Let's Talk "low content"

[oranr]

Hey all,

I know that there has been another wonderful dust up on the whole "low content" issue. If you all remember this rule wasn't around until the community asked for it. I know it's vague and it was done on purpose. This way we can leave up to the community to be able to report threads they believed wasn't good for the board or the community, like newsbots and other.

With that being said, everyone, I mean everyone has a different point of view on everything. Plain and simple! We have a really big community with lots of different opinions. There is no way we would be able to create a policy that fits everyone's definitions. Now this is where the issues arise. Everyone has a different take/point of view on everything.

I would like to point out that these dust ups are for the most part started by the same people, who believe that the mods are out to get them. I have a list of these threads and the users who started them, please don't think that these threads go unnoticed and ignored.

It's 2012 a new year, so lets hear your ideas/suggestions on this low content policy.

This is not an open invitation to call out mods or users, let's discuss the rule

[Tijuana]

First of all, Moderators should try to avoid closing a thread due to "Low Content". It should only be used when the moderators cannot find a more "legitimate" reason to close a thread. My example, my thread in regards to a cougar being a school mascot. I provide the article name, a link to the article, and my opinion on the matter. There were about 8 posts, ALL UNEDITTED by a moderator, and the thread was closed for numerous(unjustified reasons).

So it begs the question, was my thread in fact "Low Content"?

I believe the format, as previously discussed, should stay. You post a small/important excerpt from a source, post that source, followed by your opinion.


Syne, I think what you've described is pretty fair. Provide a link, copy and paste for those who may be behind a firewall at work, etc. and actually have some relevant, intelligent points and opinions from the OP to start things off.

Let's take a look at the current definition of "Low Content"

Low content
If a topic has no meaning or an invitation to be flamed then this thread will be closed at the discretion of the moderating team.

So, since using examples is best, let's use najibs initial thread in regards to RIM's CEOs stepping down. Is there meaning to RIM's CEOs stepping down? Yes, I'd say so. Was he trying to start a flame war between Apple/Android/RIM? I hardly doubt it. Was there discussion relevant to the OP? Yes there most definitely was. So under the current guidelines, how is that "Low Content", if none of the rules of "Low Content", were broken?

I think the current way it's written is perfect, just that moderators need to maybe re-read it and try to understand what "no meaning" means. RIM's CEO's stepping down is extremely local news, not just for Ontario, but Canada as well. There has been rumour talks of RIM selling, so this could impact us all.... So can anyone honestly say there was no meaning?

There should be 2 rules.

1. News bot threads are automatically locked.

2. Low Content threads that have no meaning invitation to be flamed etc.. to be locked.

We should separate those 2, as they are often lumped together when they shouldn't be.

Also...inb4:

IMHO

[actng]

first of all, stop calling it "low content". It doesn't even make any sense. Try "low value add".

second, if you are going to have a vague rule like this, the execution by definition is going to be vague and subjective. so either get rid of the rule if you don't want vague/subjective mods, or let the mods do their job and support them for locking threads and banning users for posting content with low value add.

[mrperfect]

The rules are all there, and your OT guidelines pretty much covers it all. To be honest this subject is so diverse that it is very difficult to suggest what else to do, I tried writing several different responses but I wasn't satisfied. :|

I do commend you for taking the time out to open up the discussion to communicate, and gather feedback so that something positive can come out of this.

Hopefully everybody stays on topic, and debates constructively.

All the best folks!

[CSAgent]

Good constructive posts by everyone thus far.

Why is it that some news posts gets locked when its' from certain members, but not by other members? I'll confess I have posted news bot threads before, heck I have one active one right now in off-topic (the one about the Costa Concordia), but it's been allowed to remain open. I posted one single line of comment about it initially, by these low content rules, it should have been locked but it was not.

If we're using najibs thread about RIM's CEOs stepping down as an example, why was his locked when the other one is struggling along in the Cell Phones sub-forum? Couldn't they have been merged or allowed to be open? We'd get more of an active discussion if it was in Off-topic as the Cell Phones forum can be quite dead and does not get any activity. If a news like that, that affects more than just the immediate users of the topic (in this case, all of Canada, and the world as BlackBerries are used internationally) it should be allowed to stay open. Was it locked because najibs can be an ***** on RFD? (I know him and his family in person, hell I even worked with him at one point, he's not a total ***** , it's just his personality.. ;))

If we want to separate pertinents news from the odd (the cougar school thing where actual "cougars" were offended. Which is odd, cuz my my middle school's mascot was also Cougars, I went to Camilla Park in Mississauga and we were the Camilla Cougars), then maybe create a forum called Oddly Enough topics. Every major newspaper and news agency website has a section for odd news. Reuters, CNN, Toronto Star, BBC, etc. This is where we can post odd news and talk about it. Just an idea, clearly it's not thoroughly thought out.

If you were to peruse Off-Topic right now, you'd see at least a dozen news threads, opened and thriving.

[oranr]

Good constructive posts by everyone thus far.

Why is it that some news posts gets locked when its' from certain members, but not by other members? I'll confess I have posted news bot threads before, heck I have one active one right now in off-topic (the one about the Costa Concordia), but it's been allowed to remain open. I posted one single line of comment about it initially, by these low content rules, it should have been locked but it was not.

If we're using najibs thread about RIM's CEOs stepping down as an example, why was his locked when the other one is struggling along in the Cell Phones sub-forum? Couldn't they have been merged or allowed to be open? We'd get more of an active discussion if it was in Off-topic as the Cell Phones forum can be quite dead and does not get any activity. If a news like that, that affects more than just the immediate users of the topic (in this case, all of Canada, and the world as BlackBerries are used internationally) it should be allowed to stay open. Was it locked because najibs can be an ***** on RFD? (I know him and his family in person, hell I even worked with him at one point, he's not a total ***** , it's just his personality.. ;))

If we want to separate pertinents news from the odd (the cougar school thing where actual "cougars" were offended. Which is odd, cuz my my middle school's mascot was also Cougars, I went to Camilla Park in Mississauga and we were the Camilla Cougars), then maybe create a forum called Oddly Enough topics. Every major newspaper and news agency website has a section for odd news. Reuters, CNN, Toronto Star, BBC, etc. This is where we can post odd news and talk about it. Just an idea, clearly it's not thoroughly thought out.

If you were to peruse Off-Topic right now, you'd see at least a dozen news threads, opened and thriving.

News threads can be a great opener for discussions. It just matters how the thread was started, did they include their opinion and does the news article matter and not violate our policies. I have been pretty lenient over the past month with letting some political threads stay open to see if we can have a normal respectful debate and it's kinda is working. I am unsure if this will become a trend but I am just seeing if it is possible.

I have to admit that the cougar story may have been shut down prematurely, it should have been edited and allowed to remain open. I have discussed this situation with the mod.

For the locking of certain members and not other members, a couple of things factor in. One if the news you are posting is good/proper (posted the link and your opinion and the topic is acceptable for the board) and what type of overall poster you are. If you have a rep for being a troll/troublemaker there is a good chance that your thread will be looked at a lot longer and with more scrutiny. We know from experience that their only goal is to start an e-war, flamebait, be racist/discriminate against a culture and that's unacceptable on our board. The user will dictate how we look at them, if they want to go down the troll/troublmaker avenue then they will have to deal with more scrutiny with their posts and threads and possible bans. If you are cool and respectful then you won't have any issues in the community.

[actng]

more bans is NOT a bad thing.

the reason why you CONTINUALLY have uprisings is because you don't take control. 1 day temp ban + 3 day temp ban combos work really well.

quite frankly it's not about doing the "right" thing. it's about setting a direction and sticking with it. those who think it's wrong can leave. those who stay and argue may be tolerated if they are respectful. those who stay and whine and complain endlessly without any constructive feedback should be banned 1 day at a time.

that will suppress the overthrowing of this "government" pretty quickly.

[Manatus]

more bans is NOT a bad thing.

the reason why you CONTINUALLY have uprisings is because you don't take control. 1 day temp ban + 3 day temp ban combos work really well.

quite frankly it's not about doing the "right" thing. it's about setting a direction and sticking with it. those who think it's wrong can leave. those who stay and argue may be tolerated if they are respectful. those who stay and whine and complain endlessly without any constructive feedback should be banned 1 day at a time.

that will suppress the overthrowing of this "government" pretty quickly.

I agree, I also think that the purpose of the off-topic forum should be clearer and whatever it is should be more strictly followed. Is it a serious forum like the others, that is for threads that don't fall into the other categories, or is it an "anything goes" water cooler BS forum? To be honest I think the problem isn't so much that people wish it was one or the other, just that it actually be one or the other, that the mods follow through with whatever it is supposed to be. I mean if it's a forum that I don't like, that's one thing and I can deal with that and avoid it if necessary - it's a different ballgame if everyone has different ideas about what it should be, and people seem to get randomly booted here and there without clear "this is what the forum is for" guidelines.

