics getting heated, yes they do and they also get locked, edit, deleted just like forbidden topics

There are plans to make private groups but until they are in place is it really that hard to follow the site owners rules?

tross0924

See and what may be harder to do, but way more fair to the original poster, is to not delete the thread out of hand, but delete the posts that push the line. If what you're worried about is arguments starting over topics, stop the argumentative people, not the topics. It's perfectly possible to have a discussion about very controversial topics without being rude or insulting. The topic isn't the issue in my opinion. I mean if I were to go into a thread asking for people who are 35 - 40 years old for support spouting offensive trash about 35-40 year olds, it should be the trash that gets deleted and not the entire thread that up until I came in was going nicely.

The rules are really quite clear about any mention of religion on the forums. It's just not allowed, period, end of story. The original poster broke the rules and now we're on our second day of fallout because of it.

OK again I haven't seen or heard anything about the fallout from yesterday. If you truly want to know, the one that stuck in my throat was from 6 weeks ago when a woman asked for Christian friends for support. Several people said add me. One person said "You don't have to be Christian to be supportive" (not over the line or offensive in my opinion). But then the next person attacked her and was offensive. It went down hill from there. The end result was that a new person to the site who was looking for like minded friends got told post Christian stuff on your wall or in your blog, and the offensive preson(s) had nothing happen. How the new person was supposed to find supportive like minded friends by posting on her wall, was not disclosed.

I understand the rules. I'm not saying they have to change. I am saying in my opinion they are being unfairly applied. I don't think a post asking for like minded friends is ABOUT the similarity. I think the post is about finding friends, and as such should be allowed under the rules.

13) Topics about politics, religion, or sexuality are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes posting images or signatures. Unfortunately, we have seen that topics about either of these subjects are highly likely to result in heated arguments and disputes. If you really wish to discuss either of these topics, please google political forums, religious forums, etc. - there are plenty of other places to express your views.

The question is - is a topic ABOUT the politics, religion, or sexuality if it is mentioned that I'd like my friends to be religious / gay / or political? I think that the post that starts the argument and attacks first is the post that is about the issue and is the one that should be deleted. Merely mentioning the words shouldn't be enough of a reason to delete an entire thread in my opinon.

Atlantique

See and what may be harder to do, but way more fair to the original poster, is to not delete the thread out of hand, but delete the posts that push the line. If what you're worried about is arguments starting over topics, stop the argumentative people, not the topics. It's perfectly possible to have a discussion about very controversial topics without being rude or insulting. The topic isn't the issue in my opinion. I mean if I were to go into a thread asking for people who are 35 - 40 years old for support spouting offensive trash about 35-40 year olds, it should be the trash that gets deleted and not the entire thread that up until I came in was going nicely.

The rules are really quite clear about any mention of religion on the forums. It's just not allowed, period, end of story. The original poster broke the rules and now we're on our second day of fallout because of it.

OK again I haven't seen or heard anything about the fallout from yesterday. If you truly want to know, the one that stuck in my throat was from 6 weeks ago when a woman asked for Christian friends for support. Several people said add me. One person said "You don't have to be Christian to be supportive" (not over the line or offensive in my opinion). But then the next person attacked her and was offensive. It went down hill from there. The end result was that a new person to the site who was looking for like minded friends got told post Christian stuff on your wall or in your blog, and the offensive preson(s) had nothing happen. How the new person was supposed to find supportive like minded friends by posting on her wall, was not disclosed.

I understand the rules. I'm not saying they have to change. I am saying in my opinion they are being unfairly applied. I don't think a post asking for like minded friends is ABOUT the similarity. I think the post is about finding friends, and as such should be allowed under the rules.

13) Topics about politics, religion, or sexuality are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes posting images or signatures. Unfortunately, we have seen that topics about either of these subjects are highly likely to result in heated arguments and disputes. If you really wish to discuss either of these topics, please google political forums, religious forums, etc. - there are plenty of other places to express your views.

The question is - is a topic ABOUT the politics, religion, or sexuality if it is mentioned that I'd like my friends to be religious / gay / or political? I think that the post that starts the argument and attacks first is the post that is about the issue and is the one that should be deleted. Merely mentioning the words shouldn't be enough of a reason to delete an entire thread in my opinon.

The question has been asked and answered repeatedly. Yes, the topic is "ABOUT the politics, religion, or sexuality if it is mentioned that I'd like my friends to be religious / gay / or political". Your not liking the answer doesn't change the answer.

ladyhawk00

OK again I haven't seen or heard anything about the fallout from yesterday. If you truly want to know, the one that stuck in my throat was from 6 weeks ago when a woman asked for Christian friends for support. Several people said add me. One person said "You don't have to be Christian to be supportive" (not over the line or offensive in my opinion). But then the next person attacked her and was offensive. It went down hill from there. The end result was that a new person to the site who was looking for like minded friends got told post Christian stuff on your wall or in your blog, and the offensive preson(s) had nothing happen. How the new person was supposed to find supportive like minded friends by posting on her wall, was not disclosed.

I'll say two things here, as a mod.

First, we do not publicly discuss moderation. So you have NO idea if "the offensive person" had anything happen. We warn people, suspend posting priveleges and ban people often (the latter only after much consideration and as a last resort) -- but it's not like we post a topic about it. So you cannot assume you know what happened or didn't happen to/with another member regarding what they have done.

Second, I posted Mike's explanation about this rule here... Perhaps this will help:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/296100-will-this-one-last-longer-than-20-minutes

MissionABS

The question has been asked and answered repeatedly. Yes, the topic is "ABOUT the politics, religion, or sexuality if it is mentioned that I'd like my friends to be religious / gay / or political". Your not liking the answer doesn't change the answer.

I totally disagree. The OP is clearly stating that the new member was just looking for friends with similar interests. The thread was not about discussing those interests. Those discussions could have taken place on each others walls or via private messaging after the fact, but the new member has no way of identifying similar interest friends without asking for them in a post.

I saw nothing in the OPs well written reply to suggest he was just trying to change the answer.

bluemist248

I usually stay out of these kinda discussions for fear of offending, but I thought I'd add my two cents since it's partly related to my degree.

I can see both sides of this argument. I can understand people feeling a need to connect to others like them whether that's through race, politics or sexuality. Whilst I agree it has NOTHING to do with fitness or weight loss.... with the exception of religions that promote fasting or certain dietary restrictions (that's actually quite a lot of religions) I can understand people seeking others like them and discussing sensitive topics, I think this has something to do with the hidden nature of this site, i.e. being honest with yourself and others, exposing ourselves (progress pics, weight, age, diet etc.. all issues many people wouldn't broadcast in an everyday environment.

I just think this makes people more likely to expose the rest of their personalities and their opinions and lives. It's mostly to seek company and support. I don't see anything wrong with that, until it becomes a heated argument. Which it usually does as not everyone can look at things from both points of view.

For me (so feel free to disagree) the general rule to prevent heated controversial topics would be to allow threads that are exclusive groups providing they are related to fitness. I did see a comparison today which although I agree with the sentiment, the logic is flawed. This comparison was that a LGBTQ thread is the same exclusivity as a 'mom's over 40' thread. It simply isn't. One is related to health and fitness, one isn't. "mom's over 40" does impact health at fitness (age and childbirth, and having a busy life come to mind here, thus it is related. Sexuality has little impact on fitness or diets (yes, I have seen the argument of it causing comfort eating, but comfort eating is comfort eating, whatever the cause). Now before anyone accuses me of being homophobic, I'm actually bisexual myself, I just understand that this, much like politics does not affect fitness or health DIRECTLY.

tross0924

The question has been asked and answered repeatedly. Yes, the topic is "ABOUT the politics, religion, or sexuality if it is mentioned that I'd like my friends to be religious / gay / or political". Your not liking the answer doesn't change the answer.

Please allow that your opinion is not "the answer". I do disagree with your opinion and am hoping to get more opinions either for or against, but unless Mike posts there is no answer. The main reason I disagree with your opinion is because a topic about looking for friends from Utah is not about Utah. A topic about Utah would go something like Utah is great because . . .

I'll say two things here, as a mod.

First, we do not publicly discuss moderation. So you have NO idea if "the offensive person" had anything happen. We warn people, suspend posting priveleges and ban people often (the latter only after much consideration and as a last resort) -- but it's not like we post a topic about it. So you cannot assume you know what happened or didn't happen to/with another member regarding what they have done.

Second, I posted Mike's explanation about this rule here... Perhaps this will help:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/296100-will-this-one-last-longer-than-20-minutes

You're right. I do have no idea what if anything happened to the attacking / offensive individuals. I'm sorry. I do know that the apperance is that nothing happened. The appearance is one of discrimination soley against the original poster who in my opinion again didn't violate any rules by asking for like minded thread.

As a moderator do you feel that my asking for friends from Utah is a post about Utah? If not then why is there a difference, and if so can you explain why you feel that way? Or is the rule meant to read any mention of politics/religion/sexuality will be deleted?

Qarol

The question has been asked and answered repeatedly. Yes, the topic is "ABOUT the politics, religion, or sexuality if it is mentioned that I'd like my friends to be religious / gay / or political". Your not liking the answer doesn't change the answer.

Please allow that your opinion is not "the answer".

