Locking Threads "due to bad personnel attacks"

[CECAA850]

Now CECAA's avatar is eyeballing me.

 

You shouldn't smell like hamburger then.

[mxr dad]

LOL. That was inhumane and harsh punishment there wasnt it. I hereby release that Voo-Doo and wish you Bose-Free my friend. 

[mxr dad]

Dude, when he was eyeballing me for real, it wasnt hamburger he was smelling. It was fear he was smelling! Have you heard about that Chihuahua that killed that Rottweiler?   

[CECAA850]

Have you heard about that Chihuahua that killed that Rottweiler?

 

Is that like the ant that ate the elephant?  One bite at a time?

[mxr dad]

Close, the Chihuahua got stuck in the Rottweilers throat and choked to death. Oh boy, I ask forgiveness. No animals were harmed in the making of this joke.

[The History Kid]

I wanna slap you for that joke, but that was just plain funny right there...

[mxr dad]

I'll save the trouble, I'll kick my own arse for ya!

[Travis In Austin]

I don't believe their were any personal attacks in the Baltimore, baseball thread.

The original post had political and racial overtones from the original post. I am not saying that anything was intentionally by the post, but there was only one direction it could go.

Well how could a post about the fact that spectators were not allowed to attend a game because of safety be political? Well it was the 3 or 4 questions following the news flash about the baseball game score, such as whether the mother who grabbed her son who was "attempting to loot" a hero or not? Someone pointed out on the first page that the post had no where to go but political. Then there was some discussion that it wasn't the intent, but rather was an invitation for friendly discourse amongst "family."

From there it went to the mother had six kids out of wedlock, corruption in Baltimore, and we were off, me included, just like the Preakness.

EVERYONE in that thread talked about politics, political philosophy, the left, the right. WVU, I appreciate the fact that yoi wished it had stayed on topic so it wouldn't get deleted, but you sure were willing to discuss politics and pointed out the reason WV, with its four electoral votes went Republican and cost Gore the election.

If the rule is that politics and racial discussions should be are out then that thread should have been killed the first day. A moderator was in that thread this morning and gave a friendly reminder not to use the names of particular elected office holders as being too political. Never mind the previous 15 or so pages contained discussions about political ideology, media's influence, and specific sociatial issues and where people come down on them. Again, not one personal attack, but that's mot really the issue is it? Chad has pinned a reminder at the top, NO POLITICS NO RELIGION. Just like Thanksgiving at my parent's house, well we do pray and give thanks before eating, but that is another story.

This group can't talk about gas prices or the tooth fairy without bringing politics into the discussion. Why would it be any different about Baltimore?

Moderators, moderate. It is a tough job, but we are counting on you, because no corporation can allow politics, race, religion or sexual orientation to be a part of their official forums. If you don't do your jobs, this forum is gone.

Moderators are like referees or umpires, people want someone who is even handed, fair, UNBIASED, amd wolling to make a call. Don't second guess yourselves, don't make apologies, and you do not need to explain your decision. Just call it, "I am/we are shutting this down because it is political." Did you notice that no one disagreed that the thread was political. They knew it from day one.

Good referees are able to make calls without regard to whether they are popular or not, without second guessing themselves, and knowing going in that some will agree and some will disagree. It is difficult because it is human nature to want to be loved, liked, or popular. If you are a moderator and you need love, buy a dog or a kitten.

Here are some buzz words to look for that a post just might be political other than an elected official's last name in it. Liberal, conservative, right wing or left wing (unless they are talking about sports), far right, far left, socialism, communism, democrat or republican (upper and lower case), POTUS, election, debate, vote, voters, primary.

Moderators didn't make the rules, they are here to fairly enforce them.

[dtel's wife]

Exactly Travis.  Thank you, as always.

[Travis In Austin]

Sigh

At this point in my life I've learned that some people require something that I'm simply not capable of giving -- my posterior.

Quite a testimony, I knew you had a lot going on, back pain, etc, but that is quite a load.

I give a sh*t, I feel confident most people do as well. This is why when I initially responded to this post by Mike, I thought it would be better if Moderators would point out the offensive posts, if someone is antagonizing someone else they can be called on it.

I made light of you and Craig going at it and selling tickets, for that I appologize. No idea what either of you have been through individually, what if any issues there are between you, and if you two are serious half the time or not. It is none of my business, and I am certainly not the judge of either of you, or anyone else for that matter.

But you have obviously identified something as evidenced in your post, that is typically half the battle. Some people never identify it and they move on, by choice or otherwise.

As far as your posterior, sure you can do something, just turn the other cheek.

[dtel's wife]

The thread regarding the Baltimore Orioles should have been deleted right after it's inception.  The moderators take full responsibility for not deleting it sooner.  