Personally speaking, I'd much rather have "news bot" articles that can spawn a discussion, than a Dear Abby pity-party or random personal stuff that should be on a blog or something (or in many cases, probably discussed with a professional).

[biee]

Sometimes I don't think it's the topic of the thread that's low content, rather it's the members posts that makes the thread low content. I think mods should definitely clean up/edit posts before locking up a thread and conclude it as low content. I mean, if mods have to edit like 10 posts cause the members are trolling/e-war then yeah locking up the thread would be plausible.

[dollarsign]

Just rename the forum. Problem solved.


http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7458/rfdg.jpg

[Jimboski]

Just rename the forum. Problem solved.


http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7458/rfdg.jpg

Loool.

[D-Roc]

For the locking of certain members and not other members, a couple of things factor in. One if the news you are posting is good/proper (posted the link and your opinion and the topic is acceptable for the board) and what type of overall poster you are. If you have a rep for being a troll/troublemaker there is a good chance that your thread will be looked at a lot longer and with more scrutiny. We know from experience that their only goal is to start an e-war, flamebait, be racist/discriminate against a culture and that's unacceptable on our board. The user will dictate how we look at them, if they want to go down the troll/troublmaker avenue then they will have to deal with more scrutiny with their posts and threads and possible bans. If you are cool and respectful then you won't have any issues in the community.

I appreciate you admitting the couger thread was closed down prematurely.

And this is where it seems the most inconsistency occurs. There is one poster (maybe a few others, but a certain one comes to mind more often than not) that has a serious history of starting nonsense threads and posts troll like comments. Yet the threads that are started by this poster seem to remain open consistently. Just looking at the threads this poster has started are painfully obvious they are just for kicks and completely low content.

But it seems that topics that have the ability to have some good discussion are closed down out of fear that they may degrade to a point of breaking the posting rules or a mod have a particular history with that member (at least that is the impression it gives). If a thread topic can be answered with in the first 5 posts with realitive certainty, then I would view it as a low content thread. Take the sugar thread for example.

[JK400]

Just rename the forum. Problem solved.


http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7458/rfdg.jpg

Lmfao...too funny man. Off topic is worthless, it's basically a social anxiety and awkwardness support group.

[Mark77]

Threads started with the sole purpose of attacking other RFD'ers explicitly (*cough* JK400 *cough*) definitely should be ruled "low-content", and sanctions applied against the user who instigates such nonsense.

[dragon_drift]

Does Superhucard come to mind? His "are you celebrating CNY" and various threads are created for the sole purpose of trolling and is low content. They don't bring anything insightful..I don't understand why mods left it open for so long.

[D-Roc]

They should go back to no political threads at all. US, Canadian or other Countries politics.

[oranr]

They should go back to no political threads at all. US, Canadian or other Countries politics.

I do believe we will be going back to this. I wanted to give a whirl to see what it would be like, as we did have some good discussions for the CDN elections and provincial elections but lately some of the threads are conspiracy theories that are there just to start a flame war.

[oranr]

I appreciate you admitting the couger thread was closed down prematurely.

And this is where it seems the most inconsistency occurs. There is one poster (maybe a few others, but a certain one comes to mind more often than not) that has a serious history of starting nonsense threads and posts troll like comments. Yet the threads that are started by this poster seem to remain open consistently. Just looking at the threads this poster has started are painfully obvious they are just for kicks and completely low content.

But it seems that topics that have the ability to have some good discussion are closed down out of fear that they may degrade to a point of breaking the posting rules or a mod have a particular history with that member (at least that is the impression it gives). If a thread topic can be answered with in the first 5 posts with realitive certainty, then I would view it as a low content thread. Take the suger thread for example.

No worries, I am willing to admit it when I make a mistake. How else do we learn?

Yes I do agree to a point that some topics are babied because the fear that it will degrade to a point where the trolls and troublemakers have taken over the thread. That's a good basic rule of thumb about the first 5 posts but I don't know if that can be a blanket policy but I will definitely look into it.

[MrDisco]

I do believe we will be going back to this. I wanted to give a whirl to see what it would be like, as we did have some good discussions for the CDN elections and provincial elections but lately some of the threads are conspiracy theories that are there just to start a flame war.

perhaps a compromise can be reached. during something major (i.e. the US and CDN elections) keep a single thread open for that issue, but lock down all other <china> political threads. there is an appetite to talk about the big relevant issues and so long as people can remain civil it may be worth pursuing.

[jcon]

Low content - I don't know how to describe it but I know it when I see it.


I think, for the most part, the mods do a good job of shutting these threads down. Some of those newsbot threads are ridiculous.

However, I would prefer a system where the thread is allowed to get at least to page 2 before "low content" is determined and it is shut down (even in the newsbot threads). I would suggest ignoring the usual posts of "+1" and "low content" in determining whether or not it is viable as that's out of the OP's control. So maybe 10 to 12 legit posts responding to the OP? If it's truly "low content" it will fall off the front page anyhow and fall into the abyss of RFD forgotten threads.

[Tijuana]

No worries, I am willing to admit it when I make a mistake. How else do we learn?

Yes I do agree to a point that some topics are babied because the fear that it will degrade to a point where the trolls and troublemakers have taken over the thread. That's a good basic rule of thumb about the first 5 posts but I don't know if that can be a blanket policy but I will definitely look into it.

So will it be re-opened for further discussion? I will even edit out "pussification". Even though I did not use it as a pejorative, I understand some members will always see it as a negative and further perpetuate it's use as such.

[steve-0101]

Low content - I don't know how to describe it but I know it when I see it.


Here's one.

http://f.redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=1135456

[jcon]

Here's one.

http://f.redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=1135456

That's exactly what it looks like!

[AcidBomber]

So will it be re-opened for further discussion? I will even edit out "pussification". Even though I did not use it as a pejorative, I understand some members will always see it as a negative and further perpetuate it's use as such.

Serious question, why are you so obsessed with your threads?

Although the thread may have been shutdown pre-maturely (which oranr admitted), the unnecessary use of controversial terms (ie: "pussification") definitely didn't help. So you're not all that innocent yourself, if you don't want people to misinterpret your posts/threads, I would suggest to be more careful with your wording so it does not give off a negative vibe.

Move on already.

[Tijuana]

Serious question, why are you so obsessed with your threads?

Although the thread may have been shutdown pre-maturely (which oranr admitted), the unnecessary use of controversial terms (ie: "pussification") definitely didn't help. So you're not all that innocent yourself, if you don't want people to misinterpret your posts/threads, I would suggest to be more careful with your wording so it does not give off a negative vibe.

Move on already.

Problem is, no one misinterpreted anything. The large thread in this sub-forum showed that. It is not my fault you don't know what a personal attack is.

So when moderators make a mistake, there is no accountability? When they are called out on a mistake, you don't fix it? Must be nice not having to worry if you are doing the right thing or not.

And maybe I'm "obsessed" because when I do make a thread, it is few and far between. I don't even remember the last time I made a thread in OT before that.

[MrDisco]

So when moderators make a mistake, there is no accountability?

They already ran one mod out of town so this claim is without substance. You also don't know what type of discussions are taking placed outside of the public view. Oranr has already said he spoke with the mod in question so what more do you want?



And maybe I'm "obsessed" because when I do make a thread, it is few and far between. I don't even remember the last time I made a thread in OT before that.

You do however comment fairly regularly and have an ongoing history with a few members here. Heck even in your opening post in this thread you couldn't resist and put in that little jab mocking one of those users. was that really necessary? do you think such flame baiting attempts really supports your claim of being unfairly treated?

[Tijuana]

They already ran one mod out of town so this claim is without substance. You also don't know what type of discussions are taking placed outside of the public view. Oranr has already said he spoke with the mod in question so what more do you want?

They is us, the members. If it was admitted that the thread was shut down prematurely, why wasn't it immediately opened?


You do however comment fairly regularly and have an ongoing history with a few members here. Heck even in your opening post in this thread you couldn't resist and put in that little jab mocking one of those users. was that really necessary? do you think such flame baiting attempts really supports your claim of being unfairly treated?

What do personal attacks have to do with being fair? If I am out of line then ban me. I have no issues with that. What I do have issues with is inconsistency and lack of transparency. If my thread was closed improperly then why is it not opened? What is holding it back from being re-opened if the issue has been addressed? Is recognizing the error supposed to be "good enough" as per RFD standards?

[AcidBomber]

They is us, the members. If it was admitted that the thread was shut down prematurely, why wasn't it immediately opened?



