Off topic is good because if you do get mad or amped up by something, it motivates you to post and then to keep coming back for reactions...etc. It keeps the passion alive......just like BATMANS bagging on the NSX gets me going.
Complaining about Politics in Off Topic again
- Thread starter nsxotic911
- Start date
Re: Do you like President Obama?
lrsudog;1223522 Everyone thinks that moderators are biased and an unbelievable number of posters complain about it every time they are told to cool out. Changing moderation to service such complainers is a waste of time.[/QUOTE said:
Last edited:
Well, I don't envy you this job, that's for sure. I would strive to keep it simple.
- If someone makes an out of line post, I would warn them publicly.
- If the warning is unheeded, I would give them a short vacation from Prime.
- If the thread is too far gone, I would lock it.
- I wouldn't ever delete a post unless there was some legal or moral imperative to do so.
My rationale for not deleting posts is that is smacks of 1984 style revisionism of history. You've got a handful of people who know one truth (the ones who saw a post before it disappeared) and everyone else who can never know. Ironically, the people who really benefit are the people whose posts are deleted.
Hal I don't know how much time you devote to this painful endeavor..but hows about pming the offender,and offer the option of edit or face ....deletion.Personaly I'm fine with you deleting since I'm not married to what i print,and I've got other things in life that take up most of my concearn,angst whatever....
(my) thx to everyone who has participated in the (newly forked) discussion, very much appreciated. i'll post more here later this morning.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Re: Do you like President Obama?
+1
There's a reason OT is by far the most frequented area. You can only discuss oil change intervals and snap rings, on a discontinued car, for so long. Plus, the vendors get their business from having a widely visited website, so to the extent that the site stagnates, so will their businesses (and, as a consequence, $$ available for new parts, innovations, etc.)
+1
There's a reason OT is by far the most frequented area. You can only discuss oil change intervals and snap rings, on a discontinued car, for so long. Plus, the vendors get their business from having a widely visited website, so to the extent that the site stagnates, so will their businesses (and, as a consequence, $$ available for new parts, innovations, etc.)
Re: Do you like President Obama?
+2 As you have already astutely pointed out, let's face it, there is nothing left to talk about.
+2 As you have already astutely pointed out, let's face it, there is nothing left to talk about.
Re: Do you like President Obama?
I already have.
Everyone thinks that they are getting picked on unfairly by site administrators because of their ideology. It's never about their own manners or methods or attitude.
It's always about "Johnny did it too, how come you didn't spank him?"
That being said, nobody promised fairness. Life is tough.
I already have.
Everyone thinks that they are getting picked on unfairly by site administrators because of their ideology. It's never about their own manners or methods or attitude.
It's always about "Johnny did it too, how come you didn't spank him?"
That being said, nobody promised fairness. Life is tough.
every single day i enjoy the heck out of reading and participating in the off topic forum - it's an UH-mazing community of participants and contributors.
what i enjoy most are the diverse interests and opinions expressed by the majority of posters. some of the interests / opinions are similar to mine, some are not completely dissimilar and some are opposite of how i feel. being the community that ot is, though, as long as people are exchanging ideas and concepts (aliens
, shiver-when-i-pee
, beekeeping:redface:, makes-you-happy:smile
w/out projectile vomiting on one another - i'm right there with them, often waiting for the next "who knew?" post. boomshakala.
but it's when a post is illegal or things start heading down the taunting or projectile-vomit path that ot begins to turn sour for me (and based on pm's i receive, others). depending on the situation, i generally:
1. do nothing and see how others respond to the post. most times, things dissipate on their own.
2. pm the person to reconsider the content of their post. if it's something i feel strongly about, i will ask them to modify the post. little follow-on required.
3. make a low-key post in the thread about keeping things on track and / or taking things offline.
if i feel it's appropriate, i will:
4. delete a post. infrequent, but it happens. if it's grossly out of line or has spawned - or appears imminent - a flame war, i'll delete posts @ the point of spew. btw, i'm fairly sensitive to flame wars... mainly because they usually create collateral damage and the users involved often drift away. it's hard to keep a community when quality people drift away.
