Moderation & User Rules

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 03 Nov 2006 22:41

Quick question to just confirm things.

What is a personal attack? Is it when someone says oh because you believe this you must be an asshole? Or is it something else???? Because everyone comes under an attack in modified regardless.

Thanks,

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 05 Nov 2006 16:15

I am sure that giving control of the forum back to the community and making the emphasis of the forum on building a community and not using it as resource will make the forum a much better place.

I 100% agree with this.

I also 100% agree that modified should be runbythe community - the question is how that should be facilitated - constant polls about every descision is not feasible.
I'm unconvinved electing moderators is a good idea either.
I still think the guidelines are the best option.
I look forward to your suggestions when you feel comfortable to provide them.

On a side note - to those who accuse jeremy of holding a grudge, even if he is motivated by a grudge against a single or group of current mods, he has clearly tried to speak as much as possible to the content of the issues, rather than make things personal - perhaps he has made it personal on occasion by singling out a mod - but it seems clear to me that there is an attempt to remain as much as possible, focused on the issue. As long as this is the case I don't see any reason to be accusing him of anything other than offering an opinion on how modified should be run -which was the whole point of this thread. The longer we keep these posts about the way modifed is and should berun the better for everyone.

funklovesfootbag · Post by **funklovesfootbag** » 06 Nov 2006 02:38

"eat a dick" is sexually derogatory

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 06 Nov 2006 17:41

What is a personal attack? Is it when someone says oh because you believe this you must be an asshole? Or is it something else???? Because everyone comes under an attack in modified regardless.

Thats why we worded it as "ongoing personal attacks". The idea of this guideline is so that when threads have become nothing more than people continually name-calling and abusing each other with little other connection to anything else going on in the thread as a last resort the thread may be locked. We only intend this as a last resort - we will first try and calm it down in the thread or via PM's. We certainly don't intend to lock a thread because of a single round of name-calling it will need to go on for a while such that there is nothing else going on in the thread.

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 06 Nov 2006 17:47

Thanks for answearing my question.

Peace,

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 08 Nov 2006 22:46

I want to say that while I haven't been around much and I didn't devote my attention to reading through this WHOLE thread, I back up Jeremy's philosophy and I felt more at home on modified when these things were happening:

A) Less people - a more tight-knit community is more fun for me to post on.
B) Less moderation - users used to be able to say whatever they wanted.
C) I used to play footbag.

I think I'm going to try to stop by modified from time to time (Saw Vasek's King of Footbag video, heh)... but we'll see.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 16 Nov 2006 07:37

me wrote:i think mods have too much power/moderate excessively. if this is everyone's forum who's on here, why should someone i never agreed should have any authority be able to ban me, change what i say, have secret forums, etc.
mods should be chosen by the entire community, and do little more than organization and whatnot.
all flaming should be contained in one sub-forum. how, you ask? any post, or part of a post that constitutes flaming should be moved by the mods to a single subforum leaving only pertinent helpful information where it belongs. just an idea. i think eventually it would lead to people not bothering to flame in the 'information' threads, but fill one subforum with pure flammage. any fights started in the 'information subforums' (equipt, shred symp, general, etc) would be completely moved to the flaming subforum where the argument could be continued at whatever level wanted and of course that forum would be properly labeled to protect newbs to the forum. if you dont want to go in that subforum because you do not like flaming, you wont ever have to see it. if you enjoy a good roast, i'll see you there.

because despite everyone's claims that 'just respecting everyone isnt that hard' there are some people on modified i cannot and will never respect in the least.

haha, me wrote. anyway.

i quote this because as the argument continues, i still think this is a good idea, in fact, i think we should test it out for a week/month in which the mods would have no power to edit what is said, all flaming is contained in one thread/subforum, etc. its all outlined up there, and i know it could be done. oh, and add that the secret mods forum be opened for the test period for all to view. the secret girls forum...i dont really care much about, but i know some people do, so for the sake of fairness it should either be abandoned for the test period or open to all. as in, mods power is removed and they are left basically as janitors, and users are allowed to say whatever they want in the appropriate area. if someone puts up a post that contains flaming, a mod should move it to the "flaming subforum" and either put it in a related thread (most flaming posts contain some actual connection to actual debates taking place) or begin a new topic with that as the first post. also recall the subforum would be segregated from the rest of the forum and heavily labeled as the flaming area, not for all ages, or whatever is deemed necessary to protect new or younger users (or just people that dont want to see it)

instead of just bitching about how screwed up things are, lets try something completely different. i agree with jeremy about the current mods in authority, i dont see how they are any more qualified to have that authority than i am, except my lack of wanting to be a mod, mostly because of the actual work involved. however there are perks of being a mod, with the ability to edit what other people say, and access to the secret forums, both of which besides the direct benefits also give a feeling of superiority, whether the mods involved are willing to admit that or not. which is why those perks should be removed. only people dedicated to the forum's smooth operation should be mods, and they would be, because no one else would want to be, once the obvious and sublime perks of the position are removed.