What do personal attacks have to do with being fair? If I am out of line then ban me. I have no issues with that. What I do have issues with is inconsistency and lack of transparency. If my thread was closed improperly then why is it not opened? What is holding it back from being re-opened if the issue has been addressed? Is recognizing the error supposed to be "good enough" as per RFD standards?

Now you're just getting silly. Parties involved have already admitted it may have been locked pre-maturely; im sure we'll all learn from that "mistake" and move forward from there.
What if I tell you that your thread's not going to be re-opened? Are you going to continue to cry and whine about it?

As for your concerns about transparency... Lets see... a few of the mods are already leaving reasons when we lock threads (which rarely happen previously). We're letting you run wild and create threads calling us out in public, get harassed in PM after every other lock/delete because of the auto-alerts to the poster etc.
If we make mistakes - we'll address it and admit fault. So I really dont see how more transparent you want?

And im just putting it out there that if you dont want others (including mods) to mis-interpret your meaning/intentions, phrase your post(s) so its not so subjective to the reader.

[MrDisco]

What do personal attacks have to do with being fair?

It has everything to do with it. The very first thing Oranr said was to keep the mod and user bashing out of this thread and there you are immediately flame baiting and mocking a particular user. You guys run in packs when it comes to her so really why should the mods trip over themselves to appease you when you're not even willing to meet them half-way in cleaning up your own act?

If the Admins and Mods give some users more slack while keeping others on a strict leash then there is a very good reason for it.

[No Frills]

Obviously there are 5 major things to discuss in OT:

1. 'shocking' news

2. China

3. dating

4. other people's salaries

5. living with parents

If any of these are low content there is a problem because these are the popular threads.

[D-Roc]

Tijuana. I think it is time to let this one go. I agree with you on many things and even what you are saying in most regards, but it has been said already. Again and again. You "won". Ornar admitted the thread was unnecessarily locked. But what is done is done.

Oh and Acidbomber. Just one thing. You said all parties involved admitted to the mistake. One party involved has not. Just saying.

[jerrysiz]

Thanks for starting this thread oranr. It's good to finally have a discussion about the low content rule that's not clouded by the specifics of a particular thread.

Personally, I like the somewhat flexible wording that's currently in the rules. It prevents the "well, show me exactly where in the rules it says I can't say ABC" kind of thing, obviously you can't spell out every possible inappropriate type of post, some things should just be common sense. The current situation allows mods some freedom to interpret the spirit of the rules instead of letting people take advantage of the "letter of the law" excuse (presumably, if the mods were chosen because you trust their judgement, they can usually be trusted to make these calls, and the threads that come into question can be dealt with on a case by case basis).

I do think this works most of the time, it's just occasional threads (usually by a handful of users) that seem to make it look like a big problem. I agree with some others that stricter concequences for repeat offenders would take care of a lot of these issues. If a user is repeatedly starting low content threads (or trolling existing threads to contribute low content posts that need to be removed or simply serve to drag the tenor of the thread down), removing the user would be an easy way to remove the problem. I don't see why repeat offenders get chance after chance, if they're not contributing anything useful why are they allowed to continue here?

I also think it would be helpful to add, in the rules or a sticky, an official procedure for appealing mod decisions in regard to closed threads, removed posts, and the like. If users are clearly aware that they must PM the mod first, then PM you if that does not solve it, I think we could avoid most of the public shaming and mod bashing that has been a problem of late. I think if a user chooses to air dirty laundry in public as anything but a last resort (and even then, it should be respectfully), there should be concequences for that, at the very least it should automatically eliminate the possiblity that the thread in question be reopened.

[edgedamage]

Obviously there are 5 major things to discuss in OT:

1. 'shocking' news

2. China

3. dating

4. other people's salaries

5. living with parents

If any of these are low content there is a problem because these are the popular threads.

You forgot the "how to get to queen station from dundas station" TTC threads.

[D-Roc]

It's good to finally have a discussion about the low content rule that's not clouded by the specifics of a particular thread.
.


This was unnecessary and subtle jab at a certain person (baiting) and ironically the same thing you were complaining about. Like I told Tijuana. Let it go already.

[poedua]

I also think it would be helpful to add, in the rules or a sticky, an official procedure for appealing mod decisions in regard to closed threads, removed posts, and the like. If users are clearly aware that they must PM the mod first, then PM you if that does not solve it, I think we could avoid most of the public shaming and mod bashing that has been a problem of late. I think if a user chooses to air dirty laundry in public as anything but a last resort (and even then, it should be respectfully), there should be concequences for that, at the very least it should automatically eliminate the possiblity that the thread in question be reopened.

+1

Well said....although I think any public attacks, shaming, bashing, flogging etc. etc. of mods should be against the rules and forbidden and subject to automatic penalties ( infractions, bans ) should they occur.

A clearly defined and structured appeal process entirely within a private context - i.e be it via a PM, or via a dedicated / limited private access sub forum dedicated to mod / admins issues etc. - is more than a sufficient means by which members could have recourse to address any mod / admin concerns they may have .....IMO.

This public flogging of mods simply has to stop...and it remains one of the most glaring blemishes on what is otherwise .....a pretty well run site.

[poedua]

Serious question, why are you so obsessed with your threads?

Although the thread may have been shutdown pre-maturely (which oranr admitted), the unnecessary use of controversial terms (ie: "pussification") definitely didn't help. So you're not all that innocent yourself, if you don't want people to misinterpret your posts/threads, I would suggest to be more careful with your wording so it does not give off a negative vibe.

Move on already.

+1

[oranr]

Can we stop the bickering already, if you don't have something to add to the discussion on the low content rule, stay out of the thread! Seriously, enough is enough already!

[oranr]

Thanks for starting this thread oranr. It's good to finally have a discussion about the low content rule that's not clouded by the specifics of a particular thread.

Personally, I like the somewhat flexible wording that's currently in the rules. It prevents the "well, show me exactly where in the rules it says I can't say ABC" kind of thing, obviously you can't spell out every possible inappropriate type of post, some things should just be common sense. The current situation allows mods some freedom to interpret the spirit of the rules instead of letting people take advantage of the "letter of the law" excuse (presumably, if the mods were chosen because you trust their judgement, they can usually be trusted to make these calls, and the threads that come into question can be dealt with on a case by case basis).

I do think this works most of the time, it's just occasional threads (usually by a handful of users) that seem to make it look like a big problem. I agree with some others that stricter concequences for repeat offenders would take care of a lot of these issues. If a user is repeatedly starting low content threads (or trolling existing threads to contribute low content posts that need to be removed or simply serve to drag the tenor of the thread down), removing the user would be an easy way to remove the problem. I don't see why repeat offenders get chance after chance, if they're not contributing anything useful why are they allowed to continue here?

I also think it would be helpful to add, in the rules or a sticky, an official procedure for appealing mod decisions in regard to closed threads, removed posts, and the like. If users are clearly aware that they must PM the mod first, then PM you if that does not solve it, I think we could avoid most of the public shaming and mod bashing that has been a problem of late. I think if a user chooses to air dirty laundry in public as anything but a last resort (and even then, it should be respectfully), there should be concequences for that, at the very least it should automatically eliminate the possiblity that the thread in question be reopened.

I agree with stricter enforcement and yes I do have a policy on the appeal process. It's being discussed tomorrow and hopefully afternoon it will be in place. Basically, if you post straight to site comments (or hopefully the new moderator section) you will get a temp ban. You will have to communicate with the mod and then myself and then be able to post it for the public to comment on. The only issue is documentation and how we can document this in a proper way. Again, I hope to have this in place tomorrow and stop the mod basing because it has become a real problem. I am also leaning towards no appeal process and mods decisions are final, like most other forums and communities. I wanted to give everyone an avenue and keep it open and fair but it seems some members take this an open invitation to call mods out and bash them. We will see how it goes.

[mrperfect]

You will have to communicate with the mod and then myself and then be able to post it for the public to comment on. The only issue is documentation and how we can document this in a proper way.

The simple way of doing this, and to ensure transparency and accountability is to CC you in all communications. For example when a user has an issue with a said moderator, he/she must first PM them their greviance and then add a semicolon ( ; ) in the TO field and insert you (oranr). This standard could be followed in all resolutions so that you are always in the loop about what's going on.

The complaint resolution policy should also be stickied in the site comments section so that everybody has a chance to read it and understand so that it is loud and clear.

You should also add a few more specific violation clauses in the guidelines, so that it is easier for the moderators to quote you and copy and paste when locking a thread.

Cheers!

[jacksorbetta]

The way I look at it is that the mods have a job to to. Let them do it! They were chosen for specific reasons, and they put in their own time and of late, are receiving nothing but grief. Please stop. :(. I made an exception to my usual rule of never posting in these kinds of threads today because it's really getting out of hand.