5. delete a thread. extremely rare, although it sometimes happens because the first post in the thread is clearly inappropriate and needs to be dealt with. delete the first post and the thread is automagically deleted.
although there have been a number of times i would have preferred to lock a thread, as best i can tell, i do not have a lock-thread capability. the last time i didn't have a capability it's because it had been inadvertently left off by lud. if this is the or if i've simply missed it, i'm all over it in the right situations.
in the case of locking a thread vs deleting a post: i'm not interested in revising someone's participation but in keeping the thread from heading further in the wrong direction. if i lock the thread others can't participate and i view that as a greater wrong than deleting (what i feel is) an inappropriate post.
my primary goal in moderating ot is to encourage the sense of community of prime at its best and i welcome any / all constructive criticism / feedback along those lines.
best,
hal
what i enjoy most are the diverse interests and opinions expressed by the majority of posters. some of the interests / opinions are similar to mine, some are not completely dissimilar and some are opposite of how i feel. being the community that ot is, though, as long as people are exchanging ideas and concepts (aliens
, shiver-when-i-pee, beekeeping:redface:, makes-you-happy:smile w/out projectile vomiting on one another - i'm right there with them, often waiting for the next "who knew?" post. boomshakala.but it's when a post is illegal or things start heading down the taunting or projectile-vomit path that ot begins to turn sour for me (and based on pm's i receive, others). depending on the situation, i generally:
1. do nothing and see how others respond to the post. most times, things dissipate on their own.
2. pm the person to reconsider the content of their post. if it's something i feel strongly about, i will ask them to modify the post. little follow-on required.
3. make a low-key post in the thread about keeping things on track and / or taking things offline.
if i feel it's appropriate, i will:
4. delete a post. infrequent, but it happens. if it's grossly out of line or has spawned - or appears imminent - a flame war, i'll delete posts @ the point of spew. btw, i'm fairly sensitive to flame wars... mainly because they usually create collateral damage and the users involved often drift away. it's hard to keep a community when quality people drift away.
5. delete a thread. extremely rare, although it sometimes happens because the first post in the thread is clearly inappropriate and needs to be dealt with. delete the first post and the thread is automagically deleted.
although there have been a number of times i would have preferred to lock a thread, as best i can tell, i do not have a lock-thread capability. the last time i didn't have a capability it's because it had been inadvertently left off by lud. if this is the or if i've simply missed it, i'm all over it in the right situations.
in the case of locking a thread vs deleting a post: i'm not interested in revising someone's participation but in keeping the thread from heading further in the wrong direction. if i lock the thread others can't participate and i view that as a greater wrong than deleting (what i feel is) an inappropriate post.
my primary goal in moderating ot is to encourage the sense of community of prime at its best and i welcome any / all constructive criticism / feedback along those lines.
best,
hal
Simply one man's opinion, but I figure you to be doing a good job.
A nickel's worth of free advice from a long time ex-moderator; you cannot chase complaints with modifications to your own behaviour.
No matter what you do, there wil always be the poster who thinks it is your bias against his politics rather than his post that is the problem.
I have been called both a Liberal extremist and a Conservative extremist in the same day by separate posters who just could not get it through their skulls that the people with the bias was themselves.
A nickel's worth of free advice from a long time ex-moderator; you cannot chase complaints with modifications to your own behaviour.
No matter what you do, there wil always be the poster who thinks it is your bias against his politics rather than his post that is the problem.
I have been called both a Liberal extremist and a Conservative extremist in the same day by separate posters who just could not get it through their skulls that the people with the bias was themselves.
Hal,
That's a thoughtful and retrospective policy, but the main complainant has clearly stated that, unless you say in the rules "anti-kitten speech is not allowed" you will not satisfy him.
I agree with a few of the above posts in that you are fair and the rules are fair. Don't modify your behavior to suit the needs of a few.
my .02
That's a thoughtful and retrospective policy, but the main complainant has clearly stated that, unless you say in the rules "anti-kitten speech is not allowed" you will not satisfy him.
