jasonc
Mar 07 2007, 08:43 PM
With all of the moderation that has been going on here lately I just wanted to pose a question to the moderators and the members. And I am not trying to impose my views on anyone, nor am I trying to question anyone's beliefs or start a religious debate.
Just like any other "community" we have a very large sampling of beliefs. I'm quite positive that our membership includes Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, those of the Jewish faith and so on. Many of these religions find the views of the others offensive and they do not care to see them in a post or a signature on this board.
My question is: Is this something the PDGA is willing to moderate on this MB?? . If someone can say an avatar or an off hand comment on this board is offensive, why couldn't they say that a quote from the bible is also and what would be the difference in the two?? If I complain about a post because my beliefs don't agree with someone else's and it offends me do they get warned or suspended??
I'm really just curious at this point. How far does the PDGA go on this MB to make sure people are not offended. Some people find a girl in a bikini offensive, others language and comments or political views. I guess I'm just trying to find out where the line can be drawn since we are all offended by different things.
MTL21676
Mar 07 2007, 09:14 PM
Very good point...
Before I post this, let me say that I am a christian.
I always found it ironic when I was in high school that shirts with devil references or for satanic bands were not allowed, however, someone could wear a shirt with a christian message all day.
Bottom line is that comments of Christian / traditional religion are more accepted than equal comments of a satanic nature.
However, for this message boards sake, I have seen both Christian and Satanic threads and have never had a problem with either.
krazyeye
Mar 07 2007, 10:46 PM
I am a Christian as well. I am pretty tolerant of most things on the board. I feel that it is up to me what is offensive and I will choose not to view or allow my family to view. I will give my opinion if someone posts something objectionable. And for the most part I try not offend people except Mike Smith.
jasonc
Mar 07 2007, 10:48 PM
Maybe the specific example of religion may be the wrong way to go. I don't mind Christian views, Muslim views etc, I'm just trying to figure out what the MODS are considering offensive. If it's just something that they recieve a complaint about then it could be almost anything. Different people are offended by different things and if the policy here is what it seems to be it could be easily abused if someone had the desire to do so.
The largest concern that I've seen lately has been avatars (and yes I was almost suspended for my old one). The one I had was a female in a bikini getting out of a pool. Was that considered offensive because it was animated? One of the MODS actually stated (in referance to Hawkgammon's avatar which happened to be a girl in a bikini) that it was "nothing more than you would see on a public beach". That just confuses me as to where the line is.
If you're worried about people getting offended on this board then censor everything. Don't allow religious views, political views, sig lines with links to companies, promotion of E-Bay auctions, links to porn sites, they could all be considered offensive to someone.
BTW.........I didn't start this thread just because I had to remove my avatar, but she will be missed. I am genuinely curious as to how the PC moderation process will work.
This is a very good question. The current MB rules are:
1. Profanity
2. Personal attacks
3. Materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a minor
4. Physical threats against other members (obvious or veiled) will not be tolerated.
5. Allowing others to post under your account name
6. Materials deemed offensive by a member will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The next part of the rules says, "While these are subjective, each deleted post, deleted thread and suspended user will be logged with the infraction and the punishment.
Over time, these guidelines will become more understood and codified."
We are not using a least common denominator approach (if one person is offended a post should be removed). We are also trying to allow for different points of view being presented in a legitimate, unhurtful manner. If someone states that they are offended by a post, we try to use common sense to determine the reason for the post and the reason for the wording.
I know that there have been instances where the moderator believes that a post may be offensive but that the poster did not intend any offense. In these cases, the moderator may - at their discretion - simply edit the post and tell the poster the reason for the edit and to be a bit more careful in the future.
As with any set of subjective rules (eg, the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court), the lines will change over time based on our societies views and tolerances and the people doing the moderating. The real goal for me is that we set a precedent and that we be as consistent as possible in all cases.
Steven Dodge
PDGA Communications Director
PS. I have discussed possible adjustments to the rules with many members - and the rules have changed some. Please keep the comments and suggestions coming, they will help to make this board stronger for all that want to participate.
