So a new moderation policy was posted, and a new gang of moderators have been recruited.

This is an ill-conceived attempt to promote some serious and potentially useful discussion about where we would all like to see this go. Maybe we can get in a page or two before it all goes to heck in a wicker basket.

The points in the announcement are hard to argue against. No profanity, no personal attacks, nothing that would be inappropriate for a minor. If you look at this board as a tool for the Professional Disc Golf Association and it's members, there really is not argument against those goals. If you take the perspective of "the internet is supposed to be free, man" then maybe you can argue.

The internet ain't free.

The biggest problem I see coming right now, other than the totally predictable and "should be expected" backlash of intentionally over-the-top posting in protest of any change to the status quo, is the "complaint driven" moderation paradigm. I think moderators should be able to whack stuff that they don't think is appropriate. It looks like Steve is putting some good stuff in place to log the actions, so hopefully the moderator team can all look at each others actions and work towards a consitant policy.

So the problem I see coming is a bunch of morons who want to swear and post personal attacks will start sending complaints about threads that are fine in an attempt to overload the moderators and make them quit. I hope the moderators will consider issuing bans to users who try to abuse the process like that.

All in all, I wish the new team luck. The board needs to change, but the road is very difficult. New moderators: don't give up, be reasonable and open, and remember that some people just need to be banned.

i think we should re-introduce the idea that part of the DISCussion board should be members-only, part open to all (new people interested in the sport, injured or retired former players, etc.), and part should be uncensored. The uncensored part would obviously be "enter at your own risk" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

it couldn't be that hard to do -- if there was sufficient interest in it on the part of our leadership. it might make the parts that are moderated that much more 'appropriate' if there was an uncensored section for those so inclined...

The number one issue I have with this is that people's past will brought into account, which they should not be.

Look at the actions of Brad Hammock at worlds. One of the main reasons people attacked him was b/c of his past. If it as Kenny or Schweb involved, people might have been more inclined to say things like "well it was a little wet that day and that hill was kinda big, maybe he did slip into the rocks afterall."

The Cam Todd stuff from the Hambrick is another example. Perhaps if Schweb had been bothered by a spectator and done the same actions that Cam had done, the DG world would not have reacted the way it did.

I'm not condoning the actions of these golfers, however, I do hope that past behaivor had no bearing in the disciplinary process and those invovled in the decision only used facts from the current affair.

This same mentality should be used on the discussion board. Look at every post without seeing who posts it. If you deem it unexceptable, please file a complaint. However, don't read a post and then see who made it and let that allow you to decide wheter it should be viewed or not.

I hope this thread doesn't turn bad Rhett. I love the true discussions.

I think everyone is allowed a little leniency for minor transgressions, not just the best and brightest. Most people remember when that leniency was given.

I think it's kind of a jealousy thing. Everyone would like to forget where they are and let it all out when things aren't going well. Letting it all out goes to different levels for different people, but everyone would like to do it. People are upset when others do it, but usually let it slide as long as it doesn't happen too often. Once you abuse everyone's permissiveness, you will have to pay for your past transgressions too. Kind of like deffered adjudication, where a traffic ticket is waived as long as you don't get another one while on probabion. If you do violate probation, then both tickets go on your record.

So, I think that past activities should be taken into account just to get a frame of reference, but also think that past transgressions should go away after a couple of years.

So you are giving your little war to a new set of folks eh Ratt? Hope they are more competent than you were.

Not my war, and I didn't turn anything over to anyone. I stepped down in defeat a while ago.

The biggest problem I see coming right now ... is the "complaint driven" moderation paradigm. I think moderators should be able to whack stuff that they don't think is appropriate.



I couldn't agree with you more Rhett. And I am speaking officially as myself in this post. With the benefit of having two moderators, if either of them see anything they feel should be moderated, they bounce it off the other guy. This way it is not just one person making an action - which would tend to cause some relatively open hostility - it is one member lodging a complaint and a moderator deliberating the validity of the complaint.

So you are giving your little war to a new set of folks eh Ratt? Hope they are more competent than you were.



Look ma! Well wishers. :D

The Internet is for anyone to say *almost* anything. This is one site on the Internet, the proprietors have the right to set guidelines on content and use. If the privilege (not "right") is abused, the privilege can be revoked.

I second, or third or forty-seventh, the notion of one area wide open, one for members only, one for members with almost no limits.

The biggest problem I see coming right now ... is the "complaint driven" moderation paradigm. I think moderators should be able to whack stuff that they don't think is appropriate.



I couldn't agree with you more Rhett. And I am speaking officially as myself in this post. <font color="red"> With the benefit of having two moderators, if either of them see anything they feel should be moderated, they bounce it off the other guy. </font> This way it is not just one person making an action - which would tend to cause some relatively open hostility - it is one member lodging a complaint and a moderator deliberating the validity of the complaint.



Ummm how do you explain this then:


Thank you for changing it -- I doubt it will please the complainer, but you're merely stating a fact, and I'm okay with it now.
-bigs 10-24-06 1851 hours




Alan has already asked you kindly to remove this from your signature file and I am politely reiterating the request.

Regards,
Jeff LaGrassa, Moderator
10-24-06 2358 hours



Seems like this moderating consulting thing is running on all pistons as the two can't agree among themselves.

Seems like we're starting on a slippery slope. Personally, I find the bible quote sigs more offensive than Hawkgammon's "roll with Satan" sig. Yet I don't find the bible quote sigs anywhere near offensive enough to complain about with the goal of getting them dumped.

However, if the holy-rollers get Hawk's sig banned, I'm pretty sure all things Jesus posted on this message board will no longer be tolerable.

Hawk, you are right that the issues that Jeff and Alan are asked to decide on are not easy - and that sometimes there is no clear cut correct answer.

I am not offended by either. Saying that I am offended by a signature that professes Satan as God but allowing a signature quoting the bible would be hypocritical.

While I am 100% against all things that go against the Bible, worshiping the devil is a form of religion and banning such views would be unfair to those with that opinion and option to do so.

I stepped down in defeat a while ago.



:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Hawk, you are right that the issues that Jeff and Alan are asked to decide on are not easy - and that sometimes there is no clear cut correct answer.



That's great. I await the return of my Forgiven One vs. Me Thread.

While I don't peruse a lot of MBs, I do hit some others and none seem to have the issues this one has. Keep in mind we're talking car repair, home repair etc. Some of the political sites have similar flames but none seem to have the drive to prove you can say or do anything you want.

I've never quite understood the fascination, with sexual avitars and commentary that happens here, but I'm equally sure that others find my fascination with politcal topics equally unfathomable.

The plain and simple fact is that some portion of the DG community lives a good portion of their social life on this site. And as with all people they bring all thei social mores with them to the place they hang out. Normally, I would prefer that the site be cleaned up because I like to send new golfers and hopefully some day my kids to this site. I'm starting to think differently. If having an on-line social setting for disc golfers is part of growing the sport, maybe we should make a social section? Set it up for over 18 and make the rules limited at best. Make it available for members only, and ask parents who take out memberships for their children to check no on access to that area.

That way those who want DG topics can find them in the open section and those who want Misc. topics can go to the social section.

Seems like we're starting on a slippery slope. Personally, I find the bible quote sigs more offensive than Hawkgammon's "roll with Satan" sig. Yet I don't find the bible quote sigs anywhere near offensive enough to complain about with the goal of getting them dumped.

However, if the holy-rollers get Hawk's sig banned, I'm pretty sure all things Jesus posted on this message board will no longer be tolerable.



Hear Hear!

i have seen a similar problem on the vtx motorcycle board i go to sometimes. they have a member's only off-topic area where questionable threads can live their lives out and only be seen by members who agree to abide by the "enter at your own risk" guidleine. it has also worked on the md-discgolf board. once i made the babble thread member only and uncensored, a bunch of people pushed the limits there and then it all died down. now our main board is good for public consumption, while the members have an area to do with as they please. with a warning label!

I sure am glad that i am not renewing my membership with the PDGA that way i don't have to worry about all this #$*&$! about #$*&$! censorship. :D:D:D

Not my war, and I didn't turn anything over to anyone. I stepped down in defeat a while ago.




QUITTER!!! :eek:

i can't believe you let nick drive you out of the censorship business :p

Moderation and censorship is lame! Just my 2 cents. Why would you give someone a tool, such as the discussion board to use for discussion and open communication, then remove or censor what might be posted in it. It would seem to me that moderation and censorship actually flies in the face of open communication. If someone happens to be offended by a post or a signature file referencing Satan or God, well in the words of Dr. Evil (from Austin Powers) "Booo frickidy whoo!"

Richard

p.s. I had to reread my post to make sure it meet the criteria. I didn't attack anyone, but I did attack ideas. I didn't swear. A minor could read it. However, the whole post could be offensive to someone. I hope I don't get that email and put on probation.

it has also worked on the md-discgolf board. once i made the babble thread member only and uncensored, a bunch of people pushed the limits there and then it all died down. now our main board is good for public consumption, while the members have an area to do with as they please. with a warning label!



In the name of truth in advertising the marylandnomads.com bored exists as Rich has chased me off his bored twice. The first time I got annoyed with his censoring and came here. He finally suckered/nagged me back after a three year hiatus as he wanted the celebrity factor for his bored, but that experiment ended after less than a month, in a members only viewing area after the second call from him to me asking me to take it easy on someone. Now my PDGA affiliated club has it's own message bored.

Believe me, I'm totally against censorship. Except for SELF-censorship. There are some things that just don't belong in some places. And, people need to be a little less selfish and self-rightous about those inappropriate places.

That being said, this really isn't a public place. It belongs to the PDGA. By all rights, anything that ISN'T directly DG related could be cut off the site, if they so desired. Fortunately, the powers that are haven't taken that tack, and it appears they won't.

Again, the Internet is a public place (that's what Al Gore boostered, making the old Arpanet into the Internet...when he said he created the Internet, that certainly was a little over the top of reality), but sites on the Internet are not necessarily public. Big difference.

Why would you give someone a tool, such as the discussion board to use for discussion and open communication, then remove or censor what might be posted in it.



First and foremost, this is not a tool for open communication. One click on the rules (of the message board) link above will show that "This PDGA-sponsored board does not guarantee freedom of speech.".

The Rules do state "This forum is provided by the PDGA for the use and enjoyment of disc golfers." but implies that complaints will be honored above freedom of speech by stating "If you have complaints about any content on the board, please use the feedback form and let us know".

Why would you give someone a tool, such as the discussion board to use for discussion and open communication, then remove or censor what might be posted in it.



First and foremost, this is not a tool for open communication. One click on the rules (of the message board) link above will show that "This PDGA-sponsored board does not guarantee freedom of speech.".

The Rules do state "This forum is provided by the PDGA for the use and enjoyment of disc golfers." but implies that complaints will be honored above freedom of speech by stating "If you have complaints about any content on the board, please use the feedback form and let us know".



Please note I did not say a tool to promote "FREE SPEECH", I believe I said a tool to promote "OPEN COMMUNICATION". The two are not the same. If the board doesn't allow "OPEN COMMUNICATION" there is really no point of the board. In order to discuss disc golf in a forum such as this, "OPEN COMMUNICATION" is essential. I believe it is possible to follow the rules of the board and have "OPEN COMMUNICATION"!

Lets look at one of the rules as outlined above in the rules section;

"This PDGA-sponsored board does not guarantee freedom of speech. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors."

Based on that rule, who is dictating what is profane? Is it a few moderators plus one person complaining, or is it the disc golf community as a whole. What one person considers profane, inflamatory or offensive, the majority of the disc golf community may find it perfectly acceptable.

That might have been 20 cents worth.

Richard

Brian #$*&$! is leading the Chrysler Championship. i swear!

Most of the words that are censored would get my kids mouth washed out with soap.

can't we just build an accessible area of the board that is pdga number (which has a query link to age) verifiable. this way youngsters cannot gain access and those who do not want access can remain outside.