We seem to have a problem with the few PDGA DISCussion Board users who try to log into their accounts and view the message board while they are suspended. Please note that you cannot do so. When a PDGA DISCussion Board user account has been suspended, it is not possible to view the message board while logged into the account.

In order for a suspended user to view the message board on the computer he/she normally accesses the PDGA DISCussion Board with, one must be logged out and viewing the message board AS A GUEST. To accomplish this, one needs to delete your PDGA cookie, or alternatively, use a different web browser.

Again, if your account has been suspended, you MUST delete the PDGA cookie on your computer or use a different web browser if you wish to view the message board as a guest on the computer you normally accesses the PDGA DISCussion Board with.

Wow! Just peeked at the list and saw a surprising name on there...saw some that were expected too.

I think it is a great idea to publish this list. Good work gang!

http://www.vinmag.com/online/media/gbu0/prodlg/TS065.jpg

Whatchoo talkin 'bout LK?

Except that I contested mine and I NEVER got a response back. Maybe someone on this post can explain to me what exactly a personal attack is.

If I say ... If an individual does X posts a bunch of negative things about what the club is doing and is intentionally trying to get under everyone's skin, then that idivual will end up looking like an idiot ... How is that a personal attack. I simply stated that if they do X then they look like an idiot. I never actually personally attacked anyone, I let their behavior do that for them. Maybe I can get a response on here. I could also say that publiclly posting who is on probation is a personal attack on those indivuals.

Dont cast stones if you live in a glass house :D

Saying someone is an idiot is a personal attack, no matter what evidence you show to support your claim.

I think the main problem with personal attacks is word choice. Every single example of personal attacks we have ruled to be removed have been simply because the author decided to say his words in an unprofessional manner.

Let's use your example, someone is posting a bunch of negative things about a club and is trying to get under everyone's skin. An appropriate response would be...

"John Doe, I don't appreciate the things you are saying about our club. We do a lot of good things such as X, Y, and Z. Also, I feel that you are maybe making these claims intentionally to get people worked up. Why do you do this?"

If someone were to report that post then nothing would be done about it simply becuase I responded to the poster in a professional manner and did not challenge anything about that person only thier posts.

The exact post you made was:


When someone sends you a private message it really isn't appropriate to just post it in public. That is why it is called a private message. It leaves you looking like an X



where X was an abbreviation for a profanity and an offensive insult. I wasn't the moderator who ruled on the case, but I think you were put on probation for two reasons: <ul type="square"> The ruling was established by former Communication Director Steve Dodge that anytime anyone uses the phrase "it leaves you looking like a X" or "you are making yourself look like a X" is almost essentially the same thing as posting "you are a X." To allow otherwise would be a loophole that sneaky users would take advantage of. Whenever they wanted to insult someone, they could simply post "it leaves you looking like a X." X was an abbreviation for a profanity and an offensive word. [/list]
Furthermore, every warning, probation, and suspension e-mail is sent with a notice that if you would like to appeal this decision, please contact Peter Shive, the PDGA Communications Director. He can be reached at: [email protected]

After checking, it appears you sent your appeal to the moderator account, which moderators are instructed to not respond to. The moderators usually try to forward these appeals to Communications Director Peter Shive when message board users fail to direct their appeals to the proper place, but alas, it appears that did not happen in this case. Why don't you please direct your appeal to the proper place, and I'm sure Communications Director Peter Shive will get back to you promptly.

I'm sorry to see that Rhett is gone for a YEAR. Is what he said on his tag line true?

This is lame. I'm disappointed with the PDGA messageboard as a whole.

Clueless means lack of understanding or knowledge. If you lack understanding towards other's issues or if you lack knowledge of such issues you are then Clueless. IF YOU WISH TO TAKE OFFENSE to this... that is your problem. This word was properly used in it's English Definition by Jeannie and she was put on probation for it.
I can't speak for Rhett as I didn't see his posts.

Censoring is a form of Lack of understanding. "I lack understanding for others comments so I choose to censor them." It is used in the media and our own government.. please don't use it here.

Why don't you ban people for important things other than someone voicing an opinion and actually using an English word Correctly. It's the people who play word games and move words around that are the problem, Just like our fellow politicians in our country or people with powers over others.

