moderation interpretation?

moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

needlesandpins -> moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:26:11 PM)
ok so i'm not mod bashing here, mearly putting some thoughts forward about how some of it comes about. i'd say the vast majority of modship doesn't affect me, however, over this last couple of days i've been rather intrigued as to how some of it may appear. for instance when it comes to threads being 'hyjacked'. as was the case the other night with a thread of sexisubi's. now if the author of the thread agrees that the thread needs moderation then cool. but if that had been my thread then i'd have been a bit peeved to be honest. now again it's cool where there is some bickering that gets out of hand or whatever, but in the case of someone deliberately setting themselves up for retaliation and gives as good as they take without it turning very abusive, i don't see why it's needed. threads being hyjacked off topic can actually turn into alot of fun. now NS set himself up for alot of what has been said to him lately as David also has in this threads. again if they request that posts be removed and they complain cool, but then they should also be warned against making inflammatory remarks in the first place. if not then as far as i see it it's open ground. i actually don't care where a thread of mine goes, people can post as they will. if i don't like the way people are posting in it then i will say so. if i say nothing then i want my thread left alone, again unless it's getting personally insulting and the person it's aimed at complains. in any case though a pm to the people involved and the op is surely polite? if someone deliberately starts a thread whereby they are just being inflammatory then by all means remove the whole thread or leave well alone surely? but if just certain posts are removed doesn't that warrent an explanation as to why when most of the thread is in the same vein? needles

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:36:05 PM)
I say this not in an aggressive or dismissive way, but I genuinely don't really understand why people care so much about moderation. This is the internet. Once you post something on the internet you lose ownership of it - and in the case of posting it on CM you give that ownership to the site, which appoints mods. Does it really matter if a couple of your many-hundred/thousand posts get deleted? Or if the moderation's a bit biased, or too heavy or light for your tastes? The posts that have been deleted aren't really yours any more, and fairness is just an illusion that your teachers wanted you to believe in at school because it makes discipline easier. Ultimately the mods create an atmosphere. Whether or not you (in the generic sense of the word) like that atmosphere determines whether or not you stay. And in order to create that deliciously omelette-y atmosphere a few eggs need to get broken. I'm ok if a few of my posts end up in the frying pan, really I am, and I honestly don't get why other people aren't.

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:38:28 PM)
I remember when moderation was pretty black and white. You cross the line you got bitch slapped whether your intent was to cross the line or not. And if you got bitch slapped, you definitely got a gold bordered letter telling you about it. Since then we've had some......interesting moderation. I don't see any real defined lines. More of a.....on a whim......type of deal. It's obvious that a few mods are close friends with other posters and that many of the posters know who the mods are. I cannot imagine there not being some bias. That is just human nature. It doesn't really bother me, it just is what it is. In some ways I have seen that the moderation has gotten a lot looser but in others, it's gotten a lot more....puppies and kittens and PC, let's not hurt Precious's feelings, all predictable, suburbia vanilla boringish. What ev..........I don't pay the bills. It's up to those that do, to determine what they want. It's their hood, I just visit.

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:50:21 PM)
I interpret moderation like this: [awaiting approval]

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:52:19 PM)
as i said, it's not really having a bash, just some thoughts. if i start a thread and i'm enjoying the way it's going in a hyjack then why should it be modded on someone else's whim? hyjacks can be fun and threads don't always need to be so cut and dried on topic. VC mostly i don't care particularly, just that sometimes i think things are either ruined by the moderation, or it's not even and thus makes no sence. which is where an explanation as to why your (generic) post and not others of the same vein were removed. i don't use all of the forums here, but of what i do use i think that alot can be said without treating us like children. i've been on other sites where it's just way overboard and completely clique orientated. i actually only know who two of the mods are here. no idea otherwise. needles

Hillwilliam -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:52:54 PM)
The mods are human with all human frailties, virtues and prejudices. Nuff said.

LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 12:56:45 PM)
The majority of My crap that gets pulled tends to do with quoting a post that was determined by the Moderators that it had to go. I've got no issue with that. I've even replied to a couple of those special, gold emails to say that the Mods don't have to go through the extra time investment to inform Me. If the post that I'm replying to has to go, of course My comments quoting it have to go, too. Truthfully, I can determine when something is an outright hijack, but I get a bit fuzzy on what is 'thread drift' and what is hijack. (I started a thread on it once, Myself.) Pretty much, I tend to think that responding to the ensuing conversation is still on-topic, but it's not always seen that way. You did mention abuse, so a word on that. You won't find Me calling folks cunts, dicks, or anything else that I wouldn't walk up to somebody and call them in real life without basing it on something. I will absolutely tell people that I have a low opinion of behaviors that they exhibit, such as lying which was mentioned on another thread. I don't think people get a free pass on that.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:08:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins VC mostly i don't care particularly, just that sometimes i think things are either ruined by the moderation, or it's not even and thus makes no sence. which is where an explanation as to why your (generic) post and not others of the same vein were removed. But why does it matter if it's uneven? The mods do whatever they think they gotta do. Either that results in an environment that people like or it doesn't. As for it ruining threads: threads are transitory. There'll always be a funnier one coming round the corner. I don't get why it matters.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact The majority of My crap that gets pulled tends to do with quoting a post that was determined by the Moderators that it had to go. I've got no issue with that. I've even replied to a couple of those special, gold emails to say that the Mods don't have to go through the extra time investment to inform Me. If the post that I'm replying to has to go, of course My comments quoting it have to go, too. Truthfully, I can determine when something is an outright hijack, but I get a bit fuzzy on what is 'thread drift' and what is hijack. (I started a thread on it once, Myself.) Pretty much, I tend to think that responding to the ensuing conversation is still on-topic, but it's not always seen that way. You did mention abuse, so a word on that. You won't find Me calling folks cunts, dicks, or anything else that I wouldn't walk up to somebody and call them in real life without basing it on something. I will absolutely tell people that I have a low opinion of behaviors that they exhibit, such as lying which was mentioned on another thread. I don't think people get a free pass on that. yep yep, totally get where you are coming from there and totally agree, especially with the bold parts. needles

Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:13:07 PM)
It's sure as hell a lot better than it used to be. We had a serious man-hating lesbian large and in charge not too far in the past. She was busy doing the furors work on the male population's testicles, dead-set on eunuchazation of the entire world as we know it. She has now been tried for warcrimes, thank goodness and was sent to her own private Guantanamo bay by the sea to live out her lasting and hopefully ever shortening breaths! I'm okay with a "little" leniency.[;)]

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:13:44 PM)
In thinking about it. Granted I don't know who the mods are and don't care, but it's apparent many do. Sometimes I wonder, when a thread gets shut down, I've always thought it was kind of a wussie way out of them having to mod slap their friends. Instead of being all professional like, they just do a blanket smack down. Kind of a "Ohhhh, I don't want Suzy mad at me so instead I will just keep it all vague and maybe even lie to her in an email to placate her." Again, it's nothing beyond normal human nature and relationship/friendship stuff. Along the lines of why most companies don't want couples working for them and occasionally even discourage fraternization between bosses and employees.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins VC mostly i don't care particularly, just that sometimes i think things are either ruined by the moderation, or it's not even and thus makes no sence. which is where an explanation as to why your (generic) post and not others of the same vein were removed. But why does it matter if it's uneven? The mods do whatever they think they gotta do. Either that results in an environment that people like or it doesn't. As for it ruining threads: threads are transitory. There'll always be a funnier one coming round the corner. I don't get why it matters. as with all things i guess, sometimes it just does. not that it's a major issue as i said, but i'm here on a forum that has limited moderators who get to make a decission without explanation that sometimes i may think needs it, for me. others may differ. if threads are transitory then unless it's really upsetting people leave it alone or explain why it was modded (not even sure that's the right term, but heyho). it matters to me if the moderation is in relation to me and it's uneven without explanation. if i'm moderated and someone else being the same way isn't then i want to know why. i can't explain why it matters to me, it just does. if it doesn't for other then cool. being different in types and temperaments is probably why it matters to some and not others. what i would like to know is this; if a thread i'd started was moderatored for being 'off topic' but i complained because i was actually enjoying the way it was going and it's not actually harming anything, then can things be put back? because if not then that is where i may actually be more bothered that someone else's personal take had effected the way a thread was going be it 'on topic' or not. needles

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys It's sure as hell a lot better than it used to be. We had a serious man-hating lesbian large and in charge not too far in the past. She was busy doing the furors work on the male population's testicles, dead-set on eunuchazation of the entire world as we know it. She has now been tried for warcrimes, thank goodness and was sent to her own private Guantanamo bay by the sea to live out her lasting and hopefully ever shortening breaths! I'm okay with a "little" leniency.[;)] sorry Icarys, but that actually made me chuckle as i imagined a whole host of guys hiding their bits between their legs and quoting little britains 'i'm a lady' to save themselves. needles

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:25:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse In thinking about it. Granted I don't know who the mods are and don't care, but it's apparent many do. Sometimes I wonder, when a thread gets shut down, I've always thought it was kind of a wussie way out of them having to mod slap their friends. Instead of being all professional like, they just do a blanket smack down. Spot on, IMHO.

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:25:05 PM)
Not far from the truth....

Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:29:03 PM)
quote: sorry Icarys, but that actually made me chuckle as i imagined a whole host of guys hiding their bits between their legs and quoting little britains 'i'm a lady' to save themselves. needles Yeah it's funny now!I wanted to strangle that heifer on occasion just to see her eyes pop. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s2.gif[/image]

LillyBoPeep -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse In thinking about it. Granted I don't know who the mods are and don't care, but it's apparent many do. Sometimes I wonder, when a thread gets shut down, I've always thought it was kind of a wussie way out of them having to mod slap their friends. Instead of being all professional like, they just do a blanket smack down. Spot on, IMHO. i can agree with that.

LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:33:48 PM)
I realize that the term 'moderation' can be used as in post pulling. However, a person moderated entirely is a different matter to Me. It's very rare for Me not to understand why a person has earned [Awaiting Approval]. If I don't get it, I've been known to write the person and ask. A very, very high percentage of times these days, it's deserved. I have My own opinions on what the percentage is of folks who learn their lesson, rather than antagonize the situation.

kalikshama -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:34:54 PM)
quote: As for it ruining threads: threads are transitory. There'll always be a funnier one coming round the corner. I don't get why it matters. When I'm enjoying a thread and click on the next page and instead get Board Maintenance, I haz a sad. I was glad that Hannah's thread came back. There was another one this week that took a funny turn and disappeared, although I didn't spot any TOS violations. I want to read a thread until we've wrung every once of enjoyment from it.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/17/2011 1:34:56 PM)
fast reply It is what it is. There is stuff on here right now that I would pull and send folks to "awaiting approval" for. There is stuff that was been pulled I would have left up. I would imagine that is the way it is for most posters, although I could be wrong. This is one thing that I just kinda feel like if it ever bothers me, I will go elsewhere. Or request a refund. I think they do a helluva job. I also hope they read this, since with school out, and me being one of those worrisome posters who is only around during summertime, a brownie point might not hurt.[:D]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.078125