again, i suggest we do this as a trial, even if it fails miserably, or the mods complain about all the work (which would be nice, since then we would know the system is working for the users and not for the mods...), we can go back to the old system, and i think it would be good for all users to have the opportunity to see what is said about them and the forum by the mods in the secret forum, who are just ordinary users with privileges and minor responsibilities, especially in the area of making moral decisions for the community, which is wrong. i know its partly because the community wont speak up as a whole as to what is desired for regulations involving content, etc, but thats what im doing now, and i feel things would be even more freed up if this test is run.

lets try something different instead of just bickering with no real change! even if it doesnt work, it will be different. this is EVERYONE'S forum, you have the right to speak your mind and the right to decide how things are run. USE IT!

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 10 Jul 2007 21:28

There's some discussion re: real names in signatures here http://www.modified.in/footbag/viewtopic.php?t=2965

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 09 Dec 2007 17:57

The mods would like to add the following:

Posting pornographic material and/or links is unacceptable and mods will remove such material from posts or remove the entire thread if necessary - Users who post pornographic material/links will be banned for a minimum of 3 months.

Any comments?

Post by **Zac Miley** » 09 Dec 2007 18:15

Reasonable.

What if they reference to it? Like what if I say "Hey, have you seen 2 Girls 1 Cup?" or something.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Dec 2007 05:39

I'd like clarification on what constitutes pornographic material.

For example is a picture of a puppet showing off a fake breast with a nipple showing considered pornographic? For a long time pictures like that were acceptable, or at least links with a warning, and the policy seemed to change without any discussion (amongst the mods).

I think only clear explicit pornography should be banned, and anything that is unclear should be judged on its merits. Explicit pictures of naked people should not be banned, and you certainly shouldn't be banned for posting up an image like this one;

http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/ ... rodite.jpg

Some level of subjectivity and discretion is obviously needed. I would strongly oppose a censorship on all images or representations of human nakedness and I was definitely concerned when the moderation of this forum moved from being liberal and accepting of the human body, to being prudish and conservative. I hope things have changed, but I'd like to see clear guidelines.

I also don't understand why the policy of discussing changes with the forum before making them stopped. Surely the forum isn't "owned" by the moderators, but by the people who post on the forum, and the moderators shouldn't set the rules, but just enforce them. At least some discussion would seem more appropriate.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 10 Dec 2007 10:12

Jeremy wrote:I also don't understand why the policy of discussing changes with the forum before making them stopped... At least some discussion would seem more appropriate.

I think when Dyalan said this:

dyalander wrote:The mods would like to add the following:

...

Any comments?

he meant "The mods would like to add the following rule, any thoughts/comments on that?" which would be discussing changes before making them and opening the topic to discussion.

It seems like a good idea as long as someone would get a warning first when deserved. Like, "we reserve the right to ban anyone who..." instead of saying "we will ban anyone who..."

I don't think I need clarification of what pornographic material is, I just expect the mods to use their best judgement on what's harmful for the community.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 10 Dec 2007 22:08

Clearly we are asking for people to discuss this PROPOSED addition to the guidelines, and requesting feedback. Obviously we arent going to just add things to the guidelines without the membership deciding it is appropriate.

Also the word 'pornographic' is a fairly good qualifier for what material wont be acceptable. Obviously each incident will be judged on its merits because there are so many levels of what imagery might be considered pornographic and its is extremely problematic and questionable to ban all material featuring the naked human form. The moderation staff is entrusted with maintaining the forum for all users as best as possible and as such is required to make judgement calls on an incident to incident basis. Obviously they are not infallible but all efforts are made to provide as enjoyable and as fair discussion facility as possible.

I think having a rule against pornographic material is entirely justified and required (considering recent discussion especially).

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Dec 2007 12:26

Sure but in the past we would have asked an open question like; "What should the rules be regarding pornography" and then had discussion and made rules based on what people said, rather deciding what the rules are going to be, obviously having discussion about it privately, and then asking if people agree.

Anyway I put forward my comments, and Emily and Ian instead chose to comment on the one line at the bottom, rather than the entire text at the top.