Oranr: This thread was a good idea, but please don't allow it to degenerate into the usual.

[Tijuana]

It's quite simple. Don't have vague and subjective rules. Either it is 100% low content or it is not. News bot threads aren't subjective, because they don't adhere to a check list? Why not use the one CSK'sMom quoted from Syne?

Checklist

1. Brief summary from article
2. Link to article
3. Posters opinion

Not sure how anyone can screw up calling something low content if it adhere's to this list(assuming it's news related).

Now something different may need to be put in place for low content, but regardless, it should be covered by an all encompassing blanket statement.

[MrDisco]

the low content rule is fine. the mods need flexibility in closing threads that they feel add nothing to the site. there was a reason why the mods were chosen so let them do their job and if there is an issue users can take it up using the process oranr plans to implement.

[Tijuana]

the low content rule is fine. the mods need flexibility in closing threads that they feel add nothing to the site. there was a reason why the mods were chosen so let them do their job and if there is an issue users can take it up using the process oranr plans to implement.


I am also leaning towards no appeal process and mods decisions are final, like most other forums and communities

The current rules are much to vague if that system would be implemented.

[jerrysiz]

This was unnecessary and subtle jab at a certain person (baiting) and ironically the same thing you were complaining about. Like I told Tijuana. Let it go already.

:confused: What, you don't recall the dozens of recent threads by various users airing their greivances and wanting to discuss the low content rule in terms of how it had wronged them in their particular thread? This goes far beyond him, and just because he's one of the ones that fits this profile does not mean the comment was solely directed at him. Trust me, if I wanted to take a jab at him I could do much better, but my comments were intended to address a larger issue. I've said many times that trying to discuss the low content rule within the context of a particular locked thread (any locked thread) is pointless, as any discussion will always be tainted by the specifics of that particular thread. We've needed an objective discussion about this to get anywhere on the subject, and I'm glad we finally have one.


I agree with stricter enforcement and yes I do have a policy on the appeal process. It's being discussed tomorrow and hopefully afternoon it will be in place. Basically, if you post straight to site comments (or hopefully the new moderator section) you will get a temp ban. You will have to communicate with the mod and then myself and then be able to post it for the public to comment on. The only issue is documentation and how we can document this in a proper way. Again, I hope to have this in place tomorrow and stop the mod basing because it has become a real problem. I am also leaning towards no appeal process and mods decisions are final, like most other forums and communities. I wanted to give everyone an avenue and keep it open and fair but it seems some members take this an open invitation to call mods out and bash them. We will see how it goes.

That sounds good to me. I also like the idea of the decisions being final, there's nothing to be gained from constantly rehashing issues from the past, and it causes lack of respect for the mods when users are constantly going over their heads. But, if there is to be an appeals process, having it be clear and lead to a final decision that is not open to further debate will let people appropriately inquire into or (politely) question decisions they disagree with, without letting everything become an ongoing free-for-all.

[D-Roc]

We've needed an objective discussion about this to get anywhere on the subject, and I'm glad we finally have one.



I agree. Without any vague, jabs at other poster(s) in the conversation. Like Oranr said. Enough already.



Appeal process can easily bogged down the mods/admin with the trolls using it for kicks. Then again the mods decision to lock a thread being not debatable has already shown that a mod made an error in locking a thread for invalid reasons. So I am not sure what would be best, but it seems you may be in a damned if you do and damned if you do not situation.

[jerrysiz]

I agree. Without any vague, jabs at other poster(s) in the conversation. Like Oranr said. Enough already.

Good thing then, as I explained, that I wasn't making any. You realize you're posting more often in this thread to tell off people you perceive as taking jabs at others than you are actually talking about the topic? As you said, enough already.



Appeal process can easily bogged down the mods/admin with the trolls using it for kicks. Then again the mods decision to lock a thread being not debatable has already shown that a mod made an error in locking a thread for invalid reasons. So I am not sure what would be best, but it seems you may be in a damned if you do and damned if you do not situation.

I'd agree with this. I think, if there's going to be an appeals process, perhaps it should only go as far as PMing oranr if the situation cannot be worked out with the mod, his decision being final, no public debate allowed. If ornar finds he is being overrun by trolls, those trolls can be given well-deserved bans.

[D-Roc]

Good thing then, as I explained, that I wasn't making any. You realize you're posting more often in this thread to tell off people you perceive as taking jabs at others than you are actually talking about the topic? As you said, enough already.




:facepalm:

[poedua]

. Basically, if you post straight to site comments (or hopefully the new moderator section) you will get a temp ban.

You will have to communicate with the mod and then myself and then be able to post it for the public to comment on.

stop the mod basing because it has become a real problem.



If, as part of an appeal process, a member has had PM interaction with the mod in question, possibly other mods and and or yourself, once the appeal process has run it course with a the context of private communication, then that should be the end of it....no further public debate or public discussion.

In other words, once a decision has been made, I see no merit in then opening up the entire appeal process a member has gone through - after the fact - for ' public comment '. It's just going to delay any potential public attacks and criticism of mods / the admin. It doesn't eliminate any public bashing of mods / the admin, if anything it just supplies more ammo for those dozen or so members who are hell bent on bashing mods and that come crawling out of the woodwork to ' pile-on ' mods any time negative attention is drawn toward mods.

The entire appeal process should remain private IMO. And any public bashing of mods / admin - either before or after an appeal process is completed - should be against the rules IMO.


.The only issue is documentation and how we can document this in a proper way. Again, I hope to have this in place tomorrow andI am also leaning towards no appeal process and like most other forums and communities. I wanted to give everyone an avenue and keep it open and fair but it seems some members take this an open invitation to call mods out and bash them. We will see how it goes.

Frankly, I like this " no appeal process and mods decisions are final ".... even more.:D We've now got a great stable of mods at RFD, and as other have already suggested....let's just let them do their job.

But, I still think any fair minded site still needs some sort of mechanism by which members can appeal mods' / admin decisions. That said, I think the admin should have the mods backs first and foremost. The sense I and others have had for some time now is that the admin is allowing the mods to be thrown to the wolves by allowing the sort of bashing that's been going on. So while an appeal process would exist, I'd hope and expect that 99% of appeals would not be upheld ( i.e mods decisions overruled ) and that the 99% of the mods decision would remain unchanged.And that the remaining 1% that are overruled would be very very rare occurrences and for extreme cases only - i.e, blatant abuse of mod power, other blatant behavior by a mod. So, I'd view the appeal process as more of a ' faint hope ' mechanism for members where the odds are against any mods decision being reversed - i.e. " mods decisions are final "....99% of the time.;)

The cougar thread example is a good case in point. While you personally may not have agreed with the mod's decision in this case, in the absence of it representing an example of any blatant unacceptable behavior by a mod ( and it wasn't ) , you back the mods' decision ....regardless. Let the mods do their job.

[poedua]

the low content rule is fine. the mods need flexibility in closing threads that they feel add nothing to the site. there was a reason why the mods were chosen so let them do their job and if there is an issue users can take it up using the process oranr plans to implement.

+1

Couldn't agree more.

Frankly, I think we're making a ' mountain over a molehill ' on this whole low content rule.

It's pretty much a non-issue....as you said, the low content rule is just fine as it is. The mods are in the trenches day in day out, and they have the best feel for what represent gratuitous crap as far as thread topics go and or which members have hidden agendas behind thread topics being posted etc. etc. Trust the mods, have the mods' back and just let the mods do their job without them having to do their job with one hand tied behind their back.

And as for any attempts to clearly define ' low content ' such that it is a clear benchmark that cover all examples of what might or has already been locked ...that's impossible. Low content is much too subjective a call, it's the nature of the beast........a general guideline for mods to follow of it representing something that " adds nothing of value to the site " is sufficient. Trust the mods' judgment to determine what that is.

Or when asking a mod what represents ' low content ' ( and borrowing from Jacobellis v. Ohio ), the reply should simply be....


" I know it when I see it ”

;)

[FrogPrince]

Obviously there are 5 major things to discuss in OT:

1. 'shocking' news

2. China

3. dating

4. other people's salaries

5. living with parents

If any of these are low content there is a problem because these are the popular threads.

You forgot the "Is this girl hot? No, elbows too pointy" threads.

[oranr]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion, it's great to get different opinions/points of view on the policy.

[dragon_drift]

I like it the way it is right now actually. Transparency is always good, but I believe if someone has an issue with a mod, than he/she must contact the mod in question first. Then post here if it is not resolved or contact oranr. Not a fan of mod's decisions being 'final' though.

[KorruptioN]

(my post was accidentally deleted by oranr, no harm intended by either party)


Does Superhucard come to mind? His "are you celebrating CNY" and various threads are created for the sole purpose of trolling and is low content. They don't bring anything insightful..I don't understand why mods left it open for so long.

