Over the past year I have noticed an increasingly worrisome trend. In the name of civility, we have clamped down on open discussion on this site. Take for example, the recent thread started by Terry Calhoun on lying. It is my belief that Terry was making a point; that you can say what you want as long as you do it subtly, and no one can call you on that.

Personally, if someone does something scummy, no matter how politely, I like having the option of saying so. Perhaps as members, we need to rethink the MB policies and perhaps decide to change them so that we can be better informed. Obviously, that might mean going to the Board en mass and telling them so.

I realize that if we change the rules to a more open format that we will:

a) Have to but up with some member's swearing and diatribes

b) Have to tolerate a higher percentage of sexual commentary

On the other hand, we will be able to call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they will. Please comment on this and consider the fall out of such a change.

I understand your point Lyle.

However, as moderators, it's not our place to determine truth and lies.

We have no way of actually proving whether a comment is full forced lie or the complete opposite.

Lyle,

I don't equate a more open format with more profanity and sexual innuendos (sp).

In fact, I would say we have a pretty open format now, since all messages are posted after submittal, instead of being queued up for a moderater to release. Even though we have moderators, this MB is not what I think of as a moderated board because of immediate posting.


Personally, if someone does something scummy, no matter how politely, I like having the option of saying so.



We have that option now, since the truth is always a perfect defense against libel/slander.

We have that option now, since the truth is always a perfect defense against libel/slander.



I wish that were true, Bill, and if you can afford a lawyer, it may be, in court.

However, as we've seen a number times ("swift boat veterans" "WMD's" "the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq" - I'm avoiding examples from DISCussion), a lie or any innuendo, repeated often enough, can become a "social or political truth" despite being a lie.

I think I made a comment regarding the issue of content on the MB before. I believe I reminded members that this is a public forum, and that the PDGA has hundreds of children that are members.

When my son was younger and the MB was less moderated, I didn't want him reading some of the CRUD posted here. I may be preaching, but I personally would appreciate moderation form the members who post here simply because there are children who are members who could be reading here.

When I said this last time someone quickly pointed out that it's up to the parents to monitor what their kids read etc. and that if they were exposed to the CRUD, then we only have ourself to blame.

Well, that doesn't seem like a very good position to take, if you belong to an organization comprised of mainly men, that claims to be for women and families too. This is not too hard to comprehend if you ask me. If you want the PDGA MB board to be some place where you can say whatever without any concern for our minor aged members, then we better make it clear that children will be subject to adult content. I personally don't think that is the best way to present our organization.

To me if you are going to be fair, then this MB needs moderation and restraint form the adults members who post here.

like age being the primary determinant of skill, based on an analysis with only age and skill as the quantifiable inputs?

Not sure what you mean, but I do believe as adults (past 18 yrs old) we have an obligation to behave/write in a manner that is appropriate for a child when they are in our presence. A child may post comments on this board that are not appropriate, but that is something that a parent can handle as well as the moderator. But if we conduct ourselves with moderation and restraint, that is the example that the children who visit here will see. It is up to adults to set the example...

He was just calling me a liar again, Senior, and your post got in between :D

He was just calling me a liar again, Senior, and your post got in between :D

i was not calling you a liar terry. attacks like these are not funny at all, regardless of the smiley, and serve no constructive purpose.

I think adults can discuss things openly without engaging in profanity, personal attacks, personal threats, links to R-rated stuff, and sabotage of the message board. I don't mind at all if those things are excluded from this forum.

It is impossible to enforce those things in a way that will appear uniform and consistent to everyone. I would like to thank the message board monitors for volunteering for this thankless task.

I would also like to thank the IT guys for my personal chip upgrade. It is working fine today. No headaches or facial twitches.

O.k., well, some adults.

Maybe they should add, "Intentional button pushing," to the list! :D

I think adults can discuss things openly without engaging in profanity, personal attacks, personal threats, links to R-rated stuff, and sabotage of the message board. I don't mind at all if those things are excluded from this forum.




For those that can't seem to do this, please take a second to read the "new discussion for par - pro worlds example" thread in the rules.

Myself and Chuck have been disagreeing and going back and forth for almost a week about par and his thoughts on par for worlds.

Not one time did we ever resort to any personal attacks or anything childish. We simply have been disagreeing with each other and providing reasons why we feel the way we do.

It is possible to prove a point without turning into a 10 year old.

But we know I'm right and we're just letting MTL get practice arguing on the D-Board without using personal attacks... :D

But we know I'm right and we're just letting MTL get practice arguing on the D-Board without using personal attacks... :D




haha....a lot is said about me on here and for the record...