I will repeat my thought;

There needs to be clear guidelines as to what is pornography and what is not. I don't think it's hard to come up with clear guidelines.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 11 Dec 2007 19:16

First off the reason we propose specific rules rather than just have an open discussion about what the rule should be is that, in my opinion, it helps ground discussion around something specific and practical. Otherwise discussion more easily becomes disordered and unproductive, and for example in this case we'd end up talking just about users' rights and the purpose of the forums and what is and isn't pronography. This way you have a specifc policy with specific actions to judge and improve.

Secondly I totally agree that

only clear explicit pornography should be banned, and anything that is unclear should be judged on its merits. Explicit pictures of naked people should not be banned

The mods certainly don't intend to deem all nudity pornographic.

I don't think it's hard to come up with clear guidelines.

I would love to hear any suggestions as to how such a distinction can be worded - it seems to me that no matter how you word it, in the end it will be left to the judgement of the mods - so for example if you say "exploitative nudity" how do you judge exploitation?

I also think that if the mods can't be trusted to make the distinction between acceptable nudity and unacceptable pornography then there are greater problems than how we word this. That said a large part of the point of these guidelines is to make the mods' work as clear and transparant as possible - so we should try to articulate that process as clearly as possible and if you can clarify what is pornographic in a guideline then that would be great.

Thirdly, I don't think that a warning is necessary for a breach of this guideline, but if more of you disagree then the mods would certainly consider a compromise.

Forthly, with regard to the question

What if they reference to it? Like what if I say "Hey, have you seen 2 Girls 1 Cup?" or something.

posting a written comment about some porn pic/vid you saw is certainly not the same as posting the material itself or a link to it - however if you simply tell people to search for a vid by a name with no warning I think its fair to expact the mods to take some action - I think inserting a relevant warning would be enough.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Dec 2007 04:43

I'm just thinking of the time when somebody was temporarily suspended from the forum for posting this image;

http://www.cbu.edu/~seisen/miss_piggy.jpg

Totally inappropriate response in my opinion, and I'd like to see wording that ensures people don't get banned for such gross over reactions again.

Something like;

"Any sexually explicit posts, including links, with little or no artistic merit or meaningful mature purpose is strictly prohibited and can result in a ban or suspension from the forum."

3 months seems excessive, and suspensions should be based on the seriousness of the offence, rather than some kind of mandatory sentence.

Also to quote myself;

Jeremy wrote:Some level of subjectivity and discretion is obviously needed.

To be clear, nudity is not sexually explicit. There needs to some actual sexual nature to an image or conversation for it to be removable.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 12 Dec 2007 08:43

In your opinion, Jeremy, is the Miss Piggy image sexually explicit nudity?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Dec 2007 03:30

No, and certainly not to the extent that somebody should ever be banned or suspended for posting it up.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 13 Dec 2007 04:52

I would tend to suggest that in the Miss Piggy example the nudity is sexualised or 'sexy' and is there for not entirely appropriate for an all-ages forum. Of course one would need to consider the context of its posting but on its own, im not sure it is appropriate.
I wouldnt think however that a ban would be necessary or justified, but again, context plays a role.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 13 Dec 2007 16:11

"Pornography - the explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity, to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."
According to the Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus 1991.
So already in the word pornography there is some sense of the distinction you wish to make.

Miss Piggy is widely considered a sex symbol, but I have to say that I am of the opinion that that image in and of itself is not ban worthy. But then why specifically - are we saying one breast is OK? a puppet breast is OK? what about a cartoon character is that the same as a puppet? In my opinion its more general than that - its not a specific quality that it lacks that other porn has, nor is it simply a matter of degree that can be easily described.

My problem is that

"little or no artistic merit or meaningful mature purpose"

is just as subjective as "pornographic", as I said its in the definiton i was going on. Even that definiton, like your wording doesn't fully and accurately discribe the judgement being made. Are David Hamilton's photos (some of them anyway) or films (e.g. Bilitis 1977) without artistic merit or meaningful mature purpose - I'd say no, they do in fact have these things, but that still doesn't mean they are appropriate for this forum - though strictly by the definitions we use, they aren't really pornography. I don't think your wording has really added anything to make the mod's judgements any more explicit than it already is in the word "pornography".

I also still don't think a 3 month minimum is too much and worse offences will get larger punishments while those that do not constitute a ban may still be worth a friendly warning. So in the Miss Piggy example the mods would discuss it and at most it would be deemed to be borderline (though I don't think its even that close), if a user complained about it, of course we would PM the poster and tell them that we won't force them to do anything as its not a breach but there are users who request that it be taken down.
But if the threshold of porn is clearly reached in the opinion of the mods, then at the very least a three month ban is appropriate.