He was temp-banned for a while, if that means anything to you. I think it does.

I appreciate the concessions made recently in regards to political threads. In many cases, the discussions are important to have and stay on-topic for the most part. Everybody will have a different viewpoint of what they consider most correct. The great thing about a good democracy is that one can speak their mind (in most discussions...) without fear of repercussion. RFD is home to many political viewpoints as you all have seen. What has been grinding my gears lately is how some posters are taking the discussions way too personally, and (in)directly attacking people who respect different positions in the spectrum. It's kinda like "only a huge moron would support x idea or y theory, because I know it's wrong! And z person supports this idea!"

As somebody who takes a more moderate centrist point of view, some people really need to cut the crap and keep the arrogance at the door. It's only the internet.

[poedua]

I like it the way it is right now actually. Transparency is always good, but I believe if someone has an issue with a mod, than he/she must contact the mod in question first. Then post here if it is not resolved or contact oranr. Not a fan of mod's decisions being 'final' though.

I agree with you that if someone has a problem with a mod - definitely PM the mod and make your case. And, if need be.......PM other mods to get second opinions as well. And I also agree with you that if PMs to the mods doesn't do the trick, then a PM to oranr as a means of last resort is the way to go.

But, I disagree with you with respect to your suggestion that someone " post here if it is not resolved ". As I said in my earlier post, I think all challenges, criticisms. complaints, appeals etc. to and or about mods can be sufficiently addressed in a private context ( i.e PMs ).

Posting mod / admin issues in a public thread simply acts as a ' MAGNET ' for those select few members ( that we're all too familiar with ;) ) who are always on the look out for any opportunity to ' pile-on ' against the mods and which inevitably leads to the sort of incessant and gratuitous mod bashing that eventually dominates the discussion anytime such threads are posted.

[poedua]

I appreciate the concessions made recently in regards to political threads. In many cases, the discussions are important to have and stay on-topic for the most part. Everybody will have a different viewpoint of what they consider most correct. The great thing about a good democracy is that one can speak their mind (in most discussions...) without fear of repercussion. RFD is home to many political viewpoints as you all have seen.

Perhaps the time has come to re-instate the politics sub-forum.

[Manatus]

Perhaps the time has come to re-instate the political sub-forum.

Or the other way to look at it would be to say RFD is first and foremost a material forum. It exists to help users get more stuff and enjoy their stuff more. How do you get stuff more cheaply, how do you earn more money, what new stuff should you buy or not buy, how do you operate your stuff more effectively, how do you stop the government taking so much of your stuff, etc. Maybe RFD should stick to that and make that successful - maybe there shouldn't even be an off-topic forum or "talk for talk's sake". It ties in with the threads in this forum about how come RFD is no longer as good for deals as it used to be - because there's too much non-stuff-related chatter.

[poedua]

Or the other way to look at it would be to say RFD is first and foremost a material forum. It exists to help users get more stuff and enjoy their stuff more. How do you get stuff more cheaply, how do you earn more money, what new stuff should you buy or not buy, how do you operate your stuff more effectively, how do you stop the government taking so much of your stuff, etc. Maybe RFD should stick to that and make that successful - maybe there shouldn't even be an off-topic forum or "talk for talk's sake". It ties in with the threads in this forum about how come RFD is no longer as good for deals as it used to be - because there's too much non-stuff-related chatter.

That may be a fact, but I'd think it's an irrelevant fact to any of the issues currently associated with OT...which are predominantly moderation / member conduct related issues IMO.

[geokilla]

I agree with the no appeal process depending on why that thread was locked, or in which way the person earned infraction points. Appealing would take too much time. However if a person earned all his infraction points based on a single post and it was not a heavy offense, then you should be able to appeal it. Therefore, I propose that certain warnings be given a fixed amount of infraction points, based on how heavy the offense is. This way, things would be fairer. Of course, this is useless if they already have such a system in effect.

What we really need are more moderators, and more consistent moderation by the current moderators. Oranr knows what I'm talking about as I sent him a PM a few days ago. I'm sure a lot of posters here are qualified as well....

[poedua]

You forgot the "Is this girl hot? No, elbows too pointy" threads.

This recent OT thread is a prime example of ' low content ' IMO.....

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/damn-you-oranr-1136783/

[Mr.Sea]

I don't mind links to news articles. However, the OP must summerize key points in the article, link to the article, state their opinion on the event and under no circumstance should they copy and paste the article inside the thread.

[Syne]

You know what I like about oranr.

He saw that the mods simply ignored the user-created thread, and even waited for it to get derailed, so they could close it.. so he went ahead and made one himself.

[yao416]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/come-here-ill-fix-your-sleep-problems-1137361/

apparently its "low content" and "trolling"

wow...

IM TRYING TO HELP!!!!!!!!!!

[Syne]

WTF.. Did you actually TRY the methods yao suggested, or did you just assume it was the troll and close it?

See, this is what I'm talking about!

[jacksorbetta]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/come-here-ill-fix-your-sleep-problems-1137361/

apparently its "low content" and "trolling"

wow...

IM TRYING TO HELP!!!!!!!!!!

Yao, I like to think you're a smart kid, but that last thread puts it in doubt :lol:

[Peckerwood]

I see Trolls

They walk around and Troll...and they don't even know they are Trolls

:-0

[deltone]

I am neither pro nor anti mod but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion on them. I personally feel that any "throwing under the bus" of a mod, but the admins or fellow mods is despicable and says more about the "thrower" than it does about the "thrown".

If it was found that the mod closed the thread prematurely, then I think it would have been a much wiser decision to discuss it with the mod and keep it private. Publicly admonishing the mod was wrong and it should never have happened, as far as I'm concerned. The mods have a thankless job, and I sure don't envy them. The mod in the case that has been discussed made a decision based on the facts as she saw them and I should think that it's all about their own take, opinions and discretion and who is anyone to publicly flog them for doing their job? I truly don't get it.

The way I see it, by doing so, the barn door has been left WIDE open for the trolls and the troublemakers to run wild which is quite evidently happening, just by the very nature of the garbage that is being posted in OT lately. Why would that mod want to put herself in the position of closing any more theads that she deems sexist, when she knows full well that she could possibly be subjected to another public flogging, with the apparent approval of the admin. Why would any of the other mods want to close certain threads when they know full well that they too could be next on the hit list. If the admins can't even support their own mods, then you have chaos. You chose them as mods so the least you can do is trust them when they make a decision.

For the record, I don't always approve of her decisions and she gave me an infraction some time back which I then and still felt was wrong and unfair. I only mention this because I don't want to be accused of being her butt kisser because I'm not. She didn't deserve what she got and I am personally disgusted by what I witnessed in these threads by some of the members, but more importantly by ornr. Talk about a nice slap in the face for doing the "job" that she isn't even paid to do. I would suggest that "shame has been achieved" and that shame doesn't belong to CKSmom.

[Jimboski]

I see Trolls

They walk around and Troll...and they don't even know they are Trolls

:-0

They see me trolling.... They hatin...

[D-Roc]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/come-here-ill-fix-your-sleep-problems-1137361/

apparently its "low content" and "trolling"

wow...

IM TRYING TO HELP!!!!!!!!!!

When it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it sure isn't a cat.

[poedua]

- any "throwing under the bus" of a mod, but the admins or fellow mods is despicable and says more about the "thrower" than it does about the "thrown".

- it would have been a much wiser decision to discuss it with the mod and keep it private. Publicly admonishing the mod was wrong and it should never have happened,

- it's all about their own take, opinions and discretion and who is anyone to publicly flog them for doing their job? I truly don't get it.

- the barn door has been left WIDE open for the trolls and the troublemakers to run wild

- Why would that mod want to put herself in the position of closing any more theads when she knows full well that she could possibly be subjected to another public flogging, with the apparent approval of the admin.

- If the admins can't even support their own mods, then you have chaos. You chose them as mods so the least you can do is trust them when they make a decision.

- She didn't deserve what she got and I am personally disgusted by what I witnessed in these threads by some of the members, but more importantly by ornr.

- I would suggest that "shame has been achieved" and that shame doesn't belong to CKSmom.

+1

Simply a GREAT post deltone !

I couldn't agree more.

Your characterization of the " disgusting ", " shameful ", and " despicable " public " flogging " that sees CKSmom's and other mods being " thrown under the bus " is spot on IMO.

[yao416]

WTF.. Did you actually TRY the methods yao suggested, or did you just assume it was the troll and close it?

See, this is what I'm talking about!

I know right

I PM'd the Mod, yet to receive any explanation. I say this particular Mod has something against me.

