In my article on the PDGA front page, I noted that there are many common misperceptions of the message board moderation process. I have gathered these together here, with my comments, as a way to initiate commentary about that process. Remember, like that article, this is a personal view, and the moderators and the Executive Director may have a somewhat different take on the ideas expressed here. I hope that they, as well as other members, will feel free to take part in the discussions.

Message Board Myths:
1) �The purpose of the message board is to provide a 'fun' environment that honors the principles of free speech�. Nope. The purpose of the message board is to support discussion that is polite and responsible. This means that some speech will be sanctioned, and that some posters may not find it fun.
2) �Posts get sanctioned when moderators notice rules infractions�. Moderators have no time to read all posts. In most cases, posts are reported by other members. The post is then examined by the first available monitor.
3) �Most reported posts are sanctioned.� Not even close. I haven�t kept the statistic, but I estimate that between five and ten percent of the reports result in edited or banned posts.
4) �Moderators� decisions are black and white�. Sometimes, but not often. The process reminds me of calling penalties in a football game. Some fouls (like twelve men on the field) are relatively easy to call, while others (like pass interference) are often very difficult. As posters gain experience with the discussion board rules, they become very aware of the borderline gray areas, and it is easy for them to construct posts that live there. Most of our time is spent on these posts.
5) �The Moderators and the Communications Director will always make consistent calls, because the decisions result from a consensus.� Moderators, and the Communications Director, make their own calls, and although they may seek advice, they act independently. Individual monitors sometimes disagree with each other, and with me. A certain level of inconsistency is built in, and a gray area call (like a pass interference call) could go either way. Best, then, to stay away from the gray area, especially if you are on probation.
6) �The decency of a post is judged by the intent of the poster.� We cannot evaluate the intent of the poster. Even if we could, we are more concerned with the impression the post is likely to make on other readers. For example, if you post child pornography or pictures of burning crosses and say, �This is an example of what I abhor�, we might approve of your intentions but still sanction the post.
7) �Moderators try to keep mistakes and lies off the board�. The moderators do not have time to correct mistakes, and that is not their purpose. Posters need to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and hopefully the extension of the self-edit/delete window to 72 hours will help them do this. Nor can moderators judge the truth-value of every statement. One person�s profound truth is another�s contemptible lie, and we haven�t the time or the ability to sort it out. So beware, there may be mistakes and lies out there. Caveat emptor.
8) �Profanity is OK as long as you don�t spell out all the letters�. We consider the possible implication. So for example, if you use a word with missing or replaced letters, I would check it for implied profanity. If you mean to use a non-profane word, it is easy enough to spell it out.

Someone should change the teaser paragraph on the pdga.com site to the last paragraph in the expanded article. The teaser paragraph has no context and IMO detracts from the types of information that should be highlighted to those that happen to find the pdga.com web site.

Agreed 100% with everything, Peter. Great job on the article on the front page and this thread.

8) �Profanity is OK as long as you don�t spell out all the letters�. We consider the possible implication. So for example, if you use a word with missing or replaced letters, I would check it for implied profanity. If you mean to use a non-profane word, it is easy enough to spell it out.



One question about this issue:
If profanity will not be allowed even if it is masked or mispelled, what about the commonly used anagrams (may not be the right word?) such as WTF, LMAO, and others I can't think of off the top of my head?

Some things I wanted to add�.


In addition to number 3 � Recently we had close to 30 different posts reported in one day. Not a single one was edited or changed.

Another Myth - �The Moderators are out to get certain people� This is not even close to the truth. As Jeff has posted many times, if a post is edited / deleted, 2 people found it offensive. The person who reported the post and then the moderator who took the complaint. If this person appeals and is denied, now a third person has found it offensive and this person is Peter. Also, if a moderator reports a post (which I will not lie does happen, but I would say on average the three of us only report maybe 10 � 15% of the total complaints), he is not allowed in any of the decision process. Likewise, if a personal attack is made on a moderator, he is not allowed in the decision process. And then another level, if a personal attack is made on Peter and there is an appeal on the decision made, Brian Graham then has the final say on the appeal.

to johnrock:

Gray area. You would be taking a chance. If I'm making that call, it would depend on how obvious the anagram was, and its context in the post. Also remember, if it isn't offensive enough to offend a reader, it won't even be reported.

Ok. I'm not concerned about myself, I usually keep it pretty clean. Being in the construction industry, I get enough of those vulgar expressions at work, and sometimes use them myself when my fingers get in the way of my hammer, so I try to keep it pretty civil on the course or mess. board. Just curious where the lines are going to be drawn.

Some things I wanted to add�.


In addition to number 3 � Recently we had close to 30 different posts reported in one day. Not a single one was edited or changed.

Another Myth - �The Moderators are out to get certain people� This is not even close to the truth. As Jeff has posted many times, if a post is edited / deleted, 2 people found it offensive. The person who reported the post and then the moderator who took the complaint. If this person appeals and is denied, now a third person has found it offensive and this person is Peter. Also, if a moderator reports a post (which I will not lie does happen, but I would say on average the three of us only report maybe 10 � 15% of the total complaints), he is not allowed in any of the decision process. Likewise, if a personal attack is made on a moderator, he is not allowed in the decision process. And then another level, if a personal attack is made on Peter and there is an appeal on the decision made, Brian Graham then has the final say on the appeal.



One has to wonder, what percentage of these are based on I'm mad at the moderator policy and am going to get revenge, vs. I'm really concerned about this post.

I might argue that this level of complaint is an indication of a problem.

On the other hand, I'd dearly love to see users take a chill pill and give the moderators a break.

In many years of forum moderator experience I've learned one important lesson: "There will never be a time when everyone is happy". The problem I chose to solve was keeping the 3% of disgruntled members from upsetting the other 97%. I agree with any moderators decision to censor posts that are offensive to anyone. You guys are doing good work!

Thank you Peter for describing precisely what you see is the purpose of the MB and how it may be managed.

Bill Maury-Holmes

to JohnLambert:

Think about Myth #3. We aren't censoring posts that offend anybody. That would be taking it too far the other way. We want disagreement and debate -- our concern is for the manner in which it is expressed.

John,

Profanity is one area that the moderation team has debated and struggled with over the years. Just like many other internet message boards, the PDGA DISCussion board has a profanity censor built into the software which automatically censors words based on a list. Prior Communications Directors and moderators added words to the list over the years after each instance where a word was used offensively, and we've got a fairly comprehensive list now.

The problems come when message board users insist on using creative spellings and symbols such as $, !, and * in order to circumvent the profanity censor. Previously, an attempt was made to capture these instances and add them to the list. However, because of software limitations this can only be performed by an Admin, and not moderators, and continually updating the list became a burden for the admin and took him away from much more important duties at PDGA Headquarters. Additionally, it encouraged a sort of 'game' with message board users to continue to try to outwit the software censor.