I agree with a few of the above posts in that you are fair and the rules are fair. Don't modify your behavior to suit the needs of a few.
my .02
thx for the feedback, guys... you've both said what i feel as well.
every single day i enjoy the heck out of reading and participating in the off topic forum - it's an UH-mazing community of participants and contributors.
what i enjoy most are the diverse interests and opinions expressed by the majority of posters. some of the interests / opinions are similar to mine, some are not completely dissimilar and some are opposite of how i feel. being the community that ot is, though, as long as people are exchanging ideas and concepts (aliens
but it's when a post is illegal or things start heading down the taunting or projectile-vomit path that ot begins to turn sour for me (and based on pm's i receive, others). depending on the situation, i generally:
1. do nothing and see how others respond to the post. most times, things dissipate on their own.
2. pm the person to reconsider the content of their post. if it's something i feel strongly about, i will ask them to modify the post. little follow-on required.
3. make a low-key post in the thread about keeping things on track and / or taking things offline.
if i feel it's appropriate, i will:
4. delete a post. infrequent, but it happens. if it's grossly out of line or has spawned - or appears imminent - a flame war, i'll delete posts @ the point of spew. btw, i'm fairly sensitive to flame wars... mainly because they usually create collateral damage and the users involved often drift away. it's hard to keep a community when quality people drift away.
5. delete a thread. extremely rare, although it sometimes happens because the first post in the thread is clearly inappropriate and needs to be dealt with. delete the first post and the thread is automagically deleted.
although there have been a number of times i would have preferred to lock a thread, as best i can tell, i do not have a lock-thread capability. the last time i didn't have a capability it's because it had been inadvertently left off by lud. if this is the or if i've simply missed it, i'm all over it in the right situations.
in the case of locking a thread vs deleting a post: i'm not interested in revising someone's participation but in keeping the thread from heading further in the wrong direction. if i lock the thread others can't participate and i view that as a greater wrong than deleting (what i feel is) an inappropriate post.
my primary goal in moderating ot is to encourage the sense of community of prime at its best and i welcome any / all constructive criticism / feedback along those lines.
best,
hal
Thanks for trying to clarify your role, it helps a little but with a lack of a tangible model or *explicit* rules, people like myself will not be able to objectionally determine whether their post meets the rules or not. We won't be able to know what's legal and what's an "illegal." Consequently, they'll get pissed when they mention something that they feel is legitimate, and they get shut down.
Let's address your points:
1.) I haven't had the liberty of having "nothing" being done to my anti-Obama posts since you've been moderating the forum, so I assume you must be referring to anti-Palin or anti-Republican posts.
2.) I don't recall getting a pm about changing my post either, but maybe you can refresh my memory if it was too many months ago and I forgot.
3.) To some degree, yes, I've seen this.
4.) Agreed this has happened, approximately 5- 15 times, somewhere around 10x (or at least that's how many "posts deleted" pm's I get from Prime).
5.) Haven't seen this, but I'm not doubting it has happened.
As to "good quality people going away," you're also right, it has happened. For ex: vancehu and other more Conservative individuals that got pissed off because they were constantly muzzled stop posting. I like to post in the diy forum to share my hard-learned experiences, and will post in off-topic on certain issues as well.
If anyone on Prime leaves or complains because they don't like other's political views, that's just lack of personal maturity (imo) because your own political opinions may be "challenged." If you don't want your political views to be challenged in the real world, you can watch msnbc or Fox all day long, though I'd say higher quality journalism like John Stewart and Colber Report provide the most balanced reporting.
I think you should either:
1.) Make it that politics is a no-go, explicit, 100% of the time.
2.) State that certain individuals that often take part in 'illegal' (to use your term) posts can not post in off about politics, e.g.
a)nsxotic911
b.) vancehu
c.) skibanker
d.) etc...
2.) State that you do not approve of:
-Anti-Obama posts.
-[You fill in the blank]
3.) Allow posts on all political spectrum unless it is crude (swearing, insinuating sex with politicians etc.. ) or takes a personal attack on a fellow member. If a post clearly attacks a member, "you're a dumbass.." then that post should be deleted/person reprimanded etc.. I've tried my best not to do this and will be the first to apologize if I have.
This will allow people to evaluate their posts to a objective and clear standard. Otherwise, you leave it up to me or other posters to determine what is "illegal" and my definition basically is somewhere between "what I couldn't say in a Communist country that also muzzled people for their 'illegal' speech" <-> liberties of the First Ammendment. Somehow, I keep falling below the first line on Prime when it comes to criticizing the (God bless his heart for such good intentions) President.