Yet some people still say to sort it out with the Mod first before going to the Admin. lol

[4flava]

I know right

I PM'd the Mod, yet to receive any explanation. I say this particular Mod has something against me.

Yet some people still say to sort it out with the Mod first before going to the Admin. lol

+1 Was on the thread last night and thought that you posted some legit info. I even took a look at that sleep app that you recommended.

[manyapples]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/come-here-ill-fix-your-sleep-problems-1137361/

apparently its "low content" and "trolling"

wow...

IM TRYING TO HELP!!!!!!!!!!

+1 i was enjoying that thread

[jerrysiz]

I am neither pro nor anti mod but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion on them. I personally feel that any "throwing under the bus" of a mod, but the admins or fellow mods is despicable and says more about the "thrower" than it does about the "thrown".

If it was found that the mod closed the thread prematurely, then I think it would have been a much wiser decision to discuss it with the mod and keep it private. Publicly admonishing the mod was wrong and it should never have happened, as far as I'm concerned. The mods have a thankless job, and I sure don't envy them. The mod in the case that has been discussed made a decision based on the facts as she saw them and I should think that it's all about their own take, opinions and discretion and who is anyone to publicly flog them for doing their job? I truly don't get it.

The way I see it, by doing so, the barn door has been left WIDE open for the trolls and the troublemakers to run wild which is quite evidently happening, just by the very nature of the garbage that is being posted in OT lately. Why would that mod want to put herself in the position of closing any more theads that she deems sexist, when she knows full well that she could possibly be subjected to another public flogging, with the apparent approval of the admin. Why would any of the other mods want to close certain threads when they know full well that they too could be next on the hit list. If the admins can't even support their own mods, then you have chaos. You chose them as mods so the least you can do is trust them when they make a decision.

For the record, I don't always approve of her decisions and she gave me an infraction some time back which I then and still felt was wrong and unfair. I only mention this because I don't want to be accused of being her butt kisser because I'm not. She didn't deserve what she got and I am personally disgusted by what I witnessed in these threads by some of the members, but more importantly by ornr. Talk about a nice slap in the face for doing the "job" that she isn't even paid to do. I would suggest that "shame has been achieved" and that shame doesn't belong to CKSmom.

Great points. I don't know if this is the sole reason for all of the misogynist threads and posts that have been allowed to remain in OT over the last few days, but it certainly is a good theory. Right now we have several active threads containing many posts using negative stereotypes of women, saying all feminists should be shot, boiling down a debate about whether young men can be sexually taken advantage of by teachers to "It depends if the teacher's hot", advocating being able to buy sex so women can't trap you into marrying them, calling women sluts/whores/ugly, and of course, the constant objectification of any woman who is the subject of a thread (the sheer number of "Yeah, I'd do her" posts is in itself shocking).

Mods use their judgement to shut down threads which they feel are inappropriate. One can debate where the line is on "inappropriate", but if one of the posts that is not deemed offensive enough to be removed is something like "menopausal morons", and if it is very similar in content and the type of offensive posts being generated as a previously locked thread, it would seem to me that the decison to close it would be not entirely without merit. So when a mod uses his/her judgment to close the thread, and is attacked for it publicly in a thread started specifically for that purpose, and then thrown under the bus by admin, IMO all this does is reward people who publicly attack the mods, and encourage them to do it more often. If there is to be an appeals process, and the objections to closed threads are to be communicated privately, the decisions should also be private. If a mod's decision is overruled (which should really not be happening that often, trust the mods' judgment, especially in cases where there is at least some cause to lock), then the thread should just be reopened, without publicly drawing attention to the fact that admin thinks the mod was wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if, after this fiasco, the mods are a little gun shy. If a thread like the one that started all this (and some of the others currently active in OT) is considered acceptable, I think either there is a problem with recognizing sexism and misogyny unless it is so blatant it is ridiculous (and even sometimes then), or the mods don't want to deal with the outpouring of aggression and public shaming they will face for closing a thread these days. If that's the case I don't blame them, no one wants to subject themselves to that kind of abuse, but it's not doing anything to make sure the rules are being enforced.

[Tijuana]

Great points. I don't know if this is the sole reason for all of the misogynist threads and posts that have been allowed to remain in OT over the last few days, but it certainly is a good theory. Right now we have several active threads containing many posts using negative stereotypes of women, saying all feminists should be shot, boiling down a debate about whether young men can be sexually taken advantage of by teachers to "It depends if the teacher's hot", advocating being able to buy sex so women can't trap you into marrying them, calling women sluts/whores/ugly, and of course, the constant objectification of any woman who is the subject of a thread (the sheer number of "Yeah, I'd do her" posts is in itself shocking).

Mods use their judgement to shut down threads which they feel are inappropriate. One can debate where the line is on "inappropriate", but if one of the posts that is not deemed offensive enough to be removed is something like "menopausal morons", and if it is very similar in content and the type of offensive posts being generated as a previously locked thread, it would seem to me that the decison to close it would be not entirely without merit. So when a mod uses his/her judgment to close the thread, and is attacked for it publicly in a thread started specifically for that purpose, and then thrown under the bus by admin, IMO all this does is reward people who publicly attack the mods, and encourage them to do it more often. If there is to be an appeals process, and the objections to closed threads are to be communicated privately, the decisions should also be private. If a mod's decision is overruled (which should really not be happening that often, trust the mods' judgment, especially in cases where there is at least some cause to lock), then the thread should just be reopened, without publicly drawing attention to the fact that admin thinks the mod was wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if, after this fiasco, the mods are a little gun shy. If a thread like the one that started all this (and some of the others currently active in OT) is considered acceptable, I think either there is a problem with recognizing sexism and misogyny unless it is so blatant it is ridiculous (and even sometimes then), or the mods don't want to deal with the outpouring of aggression and public shaming they will face for closing a thread these days. If that's the case I don't blame them, no one wants to subject themselves to that kind of abuse, but it's not doing anything to make sure the rules are being enforced.

I hope you're not referring to the cougars thread.. because if you are.... :facepalm:

[Tijuana]

I am neither pro nor anti mod but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion on them. I personally feel that any "throwing under the bus" of a mod, but the admins or fellow mods is despicable and says more about the "thrower" than it does about the "thrown".

How are we throwing mods under the bus? If we were, that would mean that whatever they did was wrong, and instead of pm'ing them to fix it, we blatantly called them out on it. But to throw someone under the bus, means they need to do something wrong.. you're obviously advocating they did nothing wrong and were thrown under the bus for no reason.. why isn't true.... which is why this thread exists in the first place.


If it was found that the mod closed the thread prematurely, then I think it would have been a much wiser decision to discuss it with the mod and keep it private. Publicly admonishing the mod was wrong and it should never have happened, as far as I'm concerned. The mods have a thankless job, and I sure don't envy them. The mod in the case that has been discussed made a decision based on the facts as she saw them and I should think that it's all about their own take, opinions and discretion and who is anyone to publicly flog them for doing their job? I truly don't get it.

Except the moderators do not like certain members. As moderators, they are suppose to be free of bias, which is clearly not the case. My last 2 incidents did not make sense. They were not explained to me. They were purely done out of whatever bias those 2 moderators have against me. It is also well documented, so it isn't just like "hey, let's bash the mods cause they suck"... it's funny though... only 2 moderators are being mentioned.... What does that tell you for the rest of the mods?


The way I see it, by doing so, the barn door has been left WIDE open for the trolls and the troublemakers to run wild which is quite evidently happening, just by the very nature of the garbage that is being posted in OT lately. Why would that mod want to put herself in the position of closing any more theads that she deems sexist, when she knows full well that she could possibly be subjected to another public flogging, with the apparent approval of the admin. Why would any of the other mods want to close certain threads when they know full well that they too could be next on the hit list. If the admins can't even support their own mods, then you have chaos. You chose them as mods so the least you can do is trust them when they make a decision.

The moderators aren't doing a good enough job at actually looking at what a thread possesses. They look at the user name first and then lock the thread and put some sort of generic line such as "Low content... trolling..." Once again, I received an infraction because of a comment I made towards CSK'sMom which was not an insult by any stretch of the imagination, but a certain mod(not CSK'sMom) decided to ban me... When I pm'd said mod, he acted as if he did absolutely nothing wrong, perhaps as if he can get away with anything. When I had explained him as to why he screwed up, he simply said "so what".... Some mods are far too trigger happy and do things without thinking... Does this sounds familiar???


For the record, I don't always approve of her decisions and she gave me an infraction some time back which I then and still felt was wrong and unfair. I only mention this because I don't want to be accused of being her butt kisser because I'm not. She didn't deserve what she got and I am personally disgusted by what I witnessed in these threads by some of the members, but more importantly by ornr. Talk about a nice slap in the face for doing the "job" that she isn't even paid to do. I would suggest that "shame has been achieved" and that shame doesn't belong to CKSmom.