At first, we did not treat these misspellings as PDGA DISCussion Board rules violations, however former Communications Director Steve Dodge later decided that creative spellings and symbols used to defeat the profanity filter will be treated as profanity, and if reported to moderators by a message board user, can result in probation and lead to suspension of user accounts. Current Communications Director Peter Shive then decided that because of the distraction & burden it causes, the list of censored words will not be updated; therfore, the same misspellings will continue to put users on probation if reported to us.

I think the word you are looking for is acronyms, not anagrams, John. To my knowledge, no one has ever reported acronyms as profanity or PDGA DISCussion Board violations. However, that's not to say that this can't or won't be changed in the future. Bottom line, as Peter indicated, is that it's a gray area and users take a chance when doing so. Remember, the PDGA Discussion board is a tool that we can use to talk about discs, tourneys, and rules, and we can debate topics both serious and not. It should be possible to accomplish this debate without the use of profanity, and users who insist on doing so run the risk of probation or suspension of their account if reported to us.

Some members allow nonmembers and suspended members to post on their account. We have a policy against this, but it is fundamentally unenforceable.


Peter, would you please elaborate on this? I think it may be a myth.

I read all of the time about people getting into some pretty serious trouble based on knowledge about the IP addresses from which things go to and from; information which the PDGA has in its hands about those who post on DISCussion.

How does that happen in other places, and sometimes with serious criminal punishments, if such things are "fundamentally unenforceable?"

I understand completely. I've gotten it since the beginning, civility promotes positivity. I was just curious where the line was to be drawn so when someone gets busted for starting their post, "WTF!!! You don't know what you're talking about!!!" Or, "LMAO at your ignorance.", we can point them to the rules clause that says no no. We all know what they mean, and some will abuse the acronyms if it's not written in Black & White. You don't have to worry about me showing up on your "Notify Moderator" list, because that's not my style.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, I didn't feel like going to my trusty Webster's to double check.

to Terry_Calhoun:

1) The IP address "proof" is circumstantial. It would take too much time and effort to make it stick.
2) Even if we could make it stick, nonmembers and banned members can just send their post to a friend in the PDGA and have them post it from their computer. There is no way we can prevent that.

Peter, thank you for doing a good job as communications director. The information was informative and the article was well written and answered some questions I have had for some time, but never took the time to really find out what I needed to know regarding the role of the moderator.

I have read through everything here and think this is a step in the right direction to reveal the myths and get to the facts.

Eventhough I want to support the right of free speech , I also want to see the PDGA move in a positive direction and that includes this message board. I enjoy the freedom to write my opinions, but I also respect the right for the PDGA ( we as members) to expect me (a member) to behave in responsible manner.

I have to admit that I am a conservative type person, and as such I am more inclined to support control over offensive material, especially for the sake of our future, JQ public, and the children who may access this web site (mine included). But, that dosen't mean that I don't support someone standing up for what they believe, it just means that I expect them to do with a bit of common sense, and some pre-planning. Think it through before you write, consider the rules we have and why, and the rest will take care of it self. :D

The IP address "proof" is circumstantial. It would take too much time and effort to make it stick.
2) Even if we could make it stick, nonmembers and banned members can just send their post to a friend in the PDGA and have them post it from their computer. There is no way we can prevent that.


So, if (1) you have IP evidence that someone is posting on another's account, which I know you do, you choose to not spend the time to enforce that indication of a violation because that is circumstantial evidence which is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence).

It is interesting that circumstantial evidence is also used in civil courts to establish or deny liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence).

I suggest that DISCussion board rules enforcement has much more in common with civil courts than criminal courts and that you are erroneously applying criminal usage practice to a civil situation. Actually DISCussion board rules enforcement does not even approach the level of significance of civil courts.

And, (2) you recognize that some people may allow others to post intentionally right from the legitimate poster's computer, which eliminates the IP evidence.

It is true that you cannot know or prove that, even circumstantially. On the other hand, not being able to prove abuse in one circumstance does not necessarily mean that you should not enforce abuse that you can prove.

I know that in the specific circumstance that we both know I am referring to, there is more than a probability that the posting account was accessed from a bogus poster's computer, perhaps with permission from the owner of the account.

That could still, in civil court, be proven with evidence that you have on hand, in fact I think most civil courts would accept it as it is, and the only defense would be that the owner of the account permitted it - which then would be a different, provable abuse.

What if a bogus poster was accessing your account (or mine) and making posts in your name and you had their IP address?

By your statements above, of the way you apply evidence, you cannot even "prove" that someone posted offensive material on here from their own account.

In such a case, the poster could simply claim that someone else accessed their account and did it - and you would find it "fundamentally " impossible to prove otherwise.

I can't wait until someone tries that. Too bad Mikey is current suspended. :D

Some members allow nonmembers and suspended members to post on their account. We have a policy against this, but it is fundamentally unenforceable.


Peter, would you please elaborate on this? I think it may be a myth.





What Peter is trying to say is that unless someone advertises that they are using someone elses account, there is nothing we can do to prevent this from happening.

If you see a post from me, you quickly assume that I made the post. I can say with 100% certainty in my case that you would be correct with that assumption.

However, if I let a non member post on my account unless he said something in the post that revealed that it was not me making the post, there is no way for us to prove that the post was not made by me.

You can give the IP address argument all you want. IP addresses are easily faked and proves nothing other than that user was on a different computer at that time. I know I've posted from many many many many computers before. Heck, I've posted from my account at other PDGA member's houses and then, in turn, would share an IP address with someone who has posted here in the past.

Bottom line is this. Do we encourage users to not allow anyone else to use thier account? Yes. Can posting on someone elses account cause problems? Yes and it has. If we have evidence to prove that someone else posted on the account, will the user be subject to discipline matters? Yes. Is there really a way from preventing this from happening? No.

I think that is what Peter was trying to say.

Recently we had close to 30 different posts reported in one day. Not a single one was edited or changed.



That's actually a poor example and needs to be clarified since I've already received a PM from a message board user about this. That statement leads everyone to believe that we have message board users who sit around all day long and report posts for rules violations. That's absolutely not the case.

We typically get no more than a handful of notifications per week, at the most. In fact, the example listed with almost 30 in one day was comprised mainly of a user who made more than 2 dozen notifications in a 24 hour period, many of which were posts that it was almost inconceivable that anyone would find offensive. It was judged that this user was using the 'Notify Moderator' button frivolously, and after multiple e-mails sent to this person to inquire and ask for an explanation went without response, the user has since been put on probation for abuse of the 'Notify Moderator' button as listed in line item 6 of our PDGA DISCussion Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=0). These complaints trigger e-mails to the moderators, and when they are frivolous they clog our inboxes, make it difficult to easily view legitimate message board rules violations, and in general waste volunteer time that could be better spent.