Whichever option you choose, I will do my best to respect though I'd personally prefer #3.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 10 February 2000
- Messages
- 2,677
I will try to make this as simple as possible.
I don't want any part of this site to read like a transcript from one of the cable "news" talking-head shows where everyone is just shouting at each other. If someone's post reads like a partial transcript from a Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck show, I don't want it on this site. If it keeps up, I don't want the person posting it on this site.
Anyone whose political posts comes across as angry, confrontational, sarcastic, condescending, or dismissive can find somewhere else to air their political laundry - regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.
Anyone who can post in a clear, intelligent manner, with well considered and thought-provoking opinions, questions, or ideas is welcome to post on political issues, again regardless of their political leaning.
Finally, I will say again that political discussion is not the point of this site and anyone dissatisfied with how that issue is managed here should simply elect to stop participating.
I don't want any part of this site to read like a transcript from one of the cable "news" talking-head shows where everyone is just shouting at each other. If someone's post reads like a partial transcript from a Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck show, I don't want it on this site. If it keeps up, I don't want the person posting it on this site.
Anyone whose political posts comes across as angry, confrontational, sarcastic, condescending, or dismissive can find somewhere else to air their political laundry - regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.
Anyone who can post in a clear, intelligent manner, with well considered and thought-provoking opinions, questions, or ideas is welcome to post on political issues, again regardless of their political leaning.
Finally, I will say again that political discussion is not the point of this site and anyone dissatisfied with how that issue is managed here should simply elect to stop participating.
^^^ That's perfect.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Sounds very very reasonable to me. Posting "scripted" right wing or left wing nonsense is almost (but not quite) as much of a waste of time as the cable news programs themselves. Original thought is what we should encourage...
BTW, Lud you have a msg
+1, I agree Queenlives is doing an excellent job.
As a fellow long time ex-moderator of a group of 20,000+ members, I think we are part of a unique fraternity that understands the futileness of trying to appease everyone. That state simply does not exist and I think you state it best that you cannot chase complaints with modifications to your own behavior. That’s worth well more than a nickel!!!
Heh, heh, heh, he said "members".
Re: Do you like President Obama?
Not so much, I like to know what other people who share the same interest think about some topics that are not NSX related.
Not so much, I like to know what other people who share the same interest think about some topics that are not NSX related.
- Joined
- 16 April 2007
- Messages
- 1,783
I look at off topic as a place to get to know one’s fellow enthusiast. I’m kept up-to-date with the news. I’m entertained. The strange things of this world get a hearing, filtered through the lens of NSX ownership. Right now we have a guy living in a neighborhood where they are digging up tombstones in the back yards. Where else are you going to get that kind of community?
From the outside looking in, website ownership/moderation looks like a tough row to hoe. I see some accolades for the administrators but not enough considering the enjoyment others are having from the site. I see some money going to the site, but I wonder if it is enough to make it worthwhile(don’t want to know; none of my bizwax). I see some posters with strong personalities that I wouldn’t want to moderate.
Hopefully the responsible parties get a sense of appreciation from the members more often than they feel like everyone is angry for some reason, which is decidedly not the case.
One more thing: when a thread begins to take a turn for the political, I self-moderate by immediately glazing over and clicking out.
From the outside looking in, website ownership/moderation looks like a tough row to hoe. I see some accolades for the administrators but not enough considering the enjoyment others are having from the site. I see some money going to the site, but I wonder if it is enough to make it worthwhile(don’t want to know; none of my bizwax). I see some posters with strong personalities that I wouldn’t want to moderate.
Hopefully the responsible parties get a sense of appreciation from the members more often than they feel like everyone is angry for some reason, which is decidedly not the case.
One more thing: when a thread begins to take a turn for the political, I self-moderate by immediately glazing over and clicking out.
Naw, I rarely get angry about people's political opinion,it's a sign for lack of maturity imo. It reminds me of Junior High, "the Diable is faster than the Ferrari!" "nuh unh!!!! the Diable sucks!!" <fight>
Similar threads