Don't give me this not paid bs.. There are far more qualified moderators that would probably pay to be moderators. it seems like the moderators that are selected are the "nicest" one's... not sure how that is criteria to become a moderator here...

If a moderator can partake in age discrimination.. than why can't I? Why can I get banned for the exact same "insult" that a moderator makes?

[jerrysiz]

****************************

Well, that was a productive response. :rolleyes: But thanks, because, hey, case in point.

I suppose my objection to the many threads over the last few days containing disgusting posts like this one (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/merged-check-out-website-finally-there-will-no-more-rfd-users-forever-alone-1134307/2/#post14183376), to you merits only a response designed to do nothing but mock my concern (and me personally). But, I do find posts like those, with all their talk of "ugly ***** chicks" and "women keeping men on leashes" and "chopping chicks" and "prices would be cheap, even for hot women" (and that's just from one post of many) extremely offensive, and I don't think mods should have to be second guessing themselves because the minute they close a thread the public abuse starts.

But I suppose you have difficulty seeing my problems with posts like those, as you are one of the ones that are writing them. I suppose I'm just one of those "fu**ing feminists" that you think "need to be shot". Lovely.

[45ED]

Well, that was a productive response. :rolleyes: But thanks, because, hey, case in point.

I suppose my objection to the many threads over the last few days containing disgusting posts like this one (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/merged-check-out-website-finally-there-will-no-more-rfd-users-forever-alone-1134307/2/#post14183376), to you merits only a response designed to do nothing but mock my concern (and me personally). But, I do find posts like those, with all their talk of "ugly ***** chicks" and "women keeping men on leashes" and "chopping chicks" and "prices would be cheap, even for hot women" (and that's just from one post of many) extremely offensive, and I don't think mods should have to be second guessing themselves because the minute they close a thread the public abuse starts.

But I suppose you have difficulty seeing my problems with posts like those, as you are one of the ones that are writing them. I suppose I'm just one of those "fu**ing feminists" that you think "need to be shot". Lovely.

He calls the people who didn't put him on the Most Helpful User ballot "stupid racists". He was incredibly offensive in the recent thread in OT (which I won't dignify with a link). And he calls you names.

Trust me, jerrysiz - do not waste any more of your energy on him. He is gaming to offend everyone for toll-lulz. I know you want to respond to take him on (for whatever reason) but seriously - spare yourself. Doing otherwise will egg him on.

[jerrysiz]

He calls the people who didn't put him on the Most Helpful User ballot "stupid racists". He was incredibly offensive in the recent thread in OT (which I won't dignify with a link). And he calls you names.

Trust me, jerrysiz - do not waste any more of your energy on him. He is gaming to offend everyone for toll-lulz. I know you want to respond to take him on (for whatever reason) but seriously - spare yourself. Doing otherwise will egg him on.

Don't worry, I've seen his trolling in many threads and have no intention of engaging him further. I just wanted to use his response as a pretty typical example of what has been going on here recently. I don't know if most of the mods and admin are just blind to it, if they just dismiss it as "harmless fun", or if they do find it offensive but are wary of taking action because of what has been shown to happen when they do close threads. Whatever the reason, this kind of disgusting post is rather representative of the sexism and misogyny in a lot of other posts from threads that still remain active despite being reported (and not just by me) in OT lately. There's really not much I can do if these kinds of comments have been found acceptable (the post I quoted was in a merged thread, so obviously someone saw the way the comments in the two original threads were referring to women and thought there was nothing there worth deleting or closing), but I am going to point it out when I see it. There's really no point in discussing what we want the new rules to be when this kind of thing shows that there are serious problems even enforcing the current rules. The ironic thing is that CSK'sMom was one of the mods that seemed to recognize this kind of thing as inappropriate when she saw it, and was one of the few to take action to stop it, and look where it got her.

[geokilla]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/come-here-ill-fix-your-sleep-problems-1137361/

apparently its "low content" and "trolling"

wow...

IM TRYING TO HELP!!!!!!!!!!

Inconsistent moderation strikes again. I made a thread about this before, which was originally calling out a certain mod. Guess nothing's been fixed :facepalm:


Don't worry, I've seen his trolling in many threads and have no intention of engaging him further. I just wanted to use his response as a pretty typical example of what has been going on here recently. I don't know if most of the mods and admin are just blind to it, if they just dismiss it as "harmless fun", or if they do find it offensive but are wary of taking action because of what has been shown to happen when they do close threads. Whatever the reason, this kind of disgusting post is rather representative of the sexism and misogyny in a lot of other posts from threads that still remain active despite being reported (and not just by me) in OT lately. There's really not much I can do if these kinds of comments have been found acceptable (the post I quoted was in a merged thread, so obviously someone saw the way the comments in the two original threads were referring to women and thought there was nothing there worth deleting or closing), but I am going to point it out when I see it. There's really no point in discussing what we want the new rules to be when this kind of thing shows that there are serious problems even enforcing the current rules. The ironic thing is that CSK'sMom was one of the mods that seemed to recognize this kind of thing as inappropriate when she saw it, and was one of the few to take action to stop it, and look where it got her.

CSK is still moderator, but I'm not agreeing with the way she moderates either. Sometimes she's too strict. What happened to CSK though?

I wouldn't mind the removal of OT on RFD. It'd give a lot of RFDers their life back, seeing how it's just the same people trolling over and over again. There is also a certain member who is getting away with his posts. Oranr knows who I'm talking about, but no action has been taken. Guess he's been busy.

Oh and btw, moderators do get paid from what I've been told from a moderator.

[konfusion666]

wow, had no idea so much shiznit was going on. i'm so clueless, lol. sorry to hear what happened to csk.

that said... i do kinda agree with Manatus statement below:


Or the other way to look at it would be to say RFD is first and foremost a material forum. It exists to help users get more stuff and enjoy their stuff more. How do you get stuff more cheaply, how do you earn more money, what new stuff should you buy or not buy, how do you operate your stuff more effectively, how do you stop the government taking so much of your stuff, etc. Maybe RFD should stick to that and make that successful - maybe there shouldn't even be an off-topic forum or "talk for talk's sake". It ties in with the threads in this forum about how come RFD is no longer as good for deals as it used to be - because there's too much non-stuff-related chatter.

the best and most interesting threads lately have been in the various category forums. For me, that'd be Personal Finance and Careers.

There was a time once, long ago, when even Off-Topic had a lot of interesting convos but now it's really just a lot of extremely angry 19 year olds lashing out at the world. i wouldn't miss it if it "disappeared" (even temporarily). as well, the newsbot threads don't really serve any purpose because all people do is rant about their pov on the particular story. that's not what a message forum is for, though. so really, all those people can simply go back to the original article at Star, G&M, or Sun and post their ran in the "comments" section on the actual article... more appropriate place for "ranting" imo

[qaz393]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/unofficial-rfd-chat-room-tinychat-com-rfdfriends-new-location-1112494/

threads like this is low content

[poedua]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/unofficial-rfd-chat-room-tinychat-com-rfdfriends-new-location-1112494/

threads like this is low content

Actually qaz393, your recent thread in the Automotive forum is a prime example of a ' low content ' thread...... IMO.

You took 9 POSTS to create a thread topic in which you simply copied in ' verbatim ' content from another forum....all of which could of easily been accomplished by copying in the the link to that forum ....in 1 POST.

Not only that, but after dumping 9 POSTS of content, you didn't provide any context, commentary, opinions, observations etc. on any of the content to serve as the basis for any further discussion....and in that regard, virtually identical to a ' newsbot ' / ' low content ' dump thread.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/small-lesson-motor-oil-1138542/

[qaz393]

Actually qaz393, your recent thread in the Automotive forum is a prime example of a ' low content ' thread...... IMO.

You took 9 POSTS to create a thread topic in which you simply copied in ' verbatim ' content from another forum....all of which could of easily been accomplished by copying in the the link to that forum ....in 1 POST.

Not only that, but after dumping 9 POSTS of content, you didn't provide any context, commentary, opinions, observations etc. on any of the content to serve as the basis for any further discussion....and in that regard, virtually identical to a ' newsbot ' / ' low content ' dump thread.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/small-lesson-motor-oil-1138542/

its 9 post due to the restrictions on RFD. 10k limit character per post.

[D-Roc]

its 9 post due to the restrictions on RFD. 10k limit character per post.

Careful. Poedua the mod wanna be, will lecture you again what is or is not appropriate on RFD.

[qaz393]

Careful. Poedua the mod wanna be, will lecture you again what is or is not appropriate on RFD.

his wants differ from the community wants.

[poedua]

his wants differ from the community wants.

I doubt the community ' wants ' to see thread topics in excess of 14,000 words as yours was.