I agree 100% with MTL's intent, though - to show that of the posts that are reported for violation of PDGA DISCussion Board rules, only a small percentage are agreed to violate our Rules. This is absolutely a fact. Of all the notifications we get, only a small percentage are judged to be egregious rules violations worthy of probation or suspension. Most are not violations or receive a warning at worst.

When will this individual appear on the Thread of Shame? :D

The Message Board Disciplinary List is typically updated only twice a month or so.

to Terry_Calhoun:

If you actually believe that we should resort to civil-type or criminal-type actions to prove a case using circumstantial evidence, you certainly have the wrong Communications Director. It would require a period of careful investigation followed by evidentiary hearings. I don't believe that the entire message board is worth that kind of effort. It's doubly absurd when you realize that, even if you could prove one case, offenders would just resort to Plan B, which you could never prove.

It's not worth making a federal case over whether member A allowed an opinion of member B to be posted on his/her account when the proscription is unenforceable.. The important point is that member A be responsible for what gets posted on the account.

Peter, it was you, not me, who relied on the fact that a certain kind of evidence is "circumstantial" for not acting on it. Please accept my apologies for thinking that by using what sounded like legal language you were implying that you and the moderators were following some kind of rules of evidence.

Is it against the rules, or not, for someone to post on DISCussion masquerading as another person, with or without their permission?

If not, then it would make sense to change the language of the rules, although it would make more sense to actually forbid personal attacks, which currently are rampant.

A question remains unanswered: If someone posted on DISCussion using your account, but you had not given them permission or access to do so, how would you find enough evidence to actually do something about it?

It sounds to me like you are saying that absent a confession by either someone who permits the use of their account or a confession by someone who uses an account without permission, there is simply no way to prove anything.

I think that's a Message Board Myth in the early stages of creation.

although it would make more sense to actually forbid personal attacks, which currently are rampant.



That's your opinion, which is based on how you interpreted it when you were Communications Director several years ago. I'm sorry that you think our current interpretations are a let-down from previous rules, Terry. I *know* it must be difficult when you see standards that you do not agree with. All I can recommend is that if you see something that you believe is offensive or a personal attack, please use the 'Notify Moderator' button to issue a formal complaint to the moderators. After that, you are free to appeal to Communications Director Peter Shive if you're not satisified with the moderator decision. In this manner, I think you'll get the moderators and the Communications Director to individually review specific posts and perhaps think more about our standards and possibly adjust them, as opposed to your current method of simply bemoaning the standards with vague blanket statements.

to Terry_Calhoun:

You said, "It sounds to me like you are saying that absent a confession by either someone who permits the use of their account or a confession by someone who uses an account without permission, there is simply no way to prove anything."

You are close. The only way to "prove", absent a confession, would involve an effort beyond the resources of the system and and way out of proportion to the potential gain. Even if it could be done, it is not worth trying.

Any monitoring system has to be:
1) Responsive enough to avoid excessive backlogs and to give members rapid turnaround.
2) Simple enough that it can be administered by a few volunteers in a reasonable amount of time.

My judgement is that the kind of "proof" you want us to establish would require a process that could not satisfy either of the above criteria. Certainly I would refuse to take part, because I don't have the time. Similarly, I would refuse to ask any monitor to be a part of such a scheme.

It might be worth it for the current moderation team, which includes Peter and the ED, to explore more deeply item number 1 from the list in the first post of this thread.

While "the purpose of the message board is to support discussion that is polite and responsible" sounds nice and all, an actual mission or purpose statement that relates the PDGA funded (by dollar$ and volunteer hours) DISCussion board to specific disc golf and PDGA related goals might actually make the moderation effort clearer and easier to enforce.

I always wanted the PDGA funded DISCussion board to first and foremost promote the sport of disc golf and advance the goals of the PDGA, and within that realm I also wanted to make it a more hospitable place where more than a tiny percentage of PDGA members would go and post. I spent about a year trying only to rid the board of the f-bomb and the s-bomb before I called it quits, as I evidently wasn't commited for the long haul.

But if a mission statement was developed and blessed by the BOD and was similar to the one I just threw out, then it would be much easier to allow tournament threads and club announcements while deleting garbage and handing out sanctions for abusers, as the question to be answered wouldn't be "is this a barely over-the-line attack or a barely under-the-line attack?", but instead would be a question of "does this advance disc golf or the PDGA?"

Just my opinion. Even though you guys are out to get me, I appreciate the effort y'all are making and I know for a fact that it is a job I do not want to do. :)

Even though you guys are out to get me



That couldn't be further from the truth. The moderation staff isn't out to get you or anyone. They simply respond to the posts that are reported to them. While the team understands that message board users may grow frustrated with others who make personal attacks and break message board rules, and/or with the decisions made by moderators or Communications Directors about whether those posts violate our Rules, if you choose to deal with that frustration by also making personal attacks of your own it can lead to probation and/or suspension of your account if they are reported to the mods.

Is that considered a personal attack worthy of censure ?

What was poasted by me:
Even though you guys are out to get me, I appreciate the effort y'all are making and I know for a fact that it is a job I do not want to do. :)




What was quoted out of context by Jeff LaG, a moderator who probably should've used a moderator acccount for this atttack:

Even though you guys are out to get me


That couldn't be further from the truth. The moderation staff isn't out to get you or anyone. They simply respond to the posts that are reported to them. While the team understands that message board users may grow frustrated with others who make personal attacks and break message board rules, and/or with the decisions made by moderators or Communications Directors about whether those posts violate our Rules, if you choose to deal with that frustration by also making personal attacks of your own it can lead to probation and/or suspension of your account if they are reported to the mods.




Hey Jeff, I'm pretty sure I was complimenting you and the other mods, but don't let that slow you down. :p

And definitely make sure you pull that one piece out of context and create a big deal out of it so that you can ignore the rest of my post you were quoting. I guess my work on this thread is done, as there is nothing I can contribute or suggest to the current moderating team as it seems they have made up their minds on how to deal with any posts by poor ole me.

The moderators don't 'make up their minds' on anyone. They simply respond when message board users report posts for violation of the rules. In fact, when the 'Notify Moderator' button is used and a copy of the post is sent to the moderators, one can't even see who the original poster is because only the text of the post is viewable. A decision on whether the post violates the rules can be made simply by viewing the content of the post, and moderators are absolutely encouraged to make this decision without actually going to the message board to see who made the post. In this manner, the system is set up to avoid bias.

c'mon Rhett. You made a charge, Jeff responded to it. I'm not a moderator, don't want to be, but c'mon. There was no personal attack in the response. "you" is often used to mean "anyone", it's easier to say and type; maybe in a situation such as this the statement should have been made with more specificity. Read the context of the response--"message board users" is later referred to as "you". Not Rhett, although you -Rhett- are certainly included in "you". So am I, so is Terry, so is Peter, so is Jeff, so is circle_2 and anyone else who uses this thing.

Relax, dude. It's not always all about any single person.

In my article on the PDGA front page, I noted that there are many common misperceptions of the message board moderation process. I have gathered these together here, with my comments, as a way to initiate commentary about that process. Remember, like that article, this is a personal view, and the moderators and the Executive Director may have a somewhat different take on the ideas expressed here. I hope that they, as well as other members, will feel free to take part in the discussions.



I would like to take the opportunity to take part in the discussion as Peter requested by adding what I see are some additional myths. <ul type="square"> 9) <font color="blue">�The Message Board Disciplinary List is a good indicator of what the moderators are doing.�</font>

Hardly. In a typical month we might get 40-60 complaints from various message board users. Of those, as Peter referenced, about ten percent of the reports result in edited or banned posts. Look at the number of users on the Message Board Disciplinary List and you'll see this math agrees. It's easy for some to whine about the one decision for probation they didn't agree with, until they realize that for that every one out of ten that get sanctioned, there are nine other complaints that we decided were not violations!

The moderators spend a lot of time, perhaps several hours a week, performing moderator duties. E-mails may fly back and forth if one moderator doesn't agree with another's ruling. Past precedents are often brought up, as consistency and fairness are the top goals. There is A LOT that goes on behind the scenes, and if people think that moderator decisions are made without careful consideration, they are mistaken.

10) <font color="blue">�There are rogue message board users who sit around all week long and use the 'Notify Moderator' to report multitudes of posts�.</font>

Not true at all. The complaints come in from a wide variety of users and from many different threads - some in the 'popular' and most visible threads, and others from squabbles deep within the Affiliate Club threads. We've additionally never seen an instance where one user specifically targets another user and looks to report as many of that user's messages as possible. In fact, if a pattern develops where the reports are judged to be frivilous and if it becomes obvious that a message board user is abusing the 'Notify Moderator' function, that user can be put on probation and if it continues, suspended for it. Complaints should only be made when the message board user believes that there is truly an egregious violation of the rules.

11) <font color="blue">"The moderators themselves report to each other a large percentage of total posts reported�. </font>

Moderators are message board users too and do report objectionable content from time to time if they see it. Of course, a moderator must not rule on his own post, and a post reported by one moderator will often be deemed by another moderator not to violate the rules. If a personal attack is made against a moderator, it is handed off to the Communications Director to make the decision, and an appeal would be heard by the Executive Director.

Looking back at all the individual notifications from the last year or even the last few months to obtain statistics on who reported them would be quite a laborious task - there would be hundreds of e-mail messages to comb through. But if I had to offer a quick and honest assessment, the combined number of notifications from the three moderators is typically probably around 15% of the total posts reported, and maybe 20% in an active month. So going with the high estimates provided earlier, if there are 60 complaints in one month, and moderators made 20% of them, that's a total of 12 from the three moderators, which is hardly unreasonable.

13) <font color="blue">�The increase in penalties from three days to three weeks for second offenses, and the addition of a new one year suspension was intended to make standards more strict". </font>

I don't see it that way at all. Lengthening the punishment periods is a compromise between the two opposite sides of criticism we get. There are many who seem to think that the standards are not restrictive enough and anything critical of PDGA leadership, or negativity in general, should be stricken from the board, and there are an equal number of message board users who feel that the standards on profanity, personal attacks and potentially offensive images do not reflect modern society and are too tight.

There will still be warnings for borderline offenses and a probationary period for a first offense. It is very important to have a first level with no punishment to simply show message board users that they may have inadvertently crossed a line. However, repeat offenders who seem intent on crossing the lines then experience increasingly lengthening periods of message board suspension. The most habitual of offenders are enormously disruptive to message board users and waste valuable volunteer time, and often goad others to make attacks against them. It should be clear that the lengthening of suspensions doesn�t affect one bit what users get in trouble for; it merely affects the suspension lengths of users who seem intent on continually breaking the rules.

13) <font color="blue">�The moderators are a bunch of thin-skinned, power-tripped, policeman wanna-bes who just want to sanction as many people as they can".</font>

Trust me, we'd prefer it if everyone follows the rules and we don't have to do any moderation at all! In fact, I'm eagerly waiting for the day when we go an entire month without anyone new appearing on the disciplinary list. The only reason we volunteer as moderators is because without a small amount of moderation, the DISCussion board would cease to exist.

I don't think that many message board users realize just how close the PDGA DISCussion board came to being shut down about 18 months ago. Message board users need to understand that as a paid membership benefit on PDGA-funded servers, a moderated message board is absolutely required here for liability reasons, and for good business sense. Otherwise the PDGA Office would be bombarded with complaints about offensive posts, and possibly a number of people who could threaten not to renew because of personal attacks, threats, and offensive content that would be found on an unmoderated board. The membership loss could possibly be significant and damaging to the growth of the PDGA.

All three moderators take part in dozens of other unmoderated or minimally moderated internet message boards. I personally moderate several fantasy football message boards, another disc golf message board, and one for a nationally touring jamband, and the standards are somewhat more lax on those boards. Believe it or not, the moderators here do make efforts to "push back" and I believe we are making progress to allow more here. But at the same time, we understand that there are higher standards on the PDGA DISCussion Board, and message board users also need to realize this - sharp personal attacks, abusive comments, or offensive content are just not going to be allowed. Because the motto of the discussion board could be "respect and responsibility" and because overt rudeness and unsportsmanlike conduct aren't allowed at PDGA-sanctioned tournaments as stipulated in 804.05 A.(1) (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/PDGA2007rulebook.pdf) the same can be expected on the PDGA DISCussion board. [/list]

3 moderators making up 15-20% of the complaints. WOW..If that is not a lot......
Let me suggest something. You moderators should be moderating, not out there looking for negativity. Is someone thinks there is a post in bad taste, they report, you moderate. LOL, 15-20% is a LOT!!!!! There is only 3 of you. Haters.
And BTW, i dont really care that much, but its like seeing someone trying to fight someone who doesnt want to fight. I dont really care, but i might say something.

message board myth or reality: peter shive reports posts for review while retaining responsibility for appeals.

message board question: why is the moderating team unwilling to post the names of the reporting parties?

To dream the impossible dream; to fight the unbeatable foe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Yawn.gif

15-20% is a LOT!!!!!



If 60 posts are reported in a month, and 15-20% are from moderators, that's only 12 from the 3 of us. And these are usually only attacks against the moderators themselves. I don't think that is unreasonable.


message board myth or reality: peter shive reports posts for review while retaining responsibility for appeals.



I would have to dig the records to see if Peter has ever reported a post. I know that former Communications Director Steve Dodge did. The answer is that the Communications Director would never retain responsibility for that appeal - it would go to Executive Director Brian Graham.

The system is designed to avoid bias at all costs. Just like no moderator may rule on a post he reported. Additionally, no moderator may rule on a complaint that comes in about a post that the moderator himself made. Additionally, no moderator may rule on posts that are personal attacks against the moderators. These go to Communications Director Peter Shive who acts a moderator in these cases, with appeals heard by Executive Director Brian Graham.


message board question: why is the moderating team unwilling to post the names of the reporting parties?


We aren't unwilling - we aren't allowed to. If you'd like to see this policy changed, then you should take it up with Communications Director Peter Shive.

message board question: why is the moderating team unwilling to post the names of the reporting parties?



Official explanation: They don't want snitches harassed.

Unofficial reason: Would make it more difficult for members/officials/powers that be with vendettas to jack people up.

message board question: why is the moderating team unwilling to post the names of the reporting parties?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We aren't unwilling - we aren't allowed to. If you'd like to see this policy changed, then you should take it up with Communications Director Peter Shive.



ok then, do you personally feel this would be a good idea?

message board question: why is the moderating team unwilling to post the names of the reporting parties?

We aren't unwilling - we aren't allowed to. If you'd like to see this policy changed, then you should take it up with Communications Director Peter Shive.



ok then, do you personally feel this would be a good idea?



I think it would lead to fewer posts being reported and fewer message board users on probation/suspension, which would certainly cut down on the amount of time spent on moderator duties each week. :cool:

However, if it led to a general escalation of personal attacks, abusive comments, and offensive content on the message board, and because these posts went unreported caused many PDGA members to stop using the PDGA DISCussion Board, then I don't think it would be a good thing. I would also worry about retaliation, both on the message board and in real life, against those who report posts and have their name published for doing so.

Again, seeing nearly all the complaints that come in and who makes them, I just don't observe a pattern where a message board user with a vendetta specifically targets another user and reports dozens of that person's posts to try to get him/her on probation or suspended. When there is someone obviously breaking PDGA DISCussion board rules, it is reported by many different people. So I would question the need/reason why the names of the reporting parties should get published? :confused:

You moderators should be moderating, not out there looking for negativity.



This post is very misleading - it makes it appear that we as moderators report the post and edit it and place the offender on probation. That is not the case. We are just users like you and like anyone else. When we report a post, we are not moderators, just offended users.


Is someone thinks there is a post in bad taste, they report, you moderate.



That is exactly what happens regardless of the person who reports the post. The only thing that matters with who reports the post is how it is handled by the moderators.


LOL, 15-20% is a LOT!!!!! There is only 3 of you. Haters.




I don't really think it is as much as it appears. Myself, Jeff and Doot are all on the computer all day and are three regular contrubitors to the message board. The more time you spend on the board, the more likely you are to find an offensive a post. It's just the law of averages.

message board question: why is the moderating team unwilling to post the names of the reporting parties?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We aren't unwilling - we aren't allowed to. If you'd like to see this policy changed, then you should take it up with Communications Director Peter Shive.



ok then, do you personally feel this would be a good idea?



I personally think this would be a bad idea for pretty much the reasons Jeff mentioned.

And no, it is not b/c I report posts. If anyone feels I reported a post on them please feel free to PM and ask me and I will be glad to tell you whether I did or not, but that is just me. I am a minority in this opinion I think.

disclosure and transparency. whether we like it or not, these myths exist. full disclosure would nip that problem in the bud. or in our case, the full bloom :)

i agree it would tend to throttle the complaints. i disagree that it would return this place to its former style. in fact, it WOULD provide all of us with a better understanding of what our peers feel is over the line. that in turn would lead to even fewer problems because it would be more clear to each of us where those lines are.

""""""""5) �The Moderators and the Communications Director will always make consistent calls, because the decisions result from a consensus.� Moderators, and the Communications Director, make their own calls, and although they may seek advice, they act independently. Individual monitors sometimes disagree with each other, and with me. A certain level of inconsistency is built in, and a gray area call (like a pass interference call) could go either way. Best, then, to stay away from the gray area, especially if you are on probation. """""""""""""""

--Best then to stay away from the gray area, especially if you are on probation... This is your answer? You sound like Bill O'Reilly who for the last 6-7 years has told us that if we don't like what Bush and the government is doing that we should just "SHUT UP" and deal with it or be considered unpatriotic. Since I don't have to Decipher your intent, Since you said the writer's intent isn't important, I personally take this as slightly insulting and threatening.
Since there is NO Rule that wouldn't allow someone to mention or use any words that are "gray area" related then you can't Take Consequential action against them.

This rule at the end says... We don't know what's in the gray area and we have no rules against the things in this "gray area", but if you choose to go that way then we might have to use our own BIAS and OPINIONS against the rules already stated and possibly put corrective and disciplinary action against you.

Starting to sound like our government in US.... "There is no law that say you have to pay Federal Income Tax, but if you choose not to do so we will find a way to discipline you for doing something that Isn't illegal."

Sounds like there are rules that need to be defined as you've clearly left many things completely just at your own hands. How would we know all the things we are doing wrong if you dont' even have rules that wouldn't allow us to do them?

-Scott Lewis

LOL, 15-20% is a LOT!!!!! There is only 3 of you. Haters.






I don't really think it is as much as it appears. Myself, Jeff and Doot are all on the computer all day and are three regular contrubitors to the message board. The more time you spend on the board, the more likely you are to find an offensive a post. It's just the law of averages.



I can't say that I agree with that. I have one of the top 10 (maybe 15 now) post counts on this board, and have only reported 2-3 posts ever as offensive.

Based on comments up thread, the moderators report 12 posts per week - divided by 3 - equals 4 per week per poster.

<font color="blue">the above time frame should be a month instead of a week, but even at that it seems a bit much</font>

Would you as a moderator think it excessive if I started reporting 4 posts per week as offensive ?

I think moderators should be restricted to making rulings on posts that are reported to them, and not allowed to flag reports as questionable. There are plenty of readers that would have their backs if necessary. But to have three readers out of a 50 responsible for 20% of the reported posts is not a good sign.

I see your points Gary and I def. feel you are very valuable asset to this board.

And to answer your question about if you reported that many posts a week would I find it excessive - the answer would be no as long as for the most part they would be something worth looking at as opposed to something not even close to a rule violation.

That is one thing that I think people are missing here, most of the posts reported by the moderators usually end up being sanctioned - and before that comment is taken the wrong way, let me explain. That is not b/c a moderator sees another post being reported by another moderator and assumes it is a bad post or anything like that (heck, I know I have had multiple posts reported both before I was a moderator and while I was a moderator that were turned down to be removed), but mainly b/c we have a really good idea of what will be removed and will not simply b/c we know the history of what types of posts are deleted and what are not very well and that, in my opinion, is why we moderators report more posts, along with my previous post.

Based on comments up thread, the moderators report 12 posts <font color="blue">per week</font>- divided by 3 - equals 4 per week per poster.



Gary, the part you listed above <font color="blue">(now in blue)</font> is incorrect and is NOT what was reported before. Which was:


If 60 posts are reported in a month, and 15-20% are from moderators, that's only 12 from the 3 of us. (IN ONE MONTH)



An average of 12 notifications in one month, divided by 4 weeks per month equals 3 notifications each week amongst the three moderators, or one each, on average.

imo moderators should not be allowed to report offensive posts, especially if they are reporting what they know to be sanctionable rather than being actually offended by a given post.

exactly. if a cop reports a misdemeneor (how do u spell that ??? ) its likely to be taken more seriously than if a plain ol citizen reports one.

imo moderators should not be allowed to report offensive posts, especially if they are reporting what they know to be sanctionable rather than being actually offended by a given post.



I disagree 100%, especially if it's a personal attack against one or more of the moderators.

We are message board users too just like everyone else, and should not have to sit by, handcuffed and powerless to act, if personal attacks are made against us or if offensive content is observed.

Consider that on other message boards, moderators make instantaneous decisions and immediately delete offensive content when they see it. At least we have the courtesy around here to report it to each other and let someone else rule on it so that a minimum of two people agree that a post violates the rules.

so i should be able to say whatever i wish on the message board (subject to the rules of the message board and the demands of fiduciary responsibility of course) even though i am a BoD person?

exactly. if a cop reports a misdemeneor (how do u spell that ??? ) its likely to be taken more seriously than if a plain ol citizen reports one.



Maybe that's how it works in police enforcement, but not here. Posts reported by one moderator will often be deemed by another moderator not to violate the rules. There is no "pressure" from one moderator exerted on the others to sanction a complaint made by a moderator.

imo moderators should not be allowed to report offensive posts, especially if they are reporting what they know to be sanctionable rather than being actually offended by a given post.



Why?

If a cop sees someone speeding and personally doesn't feel that speeding is wrong, he is still obligated to pull that person over.

Also (especially in personal attack situations), most of the time the person reporting the post is not the person being attacked. I know I have seen personal attacks against me and I go to report it and it was already reported by another user.

Just b/c you are not personally offended by a post doesn't mean it is not against the rules and / or someone else is offended by it.

someone reply to my post :)

Jeff: I don't care... you hot!!!!!

-Scott Lewis

"Maybe that's how it works in police enforcement, but not here. Posts reported by one moderator will often be deemed by another moderator not to violate the rules. "

releasing the information would prove this statement. if i get one request from one member, i will act in my authority as Oversight Director to obtain from the moderating team a full list of all reported posts, the name of the poster and communications within the moderating team regarding the resolution of all reports.

I disagree 100%



Imagine that! ;) :D

can you be banned for encouraging people to use their imagination?

You already do.

i think if Jeannie would have publicly stated that she believed the clues were already in possession, but expressed her opinion that the clues may not have been used in the manner in which she herself would have used them, then perhaps (not sure) the ground on which she stood may have been considered more terra firma and less terra obscoena

<font color="red"> Shive </font> is a PDGA Major event where rules are strictly enforced and the atmosphere could be pretty intense.

<font color="green"> Jeff La_G </font> is an NT event or a well run A-tier where rules are not ignored and are definitely looked upon with a microscope hoping for some sort of infraction.

<font color="blue"> MTL </font> is a solid B-tier. Mostly here for comradere and competition; not so worried about enforcing everything, just wants to play well and cash.

<font color="purple"> Doot </font> , he's a sunday morning mini where almost anything goes. Much like a local TD who once totally ignored the new lost disc rule and allowed the player to play from where the group last saw it flying. :D

<font color="red"> Shive </font> is a PDGA Major event where rules are strictly enforced and the atmosphere could be pretty intense.

<font color="green"> Jeff La_G </font> is an NT event or a well run A-tier where rules are not ignored and are definitely looked upon with a microscope hoping for some sort of infraction.

<font color="blue"> MTL </font> is a solid B-tier. Mostly here for comradere and competition; not so worried about enforcing everything, just wants to play well and cash.

<font color="purple"> Doot </font> , he's a sunday morning mini where almost anything goes. Much like a local TD who once totally ignored the new lost disc rule and allowed the player to play from where the group last saw it flying. :D



creative, although my name in Red would have been much more effective.

I was going to make a point in my earlier post about the likelihood of posts reported by moderators being more likely to be actionable merely because the moderators have a better understanding of the rules than other objectors.

The point being that the policy states two things must be true before a post is sanctioned. First it must offend someone enough to be reported. Then it must be found to be in violation of the message board rules. Just because a post meets the literal requirements of being against the rules, does not mean that it is offensive enough to cause someone to report it. This subjective element is what is needed to keep everyone from feeling as though they need to walk on eggshells. If you rely on the users of the board to police the content and report attacks that merit censure in the context they were posted, the board should be a bit more relaxed, and still remain usably civil.

As far as moderators defending themselves, I am all for it as long as they are being directly attacked or offended. But not so much when the moderators as a group are being attacked. I think most of the posts that attack the moderators as a group are actually attacking the policies, and not the individual moderators.

creative, although my name in Red would have been much more effective.



Creative indeed, although somewhat inaccurate. If <font color="red">MTL</font> is a B-tier, then I'm also a B-tier. <font color="red">MTL</font> gets really worked up about profanity and taking the Lord's name in vain, where I could care less about that. Doot is a C-tier. Now Kevin McCoy, remember when he was moderator? He was your "sunday morning mini." :D

"Maybe that's how it works in police enforcement, but not here. Posts reported by one moderator will often be deemed by another moderator not to violate the rules. "

releasing the information would prove this statement. if i get one request from one member, i will act in my authority as Oversight Director to obtain from the moderating team a full list of all reported posts, the name of the poster and communications within the moderating team regarding the resolution of all reports.



I would support your request, but I agree that posting the information about who found a post offensive to be more negative than not knowing who is being offended.

Then again, just keeping this conversation going and knowing that at some time in the future the history could be published could be enough to stop some from reporting abusive posts.

imo moderators should not be allowed to report offensive posts, especially if they are reporting what they know to be sanctionable rather than being actually offended by a given post.



I disagree 100%, especially if it's a personal attack against one or more of the moderators.

We are message board users too just like everyone else, and should not have to sit by, handcuffed and powerless to act, if personal attacks are made against us or if offensive content is observed.

Consider that on other message boards, moderators make instantaneous decisions and immediately delete offensive content when they see it. At least we have the courtesy around here to report it to each other and let someone else rule on it so that a minimum of two people agree that a post violates the rules.



The problem isn't that you are allowed to report stuff, it is your choice of what to report.