Moderator005
Mar 08 2007, 10:19 AM
Jason,
In regards to your question about religious beliefs, I can provide one example from a few months ago. We had a devout Christian report several posts and threads as offensive. Someone had started a poll about Jesus Christ vs. The Anti-Christ and message board users would indicate who is their "Big Mack Daddy?" - Satan or Jesus. Though the intent was clearly humor, enough message board users responded with Satan that the Devout Christian actually decided to leave the PDGA because of it, prefering to not be associated with a group of "Devil worshipers." Though we were sad to see him go, we had to use some common sense with regards to what is offensive by society's standards.
With regards to images in avatars, we had to draw a line somewhere on the content. Nudity is certainly prohibited. Something that isn't technically 'nudity' but very close to it, such as a shot from behind of a woman wearing a g-string, will also likely cross the line. But a woman in a bathing suit is probably going to be okay.
However, I think I speak for the others on the moderation team that we'd prefer if message board users choose against possibly controversial or offensive avatars. There are certainly many other message boards where such are allowed, and paraphrasing Communications Director Steve Dodge: we feel that a measure of decorum is needed here. Please bear in mind that we have to be sensible here. It is not just a question of "she's not showing anything". There is also the issue of intent. Some images just may not be appropriate for minors and not appropriate as an avatar for a disc golf discussion board.
dave_marchant
Mar 08 2007, 10:56 AM
The thing about offensive avatars that I really like is that the poster is basically saying to me, "Hey, look at me! I need some attention and a little love. I am trying to push the line as far as I can to try to get a little attention since I do not get any in real life."
It lets me know why the person is here and to take them with a grain of salt (or truckload in some cases). Their posts benefit me in making sure my humor quotient is met for the day. :D
Lyle O Ross
Mar 08 2007, 12:12 PM
The thing about offensive avatars that I really like is that the poster is basically saying to me, "Hey, look at me! I need some attention and a little love. I am trying to push the line as far as I can to try to get a little attention since I do not get any in real life."
It lets me know why the person is here and to take them with a grain of salt (or truckload in some cases). Their posts benefit me in making sure my humor quotient is met for the day. :D
ding ding ding! We have a winner!
oklaoutlaw
Mar 08 2007, 12:37 PM
This is a very good question. The current MB rules are:
1. Profanity
2. Personal attacks
3. Materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a minor
4. Physical threats against other members (obvious or veiled) will not be tolerated.
5. Allowing others to post under your account name
6. Materials deemed offensive by a member will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The next part of the rules says, "While these are subjective, each deleted post, deleted thread and suspended user will be logged with the infraction and the punishment.
Over time, these guidelines will become more understood and codified."
We are not using a least common denominator approach (if one person is offended a post should be removed). We are also trying to allow for different points of view being presented in a legitimate, unhurtful manner. If someone states that they are offended by a post, we try to use common sense to determine the reason for the post and the reason for the wording.
I know that there have been instances where the moderator believes that a post may be offensive but that the poster did not intend any offense. In these cases, the moderator may - at their discretion - simply edit the post and tell the poster the reason for the edit and to be a bit more careful in the future.
As with any set of subjective rules (eg, the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court), the lines will change over time based on our societies views and tolerances and the people doing the moderating. The real goal for me is that we set a precedent and that we be as consistent as possible in all cases.
Steven Dodge
PDGA Communications Director
PS. I have discussed possible adjustments to the rules with many members - and the rules have changed some. Please keep the comments and suggestions coming, they will help to make this board stronger for all that want to participate.
While we are on this subject, I thought it might be a good time to ask this, If the PDGA as a Board and Body are trying to enhance the public awareness of Disc Golf, why would you allow anything that was not suited to provide a super positive image on a message board that any one anywhere can view?
I for one, and this is just my opinion, would not want any sponsor to start reading this message board, the image here is very negative and argumentative for the most part and does not promote an image pleasing to the public.