If it weren't for the opinions and Knowledge and "understanding" of us PDGA members there wouldn't be a PDGA message board or even a need for any moderators to moderate it. Without us there wouldn't be a board. Maybe the movement of the PDGA as well as the boards should be based on the movement that the people of the PDGA want to make and not just those who choose to oversee us.

-Scott Lewis

p.s. I made no direct personal attack towards anyone and didn't break any other posting rules on the PDGA messageboards for this post. Thus my Post and my account, Technically under PDGA MB rules, can't be removed, modified, or suspended by anyone else other than myself.

Even though I agree with the tone of your post, I feel the need to add a few comments.

The term "idiot" has previously been listed as one that will always be perceived as a personal attack if used to describe a person. "Clueless" in a more generally accepted definition (adjective - totally uninformed about what is going on; not having even a clue from which to infer what is occurring) is about the same.

Using a derogatory term correctly does not make it any less derogatory.

Censorship is rarely stems from a lack of understanding, but most often from a full understanding of what the possible results of an unchecked flow of information, ideas, or offending language could be.

Censorship as applied in this forum has little to do with lack of understanding, and much more to do with the control of annoying, obscene, or offending materials or actions.

There are no rules that prevent posting of well phrased complaints of policies or rules as long as the person(s) enforcing or creating those rules are not directly attacked.

Questioning the ability or mental capacity of those responsible for rulings that you do not agree with is a form of personal attack no matter how politely it is done.

After all of that, I would agree that the level of moderation here has gotten a little more sensitive than I am completely comfortable with, but is still much better than the board without effective moderation. It will take time to find a balance that will work. The problem is that without subjective rulings, it will never satisfy everyone, and with subjective rulings, it only has to satisfy those that are making the rulings. Personally I prefer the tighter, objective version.

I'm sorry, but clueless and idiot or even stupid are not the same. When looking up idiot and stupid as well as clueless it's clear that they are not all describing the same thing. I wasn't totally sure of this until I actually looked up 5-6 words from your post :).

idiot is proven to be offensive and it even mentions this in modern dictionaries. Idiot refers to being utterly foolish or stupid and in a psychology standpoint it refers to someone at the bottom level of the older classifications of mental retardation. This word is offensive as it's definition implies being either a)retarded, or b) utterly foolish and stupid.

Stupid refers to lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind (aka dull). it can also mean boring, lacking any interest, and others like being annoying or irritating. These are all also offensive.

Clueless even as you describe it is not the same.. your definition isn't far off from mine, but you added an assumption into building your own opinion of the word. Clueless means lack of understanding or knowledge.
This says nothing, even in your definition, about the person being under normal mental levels, or does it say this person exhibits anything annoying, irritating, or dull.
Both definitions only speak that the person merely isn't knowledgeable in a certain area or lacks understanding of a certain area.

I am clueless to the process that goes into making paper. I am clueless when it comes to building a house. I am also clueless as to how to shoot -10 each around. If someone told me i was clueless as to how to throw a disc I might be offended, but I also would like to see what information that have to prove this so I can see where they are coming from. And I would also have to prove to them that I have knowledge of this area.

Also, Flows of information don't need to be checked, but i believe that moderation is necessary on the grounds of obscenities(becuase we have minors here) as well as spam and physical threats.

I appreciate your viewpoint on this matter, but I don't find the word clueless to be deragatory as it isn't the same as idiot or stupid unless you haven't read the exact definitions and only assume what they mean. This is ok as I didn't even know the exact definitions until I looked each one up. Just because things are assumed by some to be bad doesn't mean they are.

also... The use of clueless wasn't used in a derogatory manner. How can you Lessen someone's reputation when you are making observations based on what THEY are actually doing? Jeannie wasn't trying to lessen the merit of anyone's reputation. She was actually making a very logical point.
Jeannie said that she agreed that the moderators were clueless if they disciplined people for calling them clueless for their choice of things to moderate. This is a very logical point and I wouldn't say that she is wrong.
The MB rules state that there are gray areas and there are things that get moderated outside of the rules of the MB. Since even the Moderators don't know all of the things they will have to moderate, but they still do, then they are "Lacking knowledge or understanding" of that area. Even the Moderators know they don't know everything about the rules since they included "gray areas" between rules that they actually put into place for moderating the MB. They are moderating things that they themselves don't even know how to totally moderate thus they are lacking understanding or knowledge of these things.

all in all, i appreciate the reply as it definitely had me stirring up some ideas to write down :)...