I've never been even put on probation on the board....

I didn't say you had. But now that you're a Moderator, more practice isn't a bad thing since you'll be pressed to sort out the attacks from cleverness.

This is true!

Holy crap, did we just agree on something?!?

Someone call the news.

He was just calling me a liar again, Senior, and your post got in between :D

i was not calling you a liar terry. attacks like these are not funny at all, regardless of the smiley, and serve no constructive purpose.


Sigh. It was a defense, not an attack, PDGA board member Pat Brenner. I suppose this situation will be getting even worse now that Karl Rove (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/13/open-thread-561/) is heading back to Texas to assist you. :D

what situation?

Herein lies the problem, one simply has to go to Terry's liars thread and do a perusal of the posts to get a feel for the issue, beyond the he said, she said problem, it is simply a case of subjectivity. Terry points out there, that we already have a case where the moderators don't want to judge on the issue of lying. They don't feel qualified. You end up with a situation where the following can occur: Well, Mr. A obviously broke the rules IOO. However, in the case of Mr. B we can't judge because we don't feel qualified. Of course, it just so happens that the moderators agree with Mr. B and not Mr. A.

Don't get me wrong, I think the job of moderator is tough and I think they strive for equality. I'd be willing to bet real cash they are neither fair nor equal. Beyond what I know from personal experience, I know what the psychologists tell us. Even with clear rules, in a case where any subjectivity is involved, you will have some unfair decisions.

Lets go to real life for an example. Anyone hear of Jena Louisiana? Do a google, it's appalling. Small town where some white students put nooses in a tree to scare off black students from "their" hang out area [awful pun intended]. Take this in the context of our supposedly racist free society. What is even more amazing is that interviews with almost all the local whites shows that they clearly believe there is no problem. To an outsider there obviously is.

Lets bring this home. I do not think that either the PDGA Board, nor the moderators, as fair as they might try and be, can truly be fair. Each group has their own perceptions about what the MB should be and how it should be run. I have come to the conclusion that the MB should be an accurate reflection of what we are, a mixed bag of people, some nice, some not so.

It is not our job to be a perfect, and false, representation of the sport. Instead, this forum should be a place where we can hash out issues openly. If we've been lied to we should be able to say so. If we want to call another member a misleading scumbag, we should be able to. Those who don't like it don't have to come here.

Part of my change in my position here is because what I see in general. We are quickly loosing our ability to point out problems with some of the things being done in our organization. If you step out of the main stream you are shouted down, and as a consequence we are loosing some important dissenting views. I admit, some presenting other sides are crass, but crassness has never precluded being correct. I think it is time to invite those voices back in and meet them with rational commentary. If it is too much we don't have to pay attention or comment back to those posters.

Well, continue commenting and just remember, while some might think that Terry is a lying scumbag, some of us just think he's asleep in the hot tub.

while some might think that Terry is a lying scumbag, some of us just think he's asleep in the hot tub.


Others think he looks like Ernest Hemingway. So there!

while some might think that Terry is a lying scumbag, some of us just think he's asleep in the hot tub.


Others think he looks like Ernest Hemingway. So there!



Yeah... if your daughter looks like Muriel can I get a date? :D

Too late, she's already married, to a 972-rated Am. Both my son and my son-in-law can now crush me on any long course. :(

And Mariel was Ernest's granddaughter, so you may have to wait quite awhile!

while some might think that Terry is a lying scumbag, some of us just think he's asleep in the hot tub.


Others think he looks like Ernest Hemingway. So there!



What about Hemingway in a hottub?
http://www.timelesshemingway.com/aboardssjagiello1949.jpg

C'mon Terry, not even a little?
http://www.timelesshemingway.com/withblackdog1953.jpg

ROTFLMYAO

The folks in nearby offices just now had to crowd in and ask what the heck I was laughing at. Thanks, Doot. I'll treasure that one.

Part of my change in my position here is because what I see in general. We are quickly loosing our ability to point out problems with some of the things being done in our organization. If you step out of the main stream you are shouted down, and as a consequence we are loosing some important dissenting views. I admit, some presenting other sides are crass, but crassness has never precluded being correct. I think it is time to invite those voices back in and meet them with rational commentary. If it is too much we don't have to pay attention or comment back to those posters.



