Moderating...BE SPECIFIC

pips · Post by **pips** » 01 May 2006 20:31

I like having more than just footbag to talk about. If I don't like a topic, I don't read it.

I also like the 18 or older idea if it's possible.

Uranos · Post by **Uranos** » 01 May 2006 22:40

I definately disagree to the idea of removing the non footbag related topics.
I mean, just because we are footbaggers does that mean we only talk about footbag? Most of my footbag friends dont even tlak that much about footbag.

janis · Post by **janis** » 01 May 2006 23:21

Uranos wrote:I definately disagree to the idea of removing the non footbag related topics.

Yeah agreed, for example ausfootbag.org died when that happened

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 02 May 2006 00:42

My personal opinion is that we should have the freedom to talk about all aspects of life, including sex and drugs. Like someone said, these are a normal, every day part of living; whether we individually partake of these activities ourselves or not is irrelevant -- it is part of life regardless of that.

I personally find nothing wrong with the discussion of these subjects in the appropriate forums. However, I feel that this discussion should be of a nature that is suitable for all ages. I believe that it is reasonable that if the forum were to be rated for content, we would strive for a PG rating -- this because we have members who are, or may be, under the age of 13. I believe that it is a common desire of our community to include people of all ages, and so for that reason I believe that the atmosphere of the community should be hospitable correlatively.

While I agree with the post saying that the discussion of drugs in a certain manner defaces our reputation I also believe that it is important to "know". For this reason I think it is valuable to be able to maturely discuss even "illegal" behaviors. At the same time I think that I agree with the collective decision we as mods have made to disallow information that may directly aid in the execution of suggested illegal activities. I certainly don't believe that that would allow this forum to be rated PG. Maybe "PG" is excessive, but I think it is also reasonable.

I think that above all it is important to discuss everything in a mature manner. Certainly the lack of this has been a great factor in what has led the moderation team to act in the way that it has. Maybe freedom of speech is a liberty that may be taken away -- do you have the freedom to join this forum, or is your joining the forum a trade for which you must abide by the propounded guidelines? I feel that Moderation helps the community. Certainly it is never perfect and certainly it never will be, but we try (like someone suggested -- we're human too...); mature input on an individual's stance on the guidelines that we establish is valuable.

As for the non-footbag discussion, I'm all for it. It's useful and valuable for those of us still attached to community who no longer play. Footbag isn't only about footbag, it's about the people and our great community spirit.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 May 2006 01:35

I think people should definitely be allowed to discuss whatever they want. So long as topic names make the topic clear I don't think it's a problem what people discuss. I think it is much more responsible of moderators to post responsible thoughts in a topic about drugs - rather locking it. The fact is that the majority of people on this forum are of the age where it likely that they're going to be exposed to recreational drugs of some type in real life. It's obviously not "modified"'s problem as to how they deal with this but we lose nothing by the discussion and can obviously make sure people understand more about the issue. In Australia it is perfectly legal to talk about drugs - I can walk into a police station and tell them that on Saturday I took 2 ecstasy pills and even if they tested me and found that that was true I would not be committing any crime. I don't think that over protection achieves anything. Regarding underage people - I think it's really the responsibility of parents to check what their children look at on the internet. There are clearly much more inappriopriate websites than footbag forums on the net and I think we should assume parents either know what their children look at or don't care. Either way I don't believe modified has any obligations to protect underage children from knowing about drugs, or from vulgar langauge.

Regarding number of moderators. There are 8 mods/admins and I would say that only 4-5 of those are active. I also think there's a great deal of confusion amongst the mods and certainly no "democracy" - my impression was that somebody would ask a question - there would clearly be a very divided split on the issue and then Brad would decide to ban the person without any consensus or even majority agreement - which in my mind completely undermines the whole point of having a forum for mods to discuss issues and shows that it really doesn't matter what the opinions of the mods are.

I think Alex made a really good point which is that a much better option that using their mod powers is just posting in the topic. Editing out content doesn't really seem to address the issue at all. In many cases people are unclear what was edited out and why it was inappropriate or else there is enough information that it makes it insignificant that the content was modified. A much better option is for mods to simply post in the topic why they believe that material is inappropriate. My feeling is the majority of times when forum members post something inappropriate they just don't know any better. Rather than alienating them and ostrasizing them (as tends to happen) - keeping things civil and explaining the appropriateness of the content seems to be much more successful (in my experience) way of dealing with these issues. The current moderation policy is of controlling people rather than working with them.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 02 May 2006 03:30

I don't like it when I learn a new aussie word and use it on the forum, a mod edites it away. -- Hmm....

Anyway, I have no problems with mods or admins.

BUT some of the people who are mods don't even do any moderating and never post anywhere... That's rather odd.

ALSO I would like if the mods and admins would lower themselves to user level and would start posting in some footbag topics. We're all players, admins can post too what they'er hitting. For example if all the mods and admins would start their own footblogs, it would bring them closer to us users.