 

The thread with the rude insults, name calling and insinuations was a completely different thread in an entirely different section and did not involve you at all Mark. 

[BigStewMan]

Edited May 6, 2015 by BigStewMan

[BigStewMan]

 

 

I deleted my thread and decided to leave instead.  Best wishes everyone.

[wvu80]

The thread regarding the Baltimore Orioles should have been deleted right after it's inception. The moderators take full responsibility for not deleting it sooner.

 

Given the way it turned, I agree.  Further, if I had known we could not have policed ourselves, I would never have started it.

 

As I explained in my brilliant (   ) but now deleted Post 22 from the BO thread, I thought there were social issues that were event driven that people could have commented on without delving too far into partisan politics or hot button issues. 

 

When I was challenged on my "talking points" from Post 1, I explained there were three specific images that affected me (four if you include the meaningless ball game), and none of them were addressed from a racial or political point of view, it was all PERSONAL to me.  I observed one event, then changed my mind on it after learning more information.  My point was about my ambivalent feelings, not the event (video) itself.

 

I felt inspired by a picture of men bravely standing up for their community in the face of possible harm to themselves.

 

And I felt incredible sympathy for a woman I didn't know as she anguished about losing her job.

 

THAT was MY agenda, please accept that on its face as sincere.  But since we all see things through our own biased filters, it is clear now that the message was lost. 

 

On some, not all.

Edited May 6, 2015 by wvu80

[Jeff Matthews]

 

I don't believe their were any personal attacks in the Baltimore, baseball thread.

The original post had political and racial overtones from the original post. I am not saying that anything was intentionally by the post, but there was only one direction it could go.

Well how could a post about the fact that spectators were not allowed to attend a game because of safety be political? Well it was the 3 or 4 questions following the news flash about the baseball game score, such as whether the mother who grabbed her son who was "attempting to loot" a hero or not? Someone pointed out on the first page that the post had no where to go but political. Then there was some discussion that it wasn't the intent, but rather was an invitation for friendly discourse amongst "family."

From there it went to the mother had six kids out of wedlock, corruption in Baltimore, and we were off, me included, just like the Preakness.

EVERYONE in that thread talked about politics, political philosophy, the left, the right. WVU, I appreciate the fact that yoi wished it had stayed on topic so it wouldn't get deleted, but you sure were willing to discuss politics and pointed out the reason WV, with its four electoral votes went Republican and cost Gore the election.

If the rule is that politics and racial discussions should be are out then that thread should have been killed the first day. A moderator was in that thread this morning and gave a friendly reminder not to use the names of particular elected office holders as being too political. Never mind the previous 15 or so pages contained discussions about political ideology, media's influence, and specific sociatial issues and where people come down on them. Again, not one personal attack, but that's mot really the issue is it? Chad has pinned a reminder at the top, NO POLITICS NO RELIGION. Just like Thanksgiving at my parent's house, well we do pray and give thanks before eating, but that is another story.

This group can't talk about gas prices or the tooth fairy without bringing politics into the discussion. Why would it be any different about Baltimore?

Moderators, moderate. It is a tough job, but we are counting on you, because no corporation can allow politics, race, religion or sexual orientation to be a part of their official forums. If you don't do your jobs, this forum is gone.

Moderators are like referees or umpires, people want someone who is even handed, fair, UNBIASED, amd wolling to make a call. Don't second guess yourselves, don't make apologies, and you do not need to explain your decision. Just call it, "I am/we are shutting this down because it is political." Did you notice that no one disagreed that the thread was political. They knew it from day one.

Good referees are able to make calls without regard to whether they are popular or not, without second guessing themselves, and knowing going in that some will agree and some will disagree. It is difficult because it is human nature to want to be loved, liked, or popular. If you are a moderator and you need love, buy a dog or a kitten.

Here are some buzz words to look for that a post just might be political other than an elected official's last name in it. Liberal, conservative, right wing or left wing (unless they are talking about sports), far right, far left, socialism, communism, democrat or republican (upper and lower case), POTUS, election, debate, vote, voters, primary.

Moderators didn't make the rules, they are here to fairly enforce them.

No one argued that the thread wasn't political, because that wasn't a point of contention. What was disingenuous were the following insinuations that people were being attacked, that there was name calling, that there were such bad feelings, and that people were being hurt in that thread. None of that applies to the people who were actually posting, but only to people who were not posting, but felt compelled to complain to the moderator of their pain. See Jeff's bullseye on that subject in the Part 2.

People actually involved in the whole thread were smart, adult, careful not to fall into the kind of nasty stuff that is now on the lounge forum with no moderation of any kind, such as death wishes. Not to mention the religion commentary taking place in another thread.