-Scott Lewis

Stirring up ideas is my purpose in life.

I did not create a definition of clueless, mine came from WordNet from Princeton. Dictionary.com lists three definitions, the third equates it to Stupid.

In any case to say someone is clueless about a job they have undertaken and have been doing for some time must carry some derogatory implications. Either in their preparation for the job, or their ability to absorb the concepts required to perform the job.

The loophole of using easily identified hypothetical stories or comparative arguments has already been closed.

Saying that if person A does B, then person A is a C.
is treated the same as saying that person A is a C.

To say the police are clueless for enforcing the laws whether they agree with them or not is not accurate. Claiming that the persons that created the laws are clueless is more accurate, but still an attack on the lawmakers.

It does not make any difference whether the attack has any merit or not. Stating your opinion as fact in a derogatory manner is an attack even if it is true.

thx for the reply
I didn't mention anything about cops.. that was someone else and not my opinion as your reply there doesn't agree or disagree with my statements..

I agree with what you are getting at, but I don't see it the way you do. I would expect to be questioned continually as a lawmaker and it would not be an attack against me for people to be questioning my ability to perform my job or my understanding of things that I am doing. Obviously since someone actually went out of their way to call a moderator or moderators clueless on this MB implies that they have done something that warrants questioning..

I don't feel that questioning someone's judgement or to question their basis for taking actions, especially those with specific power over others, is an attack.

I also already understand the loopholes that are you speaking off and am not "clueless" :) in this area. I didn't use any loopholes or word maneuvering... I also don't think that this certain example demonstrates this..

Time for me to get off the boards for the time being.... I should probably worry about something way more important like if I should wear jeans or cargo pants tomorrow.

-Scott Lewis

clueless is a descriptor that can be shown to be true or not. would i be probed for positing that someone is uninformed?

calling someone clueless is not an attack. unless we have recently molted.

Sorry Scott, I seldom reply specifically to a single post.

I know where you are coming from, and was merely posting a differing point of view. If anyone is going to fight battles from inside the ring, they first have to know where the boundaries are. I was trying to help identify where I see the boundaries have gone up.

There are only four methods to moderate any board.

One is very subjective where the posts are looked at in the context of the thread and the other contributions of the poster to the community in general.

Another is completely objective where every post is looked at in isolation without regard to it's context or the reputation of the poster (or the target).

The third and most difficult to maintain consistency within is a mixture of the first two where posts are looked from both perspectives of content and context.

The fourth is a dictatorship or small committee where one person approves or denies everything as they see fit with no rules and no effort at consistency is attempted nor required.

In my opinion, the completely objective is the easiest to maintain consistency and fairness with even if it leads to punishment for seemingly frivolous violations.

disciplining jeannie for suggesting that someone individually or specifically, or the moderators as a group, was/were clueless (or whoever it was) is totally ridiculous.

doesn't whoever was accused of being clueless have the option of responding to her opinion?

proclaiming someone is clueless is an opinion. proclaiming that same someone "absconded with tourney funds" (totally an example here) is an accusation that has merit or it doesn't and if not should be construed as a personal attack.

in my opinion, moderators and the communications director should frame comments in terms of the reaction of the "average man" (a legal reference and not meant to suggest that the average woman doesn't exist)rather than based on their own style or personal value or belief system. none of us ARE the average man but discipline decisions should not be based on what YOU think about the opinion rendered.

have we as an organization become so politically correct that we need to be so blatantly soft? grow some back-hairs for crying out loud....

i'm as concerned about the image of the sport as anyone on the board, given the work i do promoting the sport and running events. although guests may visit this site from time to time i can't see where freedom of speech and expression of sometimes controversial posts will turn potential partners in the opposite direction.

my clueless 25 cents worth of opinion.......

dan doyle
warwick, ny

I don't post very much, but have spent a considerable amount of time reading posts on this board, and have to admit that it seems the definition of "personal attack" the current Communications Director and current moderators are using is a bit broad, if not completely incorrect in some cases.