Uranos · Post by **Uranos** » 02 May 2006 04:37

I think that in rather than age being the important factor in the discussion section, maturity is. I mean ive seen some good mannered and well thought comments by an under 18 in that section, compared to completely childish and silly posts by people over 18 years of age. And also Jeremy raises a good point in that overprotecting achieves nothing. I mean im pretty confident that most parents would be more worried about their children looking at porn sites rather than a footbag forum discussing (maturely) about sex and drugs.

I agree with Anssi, in that mods should be more open and post more freely. I mean i know certian people like Emily have their own blogs but i hardly see Brad or anyone else posting anywhere other than the discussion forum or somewhere non-footbag related. My view of mods is that they shouldn't really be known to other users as a mod status, but rather a regular user of the forum who only mods or does whatever when they really have to. Kinda like being friends with cops - Most cops do nothing until you do something extreme like pull a gun out of something.

Haha Aussie words should be banned

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 02 May 2006 17:42

Having quickly browsed through this stuff, I've seen alot of ppl either complain or express their satisfaction, but I haven't really seen anyone suggest anything productive that can be done without simply reversing the situation. For example, those who feel there are too many mods, ask for less, which would only make those who want more unhappy. <edit> I just noticed eric's post which i think is a good one, and also Jeremy's which proposes that mods explain whats wrong with posts rather than just editing them - I think these would be helped by my suggestion which is a more proactive rather than reactive solution </edit>
I think the problem is that there is no definitive set of written rules for conduct on Modified (or maybe there is and I just haven't seen it.) I don't mean the posts stickyed to the top of each forum, I mean an over-arching set of rules that say what can and can't be said. That way when this sort of issue comes up rather than have a string of esssentially useless posts you could refer to the rules and say "well, here it is in black and white" either abide, or go somewhere else. For those who say that this is a free forum and should have no rules, I think that such a idea is garbage and modified has never been such a place, nor does such a place exist anywhere. There are rules to modified and the mods enforce them, they just don't have them set out well enough. At least if there were rules, people could make an informed descision as to whether or not they are happy with the modified environment and either take part, or go elsewhere.
Obviously this would a) be a fair amount of work and b) result in its own set of problems regarding who sets the rules, but i think that the mods should set out the means by which they operate and we can go from there. <edit> for example Eric has said that he uses the idea that modified should be around a pg rating as a rough guidline, I think that we sould know exactly what that means as far as possible, it shouldn't just pop up here in response to a problem</edit>

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 02 May 2006 18:19

Jeremy: it sounds like your first paragraph like you are saying that everything should be allowed on Modified, and if there is an underage user with caring parents that responsibly that user would be removed from the forums (by said parent)...is that really what we want? What's more important? Discussion of illegal activities, or the inclusion of all people of all ages to the community that is the sport of footbag?

(I agree with your points about editing posts though, for the most part.)

Anssi: I have a footblog, even if I barely post in it anymore. I would post what moves I have been hitting, however I no longer play footbag. I would like to think that I still participate in valuable discussions in the footbag forums, but as it has been said those have been few and far between of late.

Dyalan: good post. I think a big issue is that, like Jeremy said, there is no unanimous consensus on most issues that have actually become a problem. I agree that this is something that should be worked out, but at the same time I would like to think that there can be a degree of flexibility to the "rules".

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 02 May 2006 20:09

I think the mods should be able to do whatever they want as long as we get to complain about it.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 02 May 2006 22:56

I agree that there would need to be a degree of flexibility to the rules but at the same time there are areas where they could be very black and white. And in the end they wouldn't totally solve these sorts of problems - the rules would still need to be interpreted, i just think they need to be there as a basis from which people can work these sorts of issues out. So for example, I don't think its necessary to say "no swearing", but at the same time it can be said "personal attacks based on sexuality, race, or religion will not be tolerated". Now obviously, this doesn't mean that sexuality, race, or religion cannot be discussed, they just cannot be used as degortory terms - furthermore, such a rule would still be left to the interpretation of the mods, but at least it offers a starting point by which greivences can be discussed in a productive and orderly manner, and like i said it would work in conjunction with the other rules. I think at the very least it will prevent people from thinking of these boards as a place where they can say whatever they want. Also it should spell out some of the grey areas - e.g. what can and can't be said about drugs. As it stands these things are largely left to a mixture of ad-hoc rules within forum sections, custom, and so-called "common-sense" which is clearly a myth. This mixture isn't working and needs to be articulated.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 03 May 2006 01:11

ana_ali wrote:ALSO I would like if the mods and admins would lower themselves to user level and would start posting in some footbag topics. We're all players, admins can post too what they'er hitting. For example if all the mods and admins would start their own footblogs, it would bring them closer to us users.

Anssi, I felt that your wording was particularly unpleasant.

I don't think there is a single mod/admin who thinks they are "too good" to post in the footbag topics. Do you really think that's how it is, or did I misinterpret that first sentence?