The position of moderator is one that will draw fire. If you can't handle criticism, resign now. If someone calling a moderator clueless upsets you, resign now.

I'm fine with moderators reporting posts... if they are clearly over the line. That doesn't mean words like stupid or clueless or idiot. That means clearly dirty words.

By your choice to be a moderator, you have put yourself in a public position. You should be willing to accept criticism. If I can't say that your decision was stupid or idiotic or moronic without you taking offense then honestly, you are not the right person to be filling the role of moderator.

Separate yourselves from your position. If I say "The moderators are wonderful", don't think to yourself "He just called me wonderful!" I'll get him promoted! Understand that you made a controversial decision or a decision that he completely agrees with and he is praising the decision enthuastically. Don't let it go to your head.

I suggest you seriously look at why you are moderating and ask yourself if you aren't being a little overly sensitive.

The best umpires in baseball can get yelled at and dirt kicked on them and still call a fair game.

Criticism of all things PDGA is fine. Message board users are free to engage in all the rebellion, criticism or dissent they want, because these topics encourage positive discussion, ways to improve the PDGA, and help to make us a better organization.

Personal attacks, however, are not allowed, no matter who the target is. Message board users must present their rebellion, criticism and dissent without using personal attacks.

Gee fellows, I thought the rules of play were the same no matter
what tier.

I can remember having one of my posts reported by Brian Graham
himself. Not much chance of winning that appeal.
Seemed like a huge waste of Brian's time policing this forum.
Doot suggested a warning but Godge himself gave me the
hook lightning fast.

No hard feelings, just no interest.

R I P discussion bored

steve timm

Personal attacks, however, are not allowed, no matter who the target is.


That statement is utter nonsense. You allow many personal attacks.

You are correct Terry.

Jeff attacked the moral fortitude of Kevin McCoy... At least I viewed it as Jeff stating that Kevin didn't live up to Jeff's high standards... leading me to believe that Jeff has a negative opinion of Kevin.

I think Jeff needs three months probation.

Just because you put a smiley face after it doesn't make it ok to submit a personal attack.

Criticism of all things PDGA is fine. Message board users are free to engage in all the rebellion, criticism or dissent they want, because these topics encourage positive discussion, ways to improve the PDGA, and help to make us a better organization.

Personal attacks, however, are not allowed, no matter who the target is. Message board users must present their rebellion, criticism and dissent without using personal attacks.



When you became a moderator you became the PDGA. "The Moderators" is the PDGA. But a criticism of how the collective moderators are doing their job is translated into being a "personal attack" and gets people banned.

I guess I can't criticize "all things PDGA"

I just don't understand why people cannot understand this.

Feel free to attack thoughts ideas and statements, just don't attack the person saying it.

There is a HUGE difference between "that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard" and "you are an idiot"

Well, I'm not sure that being able to tell that someone has a pretty negative opinion of someone else amounts to a personal attack.

It's pretty easy to know that I have a negative opinion about one regular poster here. (Only one; the one who posts using someone else's identity and the person who lets him don't count. They're just liars, but neither one is a legitimate "regular poster" here.)

However, letting you know of that negative opinion is not in and of itself a personal attack.

However, the moderators and the communications director do allow what are clear personal attacks to take place.

<font color="red"> Shive </font> is a PDGA Major event where rules are strictly enforced and the atmosphere could be pretty intense.

<font color="green"> Jeff La_G </font> is an NT event or a well run A-tier where rules are not ignored and are definitely looked upon with a microscope hoping for some sort of infraction.

<font color="blue"> MTL </font> is a solid B-tier. Mostly here for comradere and competition; not so worried about enforcing everything, just wants to play well and cash.

<font color="purple"> Doot </font> , he's a sunday morning mini where almost anything goes. Much like a local TD who once totally ignored the new lost disc rule and allowed the player to play from where the group last saw it flying. :D



creative, although my name in Red would have been much more effective.



Simple enough

<font color="blue"> Shive </font> is a PDGA Major event where rules are strictly enforced and the atmosphere could be pretty intense.

<font color="green"> Jeff La_G </font> is an NT event or a well run A-tier where rules are not ignored and are definitely looked upon with a microscope hoping for some sort of infraction.

<font color="red"> MTL </font> is a solid B-tier. Mostly here for comradere and competition; not so worried about enforcing everything, just wants to play well and cash.

<font color="purple"> Doot </font> , he's a sunday morning mini where almost anything goes. Much like a local TD who once totally ignored the new lost disc rule and allowed the player to play from where the group last saw it flying. :D



creative, although my name in Red would have been much more effective.



Creative indeed, although somewhat inaccurate. If <font color="red">MTL</font> is a B-tier, then I'm also a B-tier. <font color="red">MTL</font> gets really worked up about profanity and taking the Lord's name in vain, where I could care less about that. Doot is a C-tier. Now Kevin McCoy, remember when he was moderator? He was your "sunday morning mini." :D



:D:D:DK-Mac; a moderator. I did forget. :D:D:D

Just having some fun w/ you guys. I know you are just answering requests and tending to complaints; even though most of the complaints are irrational and the posters are punished b/c some thin-skinned conservative X-tiered shmuck complained. (can i say all of that if i'm refering to nobody(b/c you guys wont post the list of the tattletails?))

I just don't understand why people cannot understand this.

Feel free to attack thoughts ideas and statements, just don't attack the person saying it.

There is a HUGE difference between "that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard" and "you are an idiot"



Ok, now draw the line for me:

"That's stupid"
"Now you're being stupid."
"You're stupid"

Maybe I'm stupid, but I honestly don't know if I could get banned for saying the middle one.

The problem is that the line is drawn so far on the nanny state side of the equation that people are shocked at what gets people banned.

<font color="red"> Shive </font> is a PDGA Major event where rules are strictly enforced and the atmosphere could be pretty intense.

<font color="green"> Jeff La_G </font> is an NT event or a well run A-tier where rules are not ignored and are definitely looked upon with a microscope hoping for some sort of infraction.

<font color="blue"> MTL </font> is a solid B-tier. Mostly here for comradere and competition; not so worried about enforcing everything, just wants to play well and cash.

<font color="purple"> Doot </font> , he's a sunday morning mini where almost anything goes. Much like a local TD who once totally ignored the new lost disc rule and allowed the player to play from where the group last saw it flying. :D



creative, although my name in Red would have been much more - effective.



Not so much "anything goes", but definitely more would be allowed.

1. I'd probably allow @!%$%# swearing..we have a pretty good filter right now, and that would be enough for me. Self-censoring shows to me that the poster wants to get his/her message across and can do so by implying the profane words, not spelling them out.