It really is starting to look like selected censorship of criticism may be taking place.

I'm not necessarily making the accusation that I think it's definitely happening, just saying that it is starting to appear that way to me at the moment. I almost feel that the preceding sentence is necessary to avoid this post being reported (and agreed to be) a "personal attack". How pathetically stifling is THAT?

This is from someone that tends to abhor most of the griping, lack of appreciation, and general whining about the PDGA and the DISCussion board.

While I do appreciate the thankless job that the volunteer moderators do, the account suspensions do seem to be getting out of hand.

From what I've read lately, some of the recent suspensions do seem to have very little, if any, merit.

It's been admitted that character replacement techniques and general non-alphanumeric character representations of curse words will be viewed as if the actual curse words were used, and also shown that writing on here that someone is clueless can be grounds for account suspension. Some of the things I've read on here lead me to believe that the "big picture" is not being seen because of the need to have some sort of strict adherence to policy.

I personally have little patience for "following the letter of the law" when the spirit of it is intentionally ignored, and that certainly seems to me to be occurring.

There is also the fact that, in written communication, sarcasm is seldom conveyed effectively unless great care is taken to do so. I would venture to guess that some of these "personal attacks" were actually failed attempts at sarcasm.

Yes, I've read the posts that explain the appeals process, and suspect that someone defending the current status quo may likely point out that, during that process, sarcasm could be explained, but am starting to doubt if the current "powers that be" have retained the ability to understand good natured "ribbing", let alone subtle sarcasm.

I think they most likely had the ability at one point, but also suspect the nature of their job may have led them to no longer appreciate it.

When the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and admit you may be going too far, or dig your heels in further and refuse to acknowledge the possibility you may be mistaken in your assumptions?

It's starting to seem like the latter answer is the one chosen too often....

Just the clueless ramblings of your local troll....
:p

- JPB
James Brennan
PDGA# 29442
Morgan Hill, CA

When the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and admit you may be going too far, or dig your heels in further and refuse to acknowledge the possibility you may be mistaken in your assumptions?



How about when the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, and sends many e-mails and private messages complaining about how many personal attacks and how much offensive content is allowed on the message board, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and stick up for them? And not cater to those who want a less restrictive message board that could turn away dues-paying members, open up the PDGA to liability issues, and perhaps result in the DISCussion Board being shut down completely?

In my opinion the many emails and private messages I get about moderating are just part of the job.

I don't let them get to me b/c I know that I am passionate about disc golf and more than likely, so is the person complaining.

I enjoy being a moderator and the random thanks I get (even from people I have placed on probation) for my volunteering makes up for it.

As a TD once told me "1 compliment nullifies 1000 complaints"

When the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and admit you may be going too far, or dig your heels in further and refuse to acknowledge the possibility you may be mistaken in your assumptions?



How about when the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, and sends many e-mails and private messages complaining about how many personal attacks and how much offensive content is allowed on the message board, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and stick up for them? And not cater to those who want a less restrictive message board that could turn away dues-paying members, open up the PDGA to liability issues, and perhaps result in the DISCussion Board being shut down completely?



jeff.....

i absolutely understand how at times the moderators lose no matter what they decide on individual situations.

sound judgment and rational thinking and considering the community as a whole are qualities that the moderators need to have.

with regard to jeannie's discipline, i used that as an example of what in my opinion was a blatant example of none of those 3 qualities being practiced.

i fail to see where her expression of opinion, and many others of the same ilk, will "turn away dues-paying members, open up the PDGA to liability issues, and/or perhaps result in the PDGA discussion board being shut down completely". if her comments result in any of these events occurring i'd find that frightening that our organization has become so thin-skinned and so afraid of opinion.

as a fellow obsessed disc golfer i can relate to and deeply appreciate the thankless task of being a moderator, and i salute those that volunteer their time for what is most likely often a case of "you lose no matter what you decide".

so thanks to mssrs graham, leonard, lagrassa, doot, and shive for your commitment to making this site and our organization better.

however, once again i'd respectfully request that as a group you'd frame expressions of opinion in a slightly less restrictive or conservative manner.