The answer is, by merely starting a thread about religion (especially if you could have seen the title, but I gather you didn't actually see it), that was a violation of the rules. Deleting only some responses would be an incredible amount of work by the moderators. If the rule is "don't start a thread about religion," then expect for the entire thread to be deleted if you do.

If the moderators wanted to create a rule against posting about Utah, they are well within their rights to do so. But there is no rule about posts and Utah, so that's why that would be OK.

catcrazy

As a moderator do you feel that my asking for friends from Utah is a post about Utah? If not then why is there a difference, and if so can you explain why you feel that way? Or is the rule meant to read any mention of politics/religion/sexuality will be deleted?

The difference is quite clear, posts about Utah are not likely to get heated. However if you started a thread saying I only want friends from Utah because people from XXXXX state are evil it would be a different matter.

Posts specifically about politics/religion/sexuality are against the rules so would be deleted but not a general topic post where someone just happened to mention something about religion/sexuality in a loose sense. Eg: "I was so far over my calories because my local LGBTQ meeting had laid on a tempting buffet" would not be deleted. Now you notice I did leave out politics there because unfortunately a single mention of your political preference will be jumped on quicker than any other topic.The rules are there purely to try and keep drama off the boards and are not homophobic as is being suggested elsewhere, I can guarantee a topic titled "looking for heterosexual friends for support" would also be closed down.

gothicprophet

First, let me open by saying I have been a moderator on numerous forums throughout the years and I know quite well what a tricky, thankless, and p.i.t.a. job it can be. Forbidden topics are that way for a reason; discussions about, related to, or even containing references of those taboo topics generally tend to break down from civil to flame-war in very short spans of time, all it takes is 1 instigator (aka: troll) to get the ball rolling on that sort of thing.

Also, I believe the OP is seeking a clarification on the uniform application on the rule in question and also seeking clarification on what the definition of "about" is in relation to said rule. I, personally, cannot speak for the administrators of this site (seeing that I'm neither admin nor mod, nor am I submitting my application to be such) instead I merely offer another opinion, so instead of trying to define what threads are "about" (that is the sole discretion of the site administration) I will focus on what I've personally seen about the uniform application of rule:

13) Topics about politics, religion, or sexuality are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes posting images or signatures. Unfortunately, we have seen that topics about either of these subjects are highly likely to result in heated arguments and disputes. If you really wish to discuss either of these topics, please google political forums, religious forums, etc. - there are plenty of other places to express your views.

This rule is pretty much an internet universal constant. It exists on nearly every forum out there that does not specifically cater to the mentioned topics (and often if it caters to one topic, it will still forbid the other two). However, it's application can, and often does, vary from board to board. When the rule is simply a blanket statement of 'don't create threads about the following topics:' it is generally assumed that the mere mention of the topics included will get the thread locked and/or deleted as soon as a moderator can spot it.

However I just wanted to point out that as specifically stated in the above quoted rule, the posting of signatures which contain political, religious, or sexual references should also be uniformly deleted. I see people quoting from various religious text in their signatures and, if this rule is to truly be enforced, those signatures have to go. As mods have mentioned in their reply to this thread, people have their own blogs they can use to promote/seek friends of their particular beliefs/mindsets.

Now enough of my rambling... Shouldn't you all (and myself included) be doing something to reach our fitness goals? Reading forums is well and good, but it's no substitute for moving around! :happy:

catcrazy

Firstly, thank you for putting another perspective out there and....

However I just wanted to point out that as specifically stated in the above quoted rule, the posting of signatures which contain political, religious, or sexual references should also be uniformly deleted. I see people quoting from various religious text in their signatures and, if this rule is to truly be enforced, those signatures have to go.

We largely rely on other users to report signatures that are in any way against the rules. As you can imagine many go unreported or unspotted by moderators when they are spotted or reported they are firstly asked to remove them, if they don't comply, Mike will do it for them.

Atlantique

First, let me open by saying I have been a moderator on numerous forums throughout the years and I know quite well what a tricky, thankless, and p.i.t.a. job it can be. Forbidden topics are that way for a reason; discussions about, related to, or even containing references of those taboo topics generally tend to break down from civil to flame-war in very short spans of time, all it takes is 1 instigator (aka: troll) to get the ball rolling on that sort of thing.

Also, I believe the OP is seeking a clarification on the uniform application on the rule in question and also seeking clarification on what the definition of "about" is in relation to said rule. I, personally, cannot speak for the administrators of this site (seeing that I'm neither admin nor mod, nor am I submitting my application to be such) instead I merely offer another opinion, so instead of trying to define what threads are "about" (that is the sole discretion of the site administration) I will focus on what I've personally seen about the uniform application of rule:

13) Topics about politics, religion, or sexuality are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes posting images or signatures. Unfortunately, we have seen that topics about either of these subjects are highly likely to result in heated arguments and disputes. If you really wish to discuss either of these topics, please google political forums, religious forums, etc. - there are plenty of other places to express your views.