So I am just asking, would you not want to be able to block the public viewing ability from all but a few threads if the goal is to provide a positive image and expand this sport to the general public?
I am not suggesting heavier moderation, but I am suggesting heavier moderation of public viewing capabilities. I have been a PDGA member since 1982 and in regards to the image disc golfers have to the public for the most part is not that good. The largest and most consistent complaint I have heard over the years from someone outside the sport are related to the public drug use and language on the course that parents do not want their kids associated with.
I am just interested in how the board feels about these issues when all you have to do is view the message board and there it is, threads about weed, satan, etc... open for all the world to see.
Is this the image we want to continue to portray to the world about Disc Golf? If so, you can forget big sponsors coming our way anytime in the near future if they view the message board.
Please keep in mind this is just my opinion.
terrycalhoun
Mar 08 2007, 01:02 PM
Bravo! What he said.
dave_marchant
Mar 08 2007, 01:08 PM
I understand the points you are making and agree with them at some level. I think a lot of the BoD agree to. There have been threats of taking the board offline (or private) for the reasons you mention.
My opinion is that the DISCussion Board is a valued community to quite a few folks - a small percentage of total membership, but still a significant number. Over-moderating/censoring has a killing effect on "community". "Community" needs a certain amount of freedom for it to thrive. By the same token, making things viewable only by members will take a lot of moderation of the public areas....thereby taking away a lot of the freedom.....thereby killing any real and useful dialog in those public areas.
What we have here is real people dialoguing as real people do. There is a lot of good stuff, a lot of humor, a lot of discussion that sometimes turns into arguing, etc... Who really wants an antiseptic/vanilla place to visit?? Might as well just publish a nice list of FAQ's.
My opinion is that if the PDGA made major changes like you are proposing/alluding to, it would smack of heavy-handedness. For one, I do not think the PDGA has a big enough monopoly yet to risk that. For another, that goes against the culture of DG in general.
Talking about culture, DG's culture might just be its strongest draw to participants and advertisers alike. It is a real game, real accessible to real people, that is real inclusive, and real laid back. Maybe, instead of worrying about what the squeaky-clean companies think of us, we should target companies that have an attitude of "real products for real people".
I have 3 young kids (3-7 yrs) and am wrestling with how to parent them in environments that have unhealthy elements. I can tell you this: DG comes nowhere close to live professional sporting events as far as unhealthy atmospheres for kids go! (And all the big names sponsor those events).
my_hero
Mar 08 2007, 01:33 PM
With regards to images in avatars, we had to draw a line somewhere on the content. Nudity is certainly prohibited. Something that isn't technically 'nudity' but very close to it, such as a shot from behind of a woman wearing a g-string, will also likely cross the line. But a woman in a bathing suit is probably going to be okay.
However, I think I speak for the others on the moderation team that we'd prefer if message board users choose against possibly controversial or offensive avatars. There are certainly many other message boards where such are allowed, and paraphrasing Communications Director Steve Dodge: we feel that a measure of decorum is needed here. Please bear in mind that we have to be sensible here. It is not just a question of "she's not showing anything". There is also the issue of intent. Some images just may not be appropriate for minors and not appropriate as an avatar for a disc golf discussion board.
It is my understanding that the bold text is saying...Jason you may use the animated pic of G getting out of the pool as your avatar again. You better ask first though. :D
Lyle O Ross
Mar 08 2007, 01:34 PM
I understand the points you are making and agree with them at some level. I think a lot of the BoD agree to. There have been threats of taking the board offline (or private) for the reasons you mention.
My opinion is that the DISCussion Board is a valued community to quite a few folks - a small percentage of total membership, but still a significant number. Over-moderating/censoring has a killing effect on "community". "Community" needs a certain amount of freedom for it to thrive. By the same token, making things viewable only by members will take a lot of moderation of the public areas....thereby taking away a lot of the freedom.....thereby killing any real and useful dialog in those public areas.