Jeff:

I will certainly admit that I may be completely wrong.
Are there really that many people complaining about personal attacks and offensive content?

I must only be viewing the respectful or already 'sanintized' threads.

Either that, or there's some really, really thin-skinned people complaining.

At any rate, I didn't mean to make you feel attacked as a moderator, but also do have to admit, from what I've read, you seem to jump to that stance very quickly.

I appreciate what you do, regardless of whether or not I agree with it. I also understand that you'll never be able to satisfy both sides on this issue.

- JPB

BTW, I do not for one minute accept your slippery slope argument.

That fallacy is being a bit overworked, don't you think?

:(I'm sorry, on further introspection on this topic, I have to admit that I'm most likely aware of much less than half of the picture so will, reluctantly, agree to have been found guilty of going off half-cocked. :o

I'm now quite sure I don't know of which I speak.

My apologies,

- JPB

No worries, James.

I think it's a very common occurrence. I just don't think people realize that there are a number of people out there who think the standards are not tight enough and don't use the message board at all because of that. They complain behind the scenes because they are afraid of expressing that sentiment here and getting attacked for it.

I personally take part in dozens of other internet message boards that are minimally moderated. I love these "anything goes" message boards! However, as a paid membership service hosted on organizationally-funded servers, I understand though that the standards have to be higher on this message board. If the standards are any lower then the PDGA opens itself up to liability issues and could get sued, and I wouldn't be a surprised then to see the decision made to shut down the board completely. I wish everyone else would understand this.

Dont cast stones if you live in a glass house :D



I live in a Brick House!

I posted this on a different thread but it may be better suited here.

I'm really happy about this message board crack-down. I'm sure that the PDGA higher-ups have nothing better to do than to rule on nearly every post on this message board. But it doesn't really go far enough. Here are some other things that should be examined to crank up the Banned-wagon.

Misspellings- We don't want potential sponsors to think (realize) that we are a bunch of idiots.

Bad grammar- Same as above

The letter "F"- I think we all know where this can lead.

Stories of cheating/theft- If sexual images or details of said are bad I'd say that posts pertaining to stealing and cheating should be scrutinized too.

People insisting the "L" means Leopard bottom - If this person can't be called an idiot there isn't any justice in the world and they should be banned.

Gateway shills - I may not be joking on this one.

850 rated players giving putting advice -I think everyone except for 800 rated players can agree on this.

Mentioning beer sponsors - Drinking is evil. That's why we had prohibition people!

Religion (or non-religion) of any kind - I think a war was started over this once.

Criticizing authority - The Germans got this right.

People needing to see a smiley-face to know if someone is kidding -I have a few people to nominate for banning because of this one. I am still really shocked when I'm taken seriously. On an average day only about 10% of what I say should be taken seriously and I�m disappointed if no one laughs the rest of the time.

Let's take care of those items and things will be great. Non PDGA members looking at this board will think that the "A" in PDGA stands for Amish.

does peter shive see the posts on this topic? i would be curious to hear his thoughts on this issue in general and his thoughts on his thought process with regard to jeannie's discipline. i think i recall seeing a few posts by peter elsewhere recently where he shared his views on message board monitoring and discipline philosophy but i'm not sure where.

is he or would he be willing to review his decision with regard to jeannie and come to the conclusion that his decision was a bit heavy-handed?

there is a Ask Peter Shive thread that could be used for those questions. Peter is pretty good about responding to questions there.

Hilarious post, Rich! Nice work. :cool:

:D
I'll second that.
Good one, Rich.

- JPB

When the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and admit you may be going too far, or dig your heels in further and refuse to acknowledge the possibility you may be mistaken in your assumptions?



How about when the community which you serve questions how you are serving them, and sends many e-mails and private messages complaining about how many personal attacks and how much offensive content is allowed on the message board, should you listen, perhaps swallow some pride, and stick up for them? And not cater to those who want a less restrictive message board that could turn away dues-paying members, open up the PDGA to liability issues, and perhaps result in the DISCussion Board being shut down completely?



jeff.....

i absolutely understand how at times the moderators lose no matter what they decide on individual situations.

sound judgment and rational thinking and considering the community as a whole are qualities that the moderators need to have.

with regard to jeannie's discipline, i used that as an example of what in my opinion was a blatant example of none of those 3 qualities being practiced.

i fail to see where her expression of opinion, and many others of the same ilk, will "turn away dues-paying members, open up the PDGA to liability issues, and/or perhaps result in the PDGA discussion board being shut down completely". if her comments result in any of these events occurring i'd find that frightening that our organization has become so thin-skinned and so afraid of opinion.