I've no objection to any rules the company chooses. It's absolutely none of my business. Likewise, I don't care who is a moderator, what their duties are, how they do the job. None of my concern. But, I don't like anyone insinuating that I was responsible for their aching emotional pain during an adult conversion with other willing adult members who are, shall I say, extremely forceful. I treated them as adult intellects, and I didn't hear any of them complain.

Yes, the rules say no politics, and I understood that 5 days ago when the thread began just as well as today. But for the past week, the dozen of so people engaged were allowed to be so engaged, and made the assumption, as anyone would, that in this case, since no adult was being injured, and all were enthusiastically participating of their own free will, that it was being tolerated. That toleration was obvious to all, and I made at least two pleas to keep a lid on such things as naming politicians, so that the tolerance would continue.

And then along comes an outsider not involved in the discussion, and a new moderator (new to me) and suddenly a picture is painted that the thread was an orgy of psychic pain, insults, name calling, and rudeness. It was not. That mis-characterization, and the associated assumptions by outsiders not in the thread, was my only beef. Well, until the death wishes.

 

That is a very fair summary.  The only thing I will add is that there was at least one active participant involved who, at a later point, was protesting that he was on the verge of becoming offended and going to leave.  I don't think he left, though.  

 

Of course, the way I see it is if a conversation is not going the way you want, and even if it is truly offending you, just leave.  It's easy not to participate.  

 

I still have no clue as to why outsiders to conversations make comments like they feel imprisoned in a bad thread.  On second thought, that's not true.  I liken people like that to certain members you tend to find on the boards of directors of home-owner's associations. For whatever reason, you always have that one person who is into everybody's minutia.  They will walk up and down the street with binoculars to magnify any violations they might find - even ones not fully visible to the naked eye.

 

With most people, they notice questionable conduct and then, look to the rules.  With these people, you give them the rules, and they go scouring for violations.

 

Mods, you know I'm not referring to you, so we don't need another "trying our best" comment.  You are doing just fine.  I am talking about the guys who feign hurt feelings and don't even have a role in the conversation.  They are fakers, posers, wanna be cops.... nuisances to normal people.

[oldtimer]

Well, until the death wishes

 

Oh!  The drama!  Or perhaps a lack of literary insight, which is strange coming from one as erudite as you. 

[oldtimer]

"Faux Outrage" is an epidemic sweeping the nation. One guy even spent hours Photoshopping a fake offensive Klipsch web site banner to visually reinforce his fake outrage. This is a learned behavior from TV, where faux outage is currency.

Faux outrage yes.  Finally the pot calling the kettle black.

[Fjd]

 

 

I don't believe their were any personal attacks in the Baltimore, baseball thread.

The original post had political and racial overtones from the original post. I am not saying that anything was intentionally by the post, but there was only one direction it could go.

Well how could a post about the fact that spectators were not allowed to attend a game because of safety be political? Well it was the 3 or 4 questions following the news flash about the baseball game score, such as whether the mother who grabbed her son who was "attempting to loot" a hero or not? Someone pointed out on the first page that the post had no where to go but political. Then there was some discussion that it wasn't the intent, but rather was an invitation for friendly discourse amongst "family."

From there it went to the mother had six kids out of wedlock, corruption in Baltimore, and we were off, me included, just like the Preakness.

EVERYONE in that thread talked about politics, political philosophy, the left, the right. WVU, I appreciate the fact that yoi wished it had stayed on topic so it wouldn't get deleted, but you sure were willing to discuss politics and pointed out the reason WV, with its four electoral votes went Republican and cost Gore the election.

If the rule is that politics and racial discussions should be are out then that thread should have been killed the first day. A moderator was in that thread this morning and gave a friendly reminder not to use the names of particular elected office holders as being too political. Never mind the previous 15 or so pages contained discussions about political ideology, media's influence, and specific sociatial issues and where people come down on them. Again, not one personal attack, but that's mot really the issue is it? Chad has pinned a reminder at the top, NO POLITICS NO RELIGION. Just like Thanksgiving at my parent's house, well we do pray and give thanks before eating, but that is another story.

This group can't talk about gas prices or the tooth fairy without bringing politics into the discussion. Why would it be any different about Baltimore?

Moderators, moderate. It is a tough job, but we are counting on you, because no corporation can allow politics, race, religion or sexual orientation to be a part of their official forums. If you don't do your jobs, this forum is gone.

Moderators are like referees or umpires, people want someone who is even handed, fair, UNBIASED, amd wolling to make a call. Don't second guess yourselves, don't make apologies, and you do not need to explain your decision. Just call it, "I am/we are shutting this down because it is political." Did you notice that no one disagreed that the thread was political. They knew it from day one.