I feel that the message board is experiencing a free exchange of thought like it has never before in its existence. Where prior moderators may have deleted threads that were even vaguely anti-PDGA, that the "Boycott the PDGA" and "PDGA Slogan" threads exist is a testament that the moderation staff and Communications Director truly believe that these threads encourage positive discussion, ways to improve the PDGA, and help to make us a better organization.

The feedback about the DISCussion board has been very positive in 2007 because we have a set of rules and procedures and follow them religiously; content that violates our rules is handled accordingly, and material that doesn't violate our rules is permitted unconditionally. Having a moderation team and a Communications Director to provide oversight helps to avoid the bias that a one moderator system with no oversight may have fell into.

We have stated time and time again that message board users are free to engage in all the rebellion, criticism or dissent they want as long as they do such without profanity, material unsuitable for minors, personal attacks or physical threats, or offensive content.

Unfortunately, a sad artifact is that those who present dissenting views seem unable to do so without the "crassness." I don't think there will ever be a time where we'll simply resolve to not pay attention or comment back to those posters on the premise that crassness has never precluded being correct. As a dues-paying member organization, I think that is an entirely unrealistic expectation.

Part of my change in my position here is because what I see in general. We are quickly loosing our ability to point out problems with some of the things being done in our organization. If you step out of the main stream you are shouted down, and as a consequence we are loosing some important dissenting views. I admit, some presenting other sides are crass, but crassness has never precluded being correct. I think it is time to invite those voices back in and meet them with rational commentary. If it is too much we don't have to pay attention or comment back to those posters.



I feel that the message board is experiencing a free exchange of thought like it has never before in its existence. Where prior moderators may have deleted threads that were even vaguely anti-PDGA, that the "Boycott the PDGA" and "PDGA Slogan" threads exist is a testament that the moderation staff and Communications Director truly believe that these threads encourage positive discussion, ways to improve the PDGA, and help to make us a better organization.

The feedback about the DISCussion board has been very positive in 2007 because we have a set of rules and procedures and follow them religiously; content that violates our rules is handled accordingly, and material that doesn't violate our rules is permitted unconditionally. Having a moderation team and a Communications Director to provide oversight helps to avoid the bias that a one moderator system with no oversight may have fell into.

We have stated time and time again that message board users are free to engage in all the rebellion, criticism or dissent they want as long as they do such without profanity, material unsuitable for minors, personal attacks or physical threats, or offensive content.

Unfortunately, a sad artifact is that those who present dissenting views seem unable to do so without the "crassness." I don't think there will ever be a time where we'll simply resolve to not pay attention or comment back to those posters on the premise that crassness has never precluded being correct. As a dues-paying member organization, I think that is an entirely unrealistic expectation.



The problem Jeff is subtle, there are those who would post misleading information and often do so. They don't attack a person, but rather concepts and the organization. Our current format limits our ability to point out that such a poster is being disingenuous, or even better, a lying scumbag. Of course we can say, "your post leaves me with the impression you are not telling the truth."

Again, my position is that we have a little too much subjectivity. That does not mean that I don't think the moderators are doing a fabulous job, within the context of the situation, and who they are as human beings that is. That human beings have inherent limitations is the problem.

BTW - I only think it is fair, given that we now have a point of comparison, that we see a picture of Terry in the hot tub so we can form our own opinions as to whether he can pass for EH...

And Mariel was Ernest's granddaughter, so you may have to wait quite awhile!



I'm not picky. Of course Mariel would take one look at me and laugh, but this is after all, my fantasy.

BTW - thanks for the spelling!

Our current format limits our ability to point out that such a poster is being disingenuous, or even better, a lying scumbag. Of course we can say, "your post leaves me with the impression you are not telling the truth."




That is the point, Lyle.

You CAN word it like you did in the second example and have the exact same discussion with that wording as opposed to the first example. Obviously, on a board this size, everyone will never agree 100% with a post. However, when someone disagrees with one, which they have the right to do so, and then chooses to stoop to a level that brings out things that break the rules, there is a problem.

Mikey, for example, under the current moderation team, has never been banned, warned, or even thought about when he makes his anti-PDGA and his "show me the money" comments. He has the right to say so.

However, saying "show me the money you greedy pigs" is an attack and would be ruled so. Both examples say the same things. The latter breaks the rules and is downright childish.

It really is that simple. It blows my mind that people on this board are educated and working in successfull jobs doing things that I couldn't begin to understand, and CANNOT grasp this.

Too late, she's already married, to a 972-rated Am. Both my son and my son-in-law can now crush me on any long course. :(



haha, wait, that means he's pro right....wait. no?
:cool: