Discussion about moderation

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!