|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 28, 2011, 12:13 AM
Post #26 of 32
(2036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
A few thoughts:
1 - Insulting someone who has posted an I/A seems pretty clearly against the rules of that forum. If the post Jake is referring to was rude and inflammatory, seems like it should be filtered.
2 - If Jake did make an inappropriate post in response why should that have anything to do with whether the original post should be hidden? Jake's post should have absolutely nothing to do with my point #1. Hide them both if you feel that's appropriate.
3 - When moderation by moderators is absent, you can bet that the users will attempt to moderate. Seems to me that's what Jake did. This structure can work fine, but does lead to a lot of flame wars.
4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jan 28, 2011, 3:10 AM
Post #27 of 32
(2025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
cracklover wrote: A few thoughts: 1 - Insulting someone who has posted an I/A seems pretty clearly against the rules of that forum. If the post Jake is referring to was rude and inflammatory, seems like it should be filtered. 2 - If Jake did make an inappropriate post in response why should that have anything to do with whether the original post should be hidden? Jake's post should have absolutely nothing to do with my point #1. Hide them both if you feel that's appropriate. 3 - When moderation by moderators is absent, you can bet that the users will attempt to moderate. Seems to me that's what Jake did. This structure can work fine, but does lead to a lot of flame wars. 4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs? GO
DDT has been PM'd he is unconcerned. nothing will change. Ad clicks are worth more to this administration than content and respect. this has been obvious for years.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jan 29, 2011, 3:05 AM
Post #28 of 32
(2003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
cracklover wrote: 4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs? GO
That^^
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 31, 2011, 6:26 PM
Post #29 of 32
(1971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jakedatc wrote: cracklover wrote: A few thoughts: 1 - Insulting someone who has posted an I/A seems pretty clearly against the rules of that forum. If the post Jake is referring to was rude and inflammatory, seems like it should be filtered. 2 - If Jake did make an inappropriate post in response why should that have anything to do with whether the original post should be hidden? Jake's post should have absolutely nothing to do with my point #1. Hide them both if you feel that's appropriate. 3 - When moderation by moderators is absent, you can bet that the users will attempt to moderate. Seems to me that's what Jake did. This structure can work fine, but does lead to a lot of flame wars. 4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs? GO DDT has been PM'd he is unconcerned. nothing will change. Ad clicks are worth more to this administration than content and respect. this has been obvious for years.
I've read this post 3 times, and I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
Are you suggesting that "poor" (as you see it) moderation somehow increases ad clicks? Or that respecting users would drive them away? I'm sorry Jake, but I'm afraid you're not making much sense here.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jan 31, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #30 of 32
(1959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
cracklover wrote: jakedatc wrote: cracklover wrote: A few thoughts: 1 - Insulting someone who has posted an I/A seems pretty clearly against the rules of that forum. If the post Jake is referring to was rude and inflammatory, seems like it should be filtered. 2 - If Jake did make an inappropriate post in response why should that have anything to do with whether the original post should be hidden? Jake's post should have absolutely nothing to do with my point #1. Hide them both if you feel that's appropriate. 3 - When moderation by moderators is absent, you can bet that the users will attempt to moderate. Seems to me that's what Jake did. This structure can work fine, but does lead to a lot of flame wars. 4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs? GO DDT has been PM'd he is unconcerned. nothing will change. Ad clicks are worth more to this administration than content and respect. this has been obvious for years. I've read this post 3 times, and I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that "poor" (as you see it) moderation somehow increases ad clicks? Or that respecting users would drive them away? I'm sorry Jake, but I'm afraid you're not making much sense here. GO
I'm saying that posts like Majid's causes flamewars that increase traffic. If they wanted to moderate the forum the way it is described then those posts would be removed. they are not.
clearer? or am I still failing ;)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 31, 2011, 10:01 PM
Post #31 of 32
(1947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jakedatc wrote: cracklover wrote: jakedatc wrote: cracklover wrote: A few thoughts: 1 - Insulting someone who has posted an I/A seems pretty clearly against the rules of that forum. If the post Jake is referring to was rude and inflammatory, seems like it should be filtered. 2 - If Jake did make an inappropriate post in response why should that have anything to do with whether the original post should be hidden? Jake's post should have absolutely nothing to do with my point #1. Hide them both if you feel that's appropriate. 3 - When moderation by moderators is absent, you can bet that the users will attempt to moderate. Seems to me that's what Jake did. This structure can work fine, but does lead to a lot of flame wars. 4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs? GO DDT has been PM'd he is unconcerned. nothing will change. Ad clicks are worth more to this administration than content and respect. this has been obvious for years. I've read this post 3 times, and I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that "poor" (as you see it) moderation somehow increases ad clicks? Or that respecting users would drive them away? I'm sorry Jake, but I'm afraid you're not making much sense here. GO I'm saying that posts like Majid's causes flamewars that increase traffic. If they wanted to moderate the forum the way it is described then those posts would be removed. they are not. clearer? or am I still failing ;)
Ah, I see. I take your point, although I'm not sure it stands up, given that the Ladies Room *is* heavily moderated. Be that as it may, you may be right, I don't know. I'm not privy to what or how the Mods make their decisions since I stepped down as a photo editor a few years ago. Without that, I don't think either of us can claim to know what their motives or methods are.
Besides, it's not unusual to get no response while the issue gets worked through the channels, and then a year later there is a change.
So good for you for raising the issue, whether you're right or not!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 1, 2011, 3:44 AM
Post #32 of 32
(1932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
cracklover wrote: jakedatc wrote: cracklover wrote: jakedatc wrote: cracklover wrote: A few thoughts: 1 - Insulting someone who has posted an I/A seems pretty clearly against the rules of that forum. If the post Jake is referring to was rude and inflammatory, seems like it should be filtered. 2 - If Jake did make an inappropriate post in response why should that have anything to do with whether the original post should be hidden? Jake's post should have absolutely nothing to do with my point #1. Hide them both if you feel that's appropriate. 3 - When moderation by moderators is absent, you can bet that the users will attempt to moderate. Seems to me that's what Jake did. This structure can work fine, but does lead to a lot of flame wars. 4 - It would be nice if, rather than focusing on his "bad" behavior, you could comment on Jake's main point - that more rigorous moderation in I/A could lead to more people feeling safe to post first-hand accounts? If so, what are the trade-offs? Is it worth those trade-offs? GO DDT has been PM'd he is unconcerned. nothing will change. Ad clicks are worth more to this administration than content and respect. this has been obvious for years. I've read this post 3 times, and I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that "poor" (as you see it) moderation somehow increases ad clicks? Or that respecting users would drive them away? I'm sorry Jake, but I'm afraid you're not making much sense here. GO I'm saying that posts like Majid's causes flamewars that increase traffic. If they wanted to moderate the forum the way it is described then those posts would be removed. they are not. clearer? or am I still failing ;) Ah, I see. I take your point, although I'm not sure it stands up, given that the Ladies Room *is* heavily moderated. Be that as it may, you may be right, I don't know. I'm not privy to what or how the Mods make their decisions since I stepped down as a photo editor a few years ago. Without that, I don't think either of us can claim to know what their motives or methods are. Besides, it's not unusual to get no response while the issue gets worked through the channels, and then a year later there is a change. So good for you for raising the issue, whether you're right or not! GO
it may or may not be the reason but the issue still stands and DDT does not care to address it.
The ladies room is dealt with much heavier than I/A which has been one of my arguments in some of the threads (and Macherry agreed at least once) that if some of the comments made in I/A were made in Ladies then they would be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