Good referees are able to make calls without regard to whether they are popular or not, without second guessing themselves, and knowing going in that some will agree and some will disagree. It is difficult because it is human nature to want to be loved, liked, or popular. If you are a moderator and you need love, buy a dog or a kitten.

Here are some buzz words to look for that a post just might be political other than an elected official's last name in it. Liberal, conservative, right wing or left wing (unless they are talking about sports), far right, far left, socialism, communism, democrat or republican (upper and lower case), POTUS, election, debate, vote, voters, primary.

Moderators didn't make the rules, they are here to fairly enforce them.

No one argued that the thread wasn't political, because that wasn't a point of contention. What was disingenuous were the following insinuations that people were being attacked, that there was name calling, that there were such bad feelings, and that people were being hurt in that thread. None of that applies to the people who were actually posting, but only to people who were not posting, but felt compelled to complain to the moderator of their pain. See Jeff's bullseye on that subject in the Part 2.

People actually involved in the whole thread were smart, adult, careful not to fall into the kind of nasty stuff that is now on the lounge forum with no moderation of any kind, such as death wishes. Not to mention the religion commentary taking place in another thread.

I've no objection to any rules the company chooses. It's absolutely none of my business. Likewise, I don't care who is a moderator, what their duties are, how they do the job. None of my concern. But, I don't like anyone insinuating that I was responsible for their aching emotional pain during an adult conversion with other willing adult members who are, shall I say, extremely forceful. I treated them as adult intellects, and I didn't hear any of them complain.

Yes, the rules say no politics, and I understood that 5 days ago when the thread began just as well as today. But for the past week, the dozen of so people engaged were allowed to be so engaged, and made the assumption, as anyone would, that in this case, since no adult was being injured, and all were enthusiastically participating of their own free will, that it was being tolerated. That toleration was obvious to all, and I made at least two pleas to keep a lid on such things as naming politicians, so that the tolerance would continue.

And then along comes an outsider not involved in the discussion, and a new moderator (new to me) and suddenly a picture is painted that the thread was an orgy of psychic pain, insults, name calling, and rudeness. It was not. That mis-characterization, and the associated assumptions by outsiders not in the thread, was my only beef. Well, until the death wishes.

 

That is a very fair summary.  The only thing I will add is that there was at least one active participant involved who, at a later point, was protesting that he was on the verge of becoming offended and going to leave.  I don't think he left, though.  

 

Of course, the way I see it is if a conversation is not going the way you want, and even if it is truly offending you, just leave.  It's easy not to participate.  

 

I still have no clue as to why outsiders to conversations make comments like they feel imprisoned in a bad thread.  On second thought, that's not true.  I liken people like that to certain members you tend to find on the boards of directors of home-owner's associations. For whatever reason, you always have that one person who is into everybody's minutia.  They will walk up and down the street with binoculars to magnify any violations they might find - even ones not fully visible to the naked eye.

 

With most people, they notice questionable conduct and then, look to the rules.  With these people, you give them the rules, and they go scouring for violations.

 

Mods, you know I'm not referring to you, so we don't need another "trying our best" comment.  You are doing just fine.  I am talking about the guys who feign hurt feelings and don't even have a role in the conversation.  They are fakers, posers, wanna be cops.... nuisances to normal people.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice summary Jeff.  Just like Thebes uncovered one form of creating chaos below, it seems like you may have identified another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now there is still an implication that I am some sort of shill for Craig in all this.

 

 

 

Thebes, some of us still look at you as a hero and I think you are internalizing this all wrong. You probably need to think about it this way in that you revealed a weakness in the moderating process where an unscrupulous, really bad person could take advantage of moderators that don’t currently have the experience and wisdom of Amy Unger.

 

You have shown us that the use of certain approaches in forum threads can result in blocking out people that an individual may determine are not wanted in their special “clique.” For example, “We don’t want that person around so let’s cause chaos in their thread and the thread will be locked.” Now we have the opportunity to educate people about this possible tactic and we will have a better forum for your efforts. For that, we can thank you!

 

[Jeff Matthews]

Oldtimer,

That feels like a desperate reach for cover. I wasn't outraged, and my contrasting your comment in light of the frenzied sensitivities over mundane subjects, wasn't faux.

 

But you accused me of arguing just to argue.  Say you're sorry!

[oldtimer]

Oldtimer,

That feels like a desperate reach for cover. I wasn't outraged, and my contrasting your comment in light of the frenzied sensitivities over mundane subjects, wasn't faux.

It's not desperate, nor a reach for anything.  The fact that you have mentioned it in more than one thread without context is partly amusing, and partly pathetic.

Edited May 6, 2015 by oldtimer