The PDGA Board getting shut down for personal attacks or profanity?! You've got to be kidding, that is just plain ludicrous. If that were true, half the internet sites would be shut down.

And shame on a policy that would suspend Rhett Stroh for a year -- he is one of the good people who genuinely cares for this sport. PDGA policy-makers, your woeful, misguided policy is a miserable failure.

Count me as someone who (unlike the folks who send emails (hiding) behind the scenes complaining) who will go on record as saying that this new policy against personal attacks is ridiculous. This country has become way too politically correct and our policy makers have followed suit. But rest assured, I'm sure they know what's best for us &lt;sarcasm&gt; .

I previously was put on probation for personally attacking the moderators for this policy -- I was wrong for that, they were merely enforcing policy and I apologize. As for the people who came up with this policy, .........

thank the good ol USA for having more than one discussion board out there - this quote hit the nail on the head imo

Criticizing authority - The Germans got this right.

and to think Hawk got probation for his reference to an interpretable term such as tool - as Joseph Goebbels once wrote...

"An example. In a major central American city an advertising poster for a soap company showed a fresh, attractive girl holding the soap package in her hands. A moral knight who unfortunately had the right to determine the fate of this poster forbade its distribution on the ground that it offended the moral sensibilities of the population, since the woman in the poster was holding the soap in a place "that for moral reasons cannot be described more precisely."

What is moral about this? The person announcing the ban, who presumes that other people share his dirty fantasies, or the people and the (insert any censoring association name here) , that are rightly upset and in opposition to such a ridiculous action?" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

interesting quote, Jerman. when the worst possible interpretation is applied and the moral knight's issues projected onto the poster, the value of thinking is diminished. why think for yourself when expression of those thoughts is subject to such constraints?

Paying dues is not paying taxes. The PDGA is not a government. It is a private club. Comparisons to governments are meaningless.

To moderate well, necessarily means trying to understand what you think other members would see (negatively or positively) in posts. Therefore, a moderator who objects to something would not necessarily be projecting their own moral attitude about it.

For example, although you might find a lot of guys and a few women who wouldn't mind a Playboy centerfold as an avatar, it would offend a lot of guys, a lot of women, and many parents of junior-aged PDGA members.

Enforcing removal of such an avatar could well be done by a moderator who, personally, has a subscription to Hustler. In which case it would say nothing about the moderator's "morals."

theres no doubt about any of that, Terry, i agree. just to be clear, i was speaking to the Goebbels quote and making a general statement about what happens "when" that type of interpretation and projection occurs.

The associations authoritarianism that is the downside of "political correctness" means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The "victim culture" ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation - for dilution - and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted.

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of association that is incapable of exercising real discretion.

I kind of like it that in an association I pay dues to, anyone can "proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged."

And call for moderation. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Help me out, please: I would really appreciate an example of "real discretion."

Paying dues is not paying taxes. The PDGA is not a government. It is a private club. Comparisons to governments are meaningless.

To moderate well, necessarily means trying to understand what you think other members would see (negatively or positively) in posts. Therefore, a moderator who objects to something would not necessarily be projecting their own moral attitude about it.

For example, although you might find a lot of guys and a few women who wouldn't mind a Playboy centerfold as an avatar, it would offend a lot of guys, a lot of women, and many parents of junior-aged PDGA members.

Enforcing removal of such an avatar could well be done by a moderator who, personally, has a subscription to Hustler. In which case it would say nothing about the moderator's "morals."



Nice post, Terry. :cool:

At the risk of possibly continuing yet another round of message board policy debate, I will comment that I agree 100% with Terry here.

The moderators are charged with deciding on posts based on a set of standards that in large part may have nothing to do with their own morals. In fact, the moderators may often participate or even moderate other internet message boards with far less restrictive standards, and that should also not say anything about their morals.