What we have here is real people dialoguing as real people do. There is a lot of good stuff, a lot of humor, a lot of discussion that sometimes turns into arguing, etc... Who really wants an antiseptic/vanilla place to visit?? Might as well just publish a nice list of FAQ's.
My opinion is that if the PDGA made major changes like you are proposing/alluding to, it would smack of heavy-handedness. For one, I do not think the PDGA has a big enough monopoly yet to risk that. For another, that goes against the culture of DG in general.
Talking about culture, DG's culture might just be its strongest draw to participants and advertisers alike. It is a real game, real accessible to real people, that is real inclusive, and real laid back. Maybe, instead of worrying about what the squeaky-clean companies think of us, we should target companies that have an attitude of "real products for real people".
I have 3 young kids (3-7 yrs) and am wrestling with how to parent them in environments that have unhealthy elements. I can tell you this: DG comes nowhere close to live professional sporting events as far as unhealthy atmospheres for kids go! (And all the big names sponsor those events).
I think MP3 makes some very valid points here. Chosing between a controlled image and a valued resource is a tough choice. I sometimes wonder if we don't spend too much time worrying about our image and how it is portrayed.
The reality is that sponsors are going to care more about impact than this MB. They only cut sponsorship when there is risk of a lot of image damge for their brand. That is, innova wouldn't care but microtel might. But there is also the issue of newbies and children that MP3 mentioned.
In my perfect world there would be two MBs linked. One heavily monitored and the other a free for all with an enter at your own risk warning and parental controls. That way legitimate topics can be covered in one area and Morgan post pics of nude protesters in the other. BTW - the protected area would be members only and login protected.
rhett
Mar 08 2007, 02:42 PM
In my perfect world there would be two MBs linked. One heavily monitored and the other a free for all with an enter at your own risk warning and parental controls. That way legitimate topics can be covered in one area and Morgan post pics of nude protesters in the other. BTW - the protected area would be members only and login protected.
I think this can be done with one message board with what we have now. There are already hidden topic areas that non-moderators can't see, so it should be fairly trivial to mark all topic areas except maybe the top one as "visible to group PDGA_MEMBER only" and thereby hide all the other areas. It might a bit more of a task to make all accounts members of that group, but there should be some way to do it. Then there could be heavy moderation of the PDGA Tournaments and PDGA Rules and Other PDGA Topics threads such that promoters would feel more confident in sending potential sponsors to PDGA dot com.
If we were going to do all that, I would further suggest adding "Sane Disc Golf Discussion" and "Anything Goes - Enter at Your Own Risk" areas under the "members only view" areas, as we do have members who are minors or only minor trouble makers who might want to express displeasure with the status quo without necessarily wanting to be exposed to eff-bombs and naked jiggly parts. Access the naked jiggly anything goes area would be given upon request and restricted by default.
I think all this stuff is very accomplishable with the current tools, but needs to have some big-thoughts thunk about it by the moderation team and formed into a reasonable plan for a smooth implementation. The current moderation team seems quite good and I believe fully capable of handling such a thing. :)
gnduke
Mar 08 2007, 02:54 PM
I think that there are enough outlets that offer anything goes conversations that there is no real need for one here. An any topic area with anything loosely related to disc golf or disc golfers, but still require some semblance of civility within it.
oklaoutlaw
Mar 08 2007, 03:27 PM
MP,
I am not thinking that we need to do away with the message board as it is. It is just my thoughts that we should have a heavily moderated family content, highly positive area that is viewable by the public and all other areas are members only that allow the same as is going on now. Basically just filter what the non-member viewing public has access to view. You know, kind of like a public propaganda area that shows how great disc golf is and how great disc golfers are.
terrycalhoun
Mar 08 2007, 03:45 PM
I think that any part of DISCussion that is publicly viewable ought to be moderated to the same level of courteous discourse as we expect during sanctioned competition.
sandalman
Mar 08 2007, 03:56 PM
the discussion board is already far above that. you should hear some of the stuff that gets uttered on the course in sanctioned. the likelihood of a warning/ban on the DB is far greater than the likelihood of a warning/stroke on the course.
james_mccaine
Mar 08 2007, 03:59 PM
I think y'all worry too much. You seem to equate disagreement with discourtesy.
chainmeister
Mar 08 2007, 04:08 PM
Ultimately, the organization, PDGA, will have to decide what it wants with the message board. With any group of interested people (whether disc golf, computers, games, rock bands political, whatever) there is going to be some zippy conversation. Up close, its tacky and ugly. People say and write stupid things. However, from afar, I think it advances the interest of the group. I strongly believe that public discourse eventually leads to good things even if the indivicual speakers look like fools. Most message boards are mostly civil with a few heated topics and a few avatars that indeed say, "look at me."
If PDGA wants a forum, the current model is pretty good. It is moderated and guidelines, posted above, must be followed. However, its the internet and its a bit open and its not family friendly. Stuff happens as they say.
If PDGA wants a propaganda tool it can change the way the board is used and it will serve as an announcement and contratulations board. Another option is to (as mentioned before) have an open board that is mostly announcements etc and a Members Only board that can be like the current one or, if you dare, even more like the wild west of public discourse.
I think that most people who happen upon the PDGA site and find the messsage board will see a board that is pretty typical of internet communication. If and when real money ever comes closer to disc golf things might change. They would change without any sanction from PDGA. Players who want sponsorship would behave accordingly. Club presidents and Tournament Directors who are looking for local sponsors will behave like adults. Zealots who just need to shoot their [opinions,] will be treated accordingly.
terrycalhoun
Mar 08 2007, 04:25 PM
I think y'all worry too much. You seem to equate disagreement with discourtesy.
I love disagreement. I constantly seek ways to learn something new that changes my opinion or perspective on something. A lot of what gets posted here as "disagreement" is counterproductive to that. If you knew me in real life you would know me as the one person you know who admits he was wrong more than anyone else, and who more than anyone else you know loves to learn a new perspective or opinion.
If DISCussion were full of disagreements conducted with courtesy, by people who are seeking to learn from others, I would love it. I think more people would use it, too. Unfortunately, the users who use it to pile abuse on others, for whatever reason, ruin it for us all.
Name-calling, for example, is counterproductive and is a discourtesy, as is making up a "fact"; using ad hominem language to try to minimalize the arguments of someone who disagrees; and rephrasing someone's argument in a misleading way. If I see those things, or other similar things, happening in a thread with a topic I care about, I will do my best to shine a light on it.
sandalman
Mar 08 2007, 04:27 PM
you are a lawyer?
terrycalhoun
Mar 08 2007, 04:31 PM
A long time ago I went to Michigan law school and then worked in Detroit at a great law firm helping to sue doctors and drug companies. Quit to stay home with my kids when my wife got pregnant, a master's degree, and a great job offer all at the same time. Wise decision. I'm sure that if I had stayed with the law I'd either be dead or in jail by now. I don't know how Bruce does it and stays sane. Wait a minute . . . ?
With some folks wanting more moderation ans some wanting less, it seems like we've struck a good balance.
idahojon
Mar 08 2007, 04:42 PM
Actually, Pat....he is.
terrycalhoun
Mar 08 2007, 04:45 PM
With some folks wanting more moderation ans some wanting less, it seems like we've struck a good balance.
Or, it could be said that we have a parallel here to a March 2007 news show that presents a "balanced" perspective on global warming that gives equal time to both the scientific consensus and the Exxon board of directors' perspective.
Not to mention that we do not see here the opinions of those afraid to post for fear they will be ridiculed, or those who've given up and no longer come here because of the nastiness they experienced when they did.
I have never received any moneys from Exxon (or any other oil companies). Once a year, I do get a check from Discover Card. But I swear, they have never asked to influence any of the board rules.
Lyle O Ross
Mar 09 2007, 12:02 PM
I have never received any moneys from Exxon (or any other oil companies). Once a year, I do get a check from Discover Card. But I swear, they have never asked to influence any of the board rules.
That's not what I hear, I hear Discover is angling for one of the coveted banner slots!
MrTasses
Mar 10 2007, 07:10 PM
When I used to be a moderator for a BBS way back in the day, I viewed it like this. There are always people that want to make trouble, the modern equivalent of the bar brawler. They are trying to win the word fight. The only way they win is when they get a rise out of somebody else. The Jesus vs Satan thread was both a joke and a troll. The original poster "won" because he got someone so angry that they left the community. No amount of moderating will ever prevent trolling. Just like there are always going to be bar fights between alpha-types. I find those threads interesting to read because it tells me so much about the people writing them.
I personally think that Steve and the forum crew are doing a good and largely thank-less job. They have their rules and they seem to be sticking to them.
AviarX
Mar 11 2007, 12:04 PM
If you knew me in real life you would know me as the one person you know who admits he was wrong more than anyone else, and who more than anyone else you know loves to learn a new perspective or opinion.
^ quite a claim there Terry ^ -- one that doesn't read like it was written by a lawyer ;)
Fats
Mar 11 2007, 09:11 PM
I'm offended by my own avatar. Is that bad?
rhett
Mar 12 2007, 12:24 AM
I'm offended by my own avatar. Is that bad?
Report it to the mods if you don't like it. :)
Luke Butch
Mar 15 2007, 03:41 AM
I'm offended by my own avatar. Is that bad?
have you stated to think what style will top that?
you only have 5 months left!
Fats
Mar 15 2007, 11:38 AM
I've been growing my hair back since February just in case I play! (And I can ALWAYS of think of ways to make myself unattractive, don't you worry...)
Moderator005
Apr 11 2007, 10:42 AM
Message board users should note that the PDGA Discussion Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=0) have been updated. The following are not allowed:
1. Profanity.
2. Personal attacks and physical threats against other members (obvious or veiled).
3. Materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a minor and/or are offensive.
4. Allowing others to post under your account name.
5. Discussion about the solicitation, distribution or manufacture of illegal drugs.
6. Causing harm to the message board is not allowed, including but not limited to insertion of large files, malicious code or abuse of the Notify Moderator button.
Please note the final item. We had an instance last week where a user posted large picture files which disrupted the performance of the message board. We also have had several instances where the 'Notify Moderator' button was abused with excessive use or friends joking around and reporting each other. The moderators cannot be repsonsible to try and determine if someone has hit the 'Notify Moderator' button just to mess with someone and/or the moderation system, so therefore, these reports must be viewed as valid.
mbohn
Apr 13 2007, 03:48 PM
I myself think it would be smart for us to limit the content posted by members to something that the whole family can read. Then there would be no need to stop the public from seeing anything...
I have been more offended by the lack of discretion in the posts I read than anything else. I am not against free speech, but I think we should use discretion and ethics when discussing issues, and that people should be posting with the idea that we have members that are minors.
Some members seem have what I have called an "anything goes attitude". It seems that they don't realize that impressionable minds could end up reading things on this board. I myself would not let my son read this board due to the nature of many of the topics and content. I think it is sad that an organization that claims to be open to all ages, does not regulate something as accessible as this MB. It's feels like taking your ten year old into a bar.... My son is a paid member, but as a parent, I don't feel comfortable letting read this MB....
Moderator005
Apr 13 2007, 04:18 PM
We are trying our best to allow people to be free to be themselves while ensuring that young impressionable minds are protected.
One thing parents might want to know and consider is a new feature of the message board where a user can be designated as an 'underage member.' It's an option built into the UBB.threads� 6.5.5 message board software and the age can be defined by whatever organization is using the UBB.threads� software.
Underage members cannot send or receive Private Messages. One other thing I saw was that when 'underage member' is selected, the information in the profile (Homepage, Occupation, Hobbies, Location, Bio, etc.) is not displayed.
By not displaying this information and by not allowing private messaging, I think this is a mechanism to protect young message board users against internet predators.
discette
Apr 13 2007, 06:57 PM
Other than using ignore, what mechanisms are there to protect US from young message board users?