This rule is pretty much an internet universal constant. It exists on nearly every forum out there that does not specifically cater to the mentioned topics (and often if it caters to one topic, it will still forbid the other two). However, it's application can, and often does, vary from board to board. When the rule is simply a blanket statement of 'don't create threads about the following topics:' it is generally assumed that the mere mention of the topics included will get the thread locked and/or deleted as soon as a moderator can spot it.

However I just wanted to point out that as specifically stated in the above quoted rule, the posting of signatures which contain political, religious, or sexual references should also be uniformly deleted. I see people quoting from various religious text in their signatures and, if this rule is to truly be enforced, those signatures have to go. As mods have mentioned in their reply to this thread, people have their own blogs they can use to promote/seek friends of their particular beliefs/mindsets.

Now enough of my rambling... Shouldn't you all (and myself included) be doing something to reach our fitness goals? Reading forums is well and good, but it's no substitute for moving around! :happy:

Agree totally, having been a mod and then an admin on another site as well. I'd also add that trying to police threads that you just know WILL go bad--it's not a question of 'if', but rather of 'when'- is not productive, sets a double standard and takes away from more important moderating work like blocking spam. I will admit that I tried the philosophy of letting things roll along until they got ugly and it was a very, very poor decision on my part. I came around to the 'total banning of certain topics' stance fairly quickly.

And I often also ponder why the forbidden signatures are allowed to remain, but perhaps they simply aren't being reported.

I would also like to make the suggestion that in addition to the idea of 'Groups", that these "Groups" have closed forums. Password protected, moderator-approved admission. Otherwise, the people who have nothing better to do than start trouble will wander in and it will be complete chaos.

katkins3

Whoa, too many words, can't read any more...going to have lunch.
Play nice!

gothicprophet

We largely rely on other users to report signatures that are in any way against the rules. As you can imagine many go unreported or unspotted by moderators when they are spotted or reported they are firstly asked to remove them, if they don't comply, Mike will do it for them.

To report just a signature, is it the same process as reporting a post?

Thriceshy

More than once, a "looking for X religion" thread has turned into a "hey, if you want to know more about my religion, visit this, this, this, and that!" I don't think this is an appropriate place for missionary/conversion work.

However.

I would be totally behind creating "closed" or private threads for folks who share a political or religious persuasion. I'm also mostly okay with them in the "chit-chat" area, because hey, it's chit-chat. But I can certainly see the moderator's point here--I used to run a rather large gaming league site with a large and active message forum, and you learn fast what topics tend to explode, and you do finally have to make rules about those topics because long, bitter experience shows that they almost invariably go south in a big way.

Kris

tross0924

Also, I believe the OP is seeking a clarification on the uniform application on the rule in question and also seeking clarification on what the definition of "about" is in relation to said rule.

Yes. It's the "about" that I have a question about. It seems horribly unfair for someone to be asking for support and help from people they feel understand them better than others and have the thread deleted because it violates a IMO liberal interpretation of a rule.

Agree totally, having been a mod and then an admin on another site as well. I'd also add that trying to police threads that you just know WILL go bad--it's not a question of 'if', but rather of 'when'- is not productive, sets a double standard and takes away from more important moderating work like blocking spam. I will admit that I tried the philosophy of letting things roll along until they got ugly and it was a very, very poor decision on my part. I came around to the 'total banning of certain topics' stance fairly quickly.

I would also like to make the suggestion that in addition to the idea of 'Groups", that these "Groups" have closed forums. Password protected, moderator-approved admission. Otherwise, the people who have nothing better to do than start trouble will wander in and it will be complete chaos.

I can completely agree with you and can see how it could snowball very fast. When people feel insulted and start arguing the posts tend to rack up fairly quickly. And I'm sure if I was every crazy enough to volunteer to moderate a thread I'd come to the same conclusion quickly. And I really like your idea too.

And while I understand the functionality of the deletions and that in practice it's probably the best policy, it still smacks of unfairness to me. Of course, single thread deletion while ideal, would be unfair to the volunteers who honestly do a great job on the forums.

Thank you all for indulging me in my debate, especially the mods. :flowerforyou:

catcrazy

We largely rely on other users to report signatures that are in any way against the rules. As you can imagine many go unreported or unspotted by moderators when they are spotted or reported they are firstly asked to remove them, if they don't comply, Mike will do it for them.

To report just a signature, is it the same process as reporting a post?

Yes, but state the reason in the comments or we may not spot it

tjradd73

i think that they should be allowed....but there should have to be a warning in the title "warning, racist thread is progress" and then if someone goes into it and they dont like what it says...it's their own fault!