The outlet is here for users to call for moderation, but political correctness is far from running amok. On average, nine out of every ten posts that are reported are judged not to violate the rules! There are three different moderators, a Communications Director, and an Executive Director to provide multiple levels of appeal and oversight over whether a rules violation truly occurs.

jeff, is that "not guilty" rate so high due to people trying to get MTL banned? :)

I thought it was from moderators ruling on their own posts again?

I was placed on probation for a personal attack (as the chart shows).

Nothing like you suggest, Chris.

Post deleted by Terry_Calhoun

I wasn't talking about you Robert.

Post deleted by Terry_Calhoun

*** You are ignoring this user ***



Something that should have happened a long time ago.

The associations authoritarianism that is the downside of "political correctness" means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The "victim culture" ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation - for dilution - and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted.

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of association that is incapable of exercising real discretion.



What the... Are you rewording the Gettysburg address or something? Geesh! "censorship, that by-product of fear", are you kidding me? :DToo funny! You should'a changed it to "Four score and seven syllables ago, I should of just given my opinion and left it at that! They're simply trying to keep it clean man, put yourself in there shoes for a second, they can can't win no matter what they do!

Post deleted by Terry_Calhoun

huh? lol

good, i'm glad i'm not the only one... ?????

men have nipples too (as do all mammals, baby bottles, pipes, etc)- being from michigan you should be aware of that unless you dress extremely warmly all the time.

<table x:str border=1 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=1 width=799 style='border-collapse:
collapse;table-layout:fixed;width:600pt'>
<col width=70 span=2 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2560;
width:53pt'>
<col width=103 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:3766;width:77pt'>
<col width=128 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4681;width:96pt'>
<col width=116 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4242;width:87pt'>
<col width=312 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:11410;width:234pt'>
<tr height=20 style='height:15.0pt'>
<td height=20 class=xl24 width=70 style='height:15.0pt;width:53pt'>First</td>
<td class=xl24 width=70 style='border-left:none;width:53pt'>Last</td>
<td class=xl24 width=103 style='border-left:none;width:77pt'>Penalty</td>
<td class=xl24 width=128 style='border-left:none;width:96pt'>Starting Date</td>
<td class=xl24 width=116 style='border-left:none;width:87pt'>Ending Date</td>
<td class=xl24 width=312 style='border-left:none;width:234pt'>Infraction</td>
</tr>
<tr height=20 style='height:15.0pt'>
<td height=20 class=xl25 width=70 style='height:15.0pt;border-top:none;
width:53pt'>Charles</td>
<td class=xl25 width=70 style='border-top:none;border-left:none;width:53pt'>Schwab</td>
<td class=xl25 width=103 style='border-top:none;border-left:none;width:77pt'>Suspension</td>
<td class=xl26 align=right width=128 style='border-top:none;border-left:none;
width:96pt' x:num="39470">1/23/2008</td>
<td class=xl26 align=right width=116 style='border-top:none;border-left:none;
width:87pt' x:num="39561">4/23/2008</td>
<td class=xl25 width=312 style='border-top:none;border-left:none;width:234pt'>Abuse
of 'Notify Moderator' function</td>
</tr>
<![if supportMisalignedColumns]>
<tr height=0 style='display:none'>
<td width=70 style='width:53pt'></td>
<td width=70 style='width:53pt'></td>
<td width=103 style='width:77pt'></td>
<td width=128 style='width:96pt'></td>
<td width=116 style='width:87pt'></td>
<td width=312 style='width:234pt'></td>
</tr>
<![endif]>
</table>



seriously...

BS is right, go figure.

Ditto

PP give it a rest- Don't become one too.

Paying dues is not paying taxes. The PDGA is not a government. It is a private club. Comparisons to governments are meaningless.



I disagree with this statement. The PDGA is not private, as everyone is welcome to join. It's not an exclusive club or anything like that.
The PDGA is a GOVERNING body and as such is very lke a government. We vote for our leaders and we can vote them out of office too.

Putt it right.

where are the suspensions listed?

Last thread at bottom of D-Board.

never make it that far down. Thanks Chuck.

I just took a look at it, and I am on probation?? What? For profanity?? that's sooooo lame! You cant even type in profanity??? Why wasn't I notified?