I don't feel like as a footbag player I owe anyone any explanation of what I'm hitting/trying. Same thing as a Mod. With that said, I have a blog, so do Ken, Matt, and Mike. Nic posts in the BCS blog, and Erik has a blog but can't play footbag right now because of an injury. If you're wanting all of the mods/admin to have blogs, I guess you right that we don't. But most do.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 03 May 2006 01:30

I know many mods have fooblogs, I just spoke in general. I just ment users would be more comfortable if they knew the moderator and admins better. Still some of the mods don't take part in nearly any footbag related topics. But I'm not accusing anyone particular... or accusing anyone at all...

Bah - Actually, I don't give a poop in the end. Nate is right.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 03 May 2006 02:03

Jeremy wrote:I think people should definitely be allowed to discuss whatever they want. So long as topic names make the topic clear I don't think it's a problem what people discuss.

Anyone out there enjoy watching little kids get it on at gunpoint? Watch Kiddie Porn HERE

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 03 May 2006 03:14

dyalander wrote:I agree that there would need to be a degree of flexibility to the rules but at the same time there are areas where they could be very black and white. And in the end they wouldn't totally solve these sorts of problems - the rules would still need to be interpreted, i just think they need to be there as a basis from which people can work these sorts of issues out. So for example, I don't think its necessary to say "no swearing", but at the same time it can be said "personal attacks based on sexuality, race, or religion will not be tolerated". Now obviously, this doesn't mean that sexuality, race, or religion cannot be discussed, they just cannot be used as degortory terms - furthermore, such a rule would still be left to the interpretation of the mods, but at least it offers a starting point by which greivences can be discussed in a productive and orderly manner, and like i said it would work in conjunction with the other rules. I think at the very least it will prevent people from thinking of these boards as a place where they can say whatever they want. Also it should spell out some of the grey areas - e.g. what can and can't be said about drugs. As it stands these things are largely left to a mixture of ad-hoc rules within forum sections, custom, and so-called "common-sense" which is clearly a myth. This mixture isn't working and needs to be articulated.

I think Dyalan has it completely right.

The mods have to work together to come up with a set of rules that states what is not acceptable to be talked about on the footbag forums and in discussion and kicking circle forums and it needs to be put somewhere so that everyone is capable of seeing it, that way any moderation that happens will be backed up by the rules, in which case it is good moderation, or it won't have anything to do with the rules, in which case it is bad moderation.

Let's get to work.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 03 May 2006 08:54

Well, I don't think it should soley be left up to the moderating staff to create those rules. I think Jeremy is right in that we got too far away from the community by doing things that way. I think the moderating staff is really here to fine tune and enforce the rules that the comunity decides on.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 May 2006 09:35

Now that the mods are stepping into 85% of the threads, I think a lot of people enjoy baiting the mods with gay ass shit, and wack comments. Trying to see if they will step in and edit a post, or move a thread, or otherwise flex their power over the forum.

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 03 May 2006 16:51

Tsiangkun wrote:Now that the mods are stepping into 85% of the threads, I think a lot of people enjoy baiting the mods with gay ass shit, and wack comments. Trying to see if they will step in and edit a post, or move a thread, or otherwise flex their power over the forum.

I don't know where you got that figure, I just went through the top10 topics in General Footbag and not one of them had moderator intervention of any sort. I would say the number of topics that have moderator intervention is closer to 2-5%.

I also think that people baiting mods is a myth apart from in some rare cases. There are a few individuals with unique personalities who seem to be out to hasstle the moderators but there are no more than 2 or 3 of these people on the whole board, out of almost 2000 users.

Maybe you are right, but you will need to bring some evidence (example threads) with a post like that because it seems like rubbish to me.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 03 May 2006 20:07

Obviously i think that my rules idea is a good one. If others were to agreee, I think the best way to see it happen would be for the mods to use their mod area to construct a set of rules. They could then be posted for the whole community to comment - propose changes, voice their opinions - maybe for a month or so. The mods would then go back and incorporate these ideas suggestions as they see fit. I don't think it can simply be left up to "the community" as a whole to write something up - it needs to be delegated otherwise it simply won't happen. In the end the mods have been entrusted to enforce the unspoken rules of modified - surely its not to much to ask that these same mods speak these rules and make them clear.

Well, I don't think it should soley be left up to the moderating staff to create those rules. I think Jeremy is right in that we got too far away from the community by doing things that way. I think the moderating staff is really here to fine tune and enforce the rules that the comunity decides on.

Firstly as i said, the community can't be left to write up a set of rules it needs to be delegated. I think my above suggestion offers a workable solution in which the community has an opertunity to contribute to the rule making.
And secondly I don't think Jeremy has spoken to my idea, and I don't think my idea is the same thing as what Jeremy suggested was the problem. Regardless, my point is that mods have been doing things their own "way" and its time that way is articulated. If its out of touch then at least we will then be able to identify exactly how so.
Thus it is absolutely necessary that the mods start the process before putting it to the community.

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 03 May 2006 22:49

Again, Dyalan is exactly right, you basicly just said what I have always thought was the best answer, but have never had enough time to sit down and do and never felt it my place to ask everyone else to do it.