All you had to do was post the link to the site you copied in the 14,000 + words from.

Posting 14,000 + words from another site ' verbatim ' to create a thread topic and to not even followup it up with your own commentary, opinion etc. ( as newsbot threads are ) is not only a gratuitous waste of site resources but it's yet another shining example of a ' low content ' style of thread....IMO.

Frankly, I see no good reason why thread topics can't be limited to only the first post in a thread - i.e anything beyond 1 post ( i.e 9 posts ) would be disallowed.

[jerrysiz]

Actually qaz393, your recent thread in the Automotive forum is a prime example of a ' low content ' thread...... IMO.

You took 9 POSTS to create a thread topic in which you simply copied in ' verbatim ' content from another forum....all of which could of easily been accomplished by copying in the the link to that forum ....in 1 POST.

Not only that, but after dumping 9 POSTS of content, you didn't provide any context, commentary, opinions, observations etc. on any of the content to serve as the basis for any further discussion....and in that regard, virtually identical to a ' newsbot ' / ' low content ' dump thread.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/small-lesson-motor-oil-1138542/

Holy crap, that's ridiculous! :lol: Definitely newsbot, but even more annoying than the usual link with no commentary. Definitely low content there.



Careful. Poedua the mod wanna be, will lecture you again what is or is not appropriate on RFD.

Again with the juvinile attacks on poedua every time she posts anything? Grow up. She has every right to point out an example of a thread she feels is low content in a thread entitled "let's talk 'low content'" without being attacked by you. Did you even look at the thread in question, or do you just automatically take the other side as soon as you see her name on a post? You really want to defend that thread with nine posts worth of wall-of-text consisting entirely of a C&P article?

[Ojam]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[deltone]

Holy crap, that's ridiculous! :lol: Definitely newsbot, but even more annoying than the usual link with no commentary. Definitely low content there.




Again with the juvinile attacks on poedua every time she posts anything? Grow up. She has every right to point out an example of a thread she feels is low content in a thread entitled "let's talk 'low content'" without being attacked by you. Did you even look at the thread in question, or do you just automatically take the other side as soon as you see her name on a post? You really want to defend that thread with nine posts worth of wall-of-text consisting entirely of a C&P article?

Sorry jerrysiz but you are wrong. She, and you, and I do not have a right to an opinion or the right to point anything out when it comes to RFD OT. How so? Well, because every time "they" don't like what one of us writes, and "they" start spewing and hurling attacks, those posts always stand so make no mistake, this is condoned in RFD OT. Heck, the powers that be even threw their most vocal female mod under the bus so why would we expect anything different? To me this translates that we really don't have the right to our opinions. Sure, we can write them but it's obvious that there is no expectation that we will be free from attack for stating our opinions so to me that translates to not really having a right. Just another day on RFD OT.

[D-Roc]

Again with the juvinile attacks on poedua every time she posts anything? Grow up. She has every right to point out an example of a thread she feels is low content in a thread entitled "let's talk 'low content'" without being attacked by you. Did you even look at the thread in question, or do you just automatically take the other side as soon as you see her name on a post? You really want to defend that thread with nine posts worth of wall-of-text consisting entirely of a C&P article?

Sorry, but was I posting to you? I did not think so. Move along.

Oh and so says the pot calling the kettle black.

[poedua]

Sorry jerrysiz but you are wrong. She, and you, and I do not have a right to an opinion or the right to point anything out when it comes to RFD OT. How so? Well, because every time "they" don't like what one of us writes, and "they" start spewing and hurling attacks, those posts always stand so make no mistake, this is condoned in RFD OT. Heck, the powers that be even threw their most vocal female mod under the bus so why would we expect anything different? To me this translates that we really don't have the right to our opinions. Sure, we can write them but it's obvious that there is no expectation that we will be free from attack for stating our opinions so to me that translates to not really having a right. Just another day on RFD OT.

+1

Well said Deltone...couldn't agree more.

[D-Roc]

Sorry jerrysiz but you are wrong. She, and you, and I do not have a right to an opinion or the right to point anything out when it comes to RFD OT. How so? Well, because every time "they" don't like what one of us writes, and "they" start spewing and hurling attacks, those posts always stand so make no mistake, this is condoned in RFD OT. Heck, the powers that be even threw their most vocal female mod under the bus so why would we expect anything different? To me this translates that we really don't have the right to our opinions. Sure, we can write them but it's obvious that there is no expectation that we will be free from attack for stating our opinions so to me that translates to not really having a right. Just another day on RFD OT.


It has nothing to do with an opinion on what is or is not allowed to be posted (for me anyways). You know the type of person poedua is and how she acts (posts) like she is a mod and plenty of her posts are the very definition on low content. How many times do you need to post things like "+1. Very well said. IMO.", etc?

Just like above. :lol:

[poedua]

Holy crap, that's ridiculous! :lol: Definitely newsbot, but even more annoying than the usual link with no commentary. Definitely low content there.

Again with the juvinile attacks on poedua every time she posts anything? Grow up. She has every right to point out an example of a thread she feels is low content in a thread entitled "let's talk 'low content'" without being attacked by you. Did you even look at the thread in question, or do you just automatically take the other side as soon as you see her name on a post? You really want to defend that thread with nine posts worth of wall-of-text consisting entirely of a C&P article?

+1

Correct....oranr wants to use this thread to explore what the membership views are on what may or may not constitute ' low content '.

Again, my personal view is that if a member has to take 9 posts / 14,000+ words to simply create a thread, the gratuitous nature of such a thread may be a strong candidate for being deemed ' low content ' by virtue of dumping 14,000+ words all on it's own IN ADDITION TO dumping in 14,000+ words and then not even including any personal commentary, opinions, observation to form as the basis for further discussion...then that's simply replicating what we see with ' newsbots ' ...and therefore easily qualify as ' low content' ...at least IMO.

As for the ' juvenile attacks ' against me ( against me.....instead of the opinion I've expressed ) that both you cited and that Deltone alluded to simply for expressing an opinion......sadly.... it speaks for itself..

[D-Roc]

You call that an attack? (the mod wanna be comment) :lol:
If a fact is considered an attack, then so be it.

[Ojam]

As for the ' juvenile attacks ' against me ( against me.....instead of the opinion I've expressed ) that both you cited and that Deltone alluded to simply for expressing an opinion......sadly.... it speaks for itself..

Maybe if you (and Jerrysiz) didn't have such condescending attitudes it would be worth people's time addressing those opinions... as it is though it's just a waste of time to even read either of your essays.

[qaz393]

people keep attacking my high content posts

[poedua]

Maybe if you (and Jerrysiz) didn't have such condescending attitudes it would be worth people's time addressing those opinions... as it is though it's just a waste of time to even read either of your essays.

It's simple...if you agree or disagree with my or other members' opinions on what constitutes ' low content' then attack ( or conversely ) support / endorse those opinions being expressed in the thread. But don't cast disparaging comments about the members themselves simply because they are expressing an opinion on a given topic.

That said.....what's your opinion on the most recent opinion I put forward ?

Do you agree ( with me ) that a 9 post / 14,000+ word thread topic devoid of any personal commentary by an OP represents ' low content ' or not ?

Welcome your thoughts.:)

[sanddoom123]

It's simple...if you agree or disagree with my or other members' opinions on what constitutes ' low content' then attack ( or conversely ) support / endorse those opinions being expressed in the thread. But don't cast disparaging comments about the members themselves simply because they are expressing an opinion on a given topic.

That said.....what's your opinion on the most recent opinion I put forward ?

Do you agree ( with me ) that a 9 post / 14,000+ word thread topic devoid of any personal commentary by an OP represents ' low content ' or not ?

Welcome your thoughts.:)

I have to say, if people do not read they entire post, they have no right to say it is low or high content. Did you read through the entire post?

[Tijuana]

It's simple...if you agree or disagree with my or other members' opinions on what constitutes ' low content' then attack ( or conversely ) support / endorse those opinions being expressed in the thread. But don't cast disparaging comments about the members themselves simply because they are expressing an opinion on a given topic.

That said.....what's your opinion on the most recent opinion I put forward ?

Do you agree ( with me ) that a 9 post / 14,000+ word thread topic devoid of any personal commentary by an OP represents ' low content ' or not ?

Welcome your thoughts.:)

It's not low content... it's spam. This is what happens when you leave a word open to interpretation.. suddenly everything is low content. The 9 posts were all spam, not low content. This is why the rules that we have in place right now for low content don't make sense, regardless of how much you think they are and this is proof of that.

[oranr]

Thanks everyone for their feedback. I would leave this thread open but it has turned into a bicker feast!

I have gained a lot of insight/knowledge from all the posts here.

Thanks again to all for contributing!