2. Personal attacks are the big grey area for me. I'm my own worst (or best!) self-deprecator (see the Skylands or NEFA forums), and I typically apply that philosophy to everyone. As such, insults that I'd laugh at *could* be offensive to some. I completely do understand some people are not nearly as thick skinned as myself, so I do need to put myself in a different frame of mind when ruling on personal attacks. To me, they're just words.

If the insult is truth, maybe the target should reflect upon his/her character or actions. If they're false, the target should acknowledge as such, make his/her counter-argument, and move on in life.

3. Due to minors being on the forum, of course nudity or direct links to nudity would be forbidden (however I would allow paintings of Aphrodite or some artwork of Chris Sprague) on the site. I'm continually baffled at how "tight" Americans are when it comes to nudity, yet violence runs rampant in today's media (that's another topic though..) &lt;/rantoff&gt;

4. Posting on another's account. The forum is considered a benefit of PDGA Membership, so posters should only be members. I have no issue with this rule.

5. Illegal drugs - although this does violate freedom of speech rights (which are not rights on this private forum) I still agree that images and references to the solicitation, distribution or manufacturing of drugs should be illegal. We need to protect our image if we want to get to the next level.

6. Causing harm to Mb..this too is a no-brainer.

With that being said, I agreed to volunteer with the moderating team based upon the current set of rules. To help the PDGA moderate the board, I'll continue to honor the current rules that are in place. As the other moderators can attest, my viewpoints do go into many of the debates we have regarding rulings. I'll continue to share my more liberal views during such debates, but will make rulings based upon the current rules.

Call me a tool, puppet, or Stepford Son of the PDGA..it wont bother me in the least. I'm helping where I can, and hopefully in the long run maybe some day my more liberal viewpoints will be more accepted by the powers that be within the PDGA.

Amen!

- F Doot

"They're just liars"

thats not an attack?

creative, although my name in Red would have been much more effective.



Creative indeed, although somewhat inaccurate. If <font color="red">MTL</font> is a B-tier, then I'm also a B-tier. <font color="red">MTL</font> gets really worked up about profanity and taking the Lord's name in vain, where I could care less about that. Doot is a C-tier. Now Kevin McCoy, remember when he was moderator? He was your "sunday morning mini." :D



Ahem! I'm offended that you're referring to me as a C-Tier. I'm more of a Southwick C-Tier...drinking beer would be allowed while making posts on my forum. :D

"Now you're being stupid."





I would rule this a personal attack, you are still attacking a person.

imo moderators should not be allowed to report offensive posts, especially if they are reporting what they know to be sanctionable rather than being actually offended by a given post.



I disagree 100%, especially if it's a personal attack against one or more of the moderators.

We are message board users too just like everyone else, and should not have to sit by, handcuffed and powerless to act, if personal attacks are made against us or if offensive content is observed.

Consider that on other message boards, moderators make instantaneous decisions and immediately delete offensive content when they see it. At least we have the courtesy around here to report it to each other and let someone else rule on it so that a minimum of two people agree that a post violates the rules.



The problem isn't that you are allowed to report stuff, it is your choice of what to report.

The position of moderator is one that will draw fire. If you can't handle criticism, resign now. If someone calling a moderator clueless upsets you, resign now.

I'm fine with moderators reporting posts... if they are clearly over the line. That doesn't mean words like stupid or clueless or idiot. That means clearly dirty words.

By your choice to be a moderator, you have put yourself in a public position. You should be willing to accept criticism. If I can't say that your decision was stupid or idiotic or moronic without you taking offense then honestly, you are not the right person to be filling the role of moderator.

Separate yourselves from your position. If I say "The moderators are wonderful", don't think to yourself "He just called me wonderful!" I'll get him promoted! Understand that you made a controversial decision or a decision that he completely agrees with and he is praising the decision enthuastically. Don't let it go to your head.

I suggest you seriously look at why you are moderating and ask yourself if you aren't being a little overly sensitive.

The best umpires in baseball can get yelled at and dirt kicked on them and still call a fair game.



Very, very well said. As a moderator, I'm in 100% agreement of all of this.

Peter and Jeff, why don't you tell us what a personal attack is, then?

Apparently, calling into question the intelligence of anyone is a personal attack.

I guess that is because it is provable that everyone is very smart.

But it's okay to say that someone beats his wife, pencil whips his disc golf buddies, lies about his military service, and, probably, cheats on his wife with someone at work.

Because you can't prove or disprove any of the latter four personal attacks.

Provable or not, they are personal attacks.

"Now you're being stupid."





I would rule this a personal attack, you are still attacking a person.



So when I'm debating someone on a rule change and they employ a Reductio ad Absurdium argument... i.e. if our icebowl allowed unlimited mulligans for $1 each and you suggested that someone could stay out until they aced each hole.

If I said "Now you're just being stupid"

That's worth it to you for me to lose the one of the privileges that I PAID FOR as a member of this organization.

And all I have to do is type "you're" instead of "that's" and I potentially lose a product that I paid for?

Despite the fact that the person was, in fact, intentionally being "absurd/stupid?"

Yeah. That makes sense to me.

Don't forget, without members, the fiefdom that is under the moderator's benevolent dictatorship ceases to exist.

Two last questions before I go: What percentage of our membership fees go to pay for the message boards? When can Rhett expect his check for a refund of that portion of his membership?

"Now you're being stupid."





I would rule this a personal attack, you are still attacking a person.



So when I'm debating someone on a rule change and they employ a Reductio ad Absurdium argument... i.e. if our icebowl allowed unlimited mulligans for $1 each and you suggested that someone could stay out until they aced each hole.

If I said "Now you're just being stupid"

That's worth it to you for me to lose the one of the privileges that I PAID FOR as a member of this organization.

And all I have to do is type "you're" instead of "that's" and I potentially lose a product that I paid for?

Despite the fact that the person was, in fact, intentionally being "absurd/stupid?"

Yeah. That makes sense to me.

Don't forget, without members, the fiefdom that is under the moderator's benevolent dictatorship ceases to exist.

Two last questions before I go: What percentage of our membership fees go to pay for the message boards? When can Rhett expect his check for a refund of that portion of his membership?



You bring up a very good point. I have my own view on "You're being stupid" and will bring up my view with the moderating team and Peter to privately discuss why or why not this is (or should or should not be) a personal attack.

"Now you're being stupid."





I would rule this a personal attack, you are still attacking a person.



So when I'm debating someone on a rule change and they employ a Reductio ad Absurdium argument... i.e. if our icebowl allowed unlimited mulligans for $1 each and you suggested that someone could stay out until they aced each hole.

If I said "Now you're just being stupid"

That's worth it to you for me to lose the one of the privileges that I PAID FOR as a member of this organization.

And all I have to do is type "you're" instead of "that's" and I potentially lose a product that I paid for?

Despite the fact that the person was, in fact, intentionally being "absurd/stupid?"

Yeah. That makes sense to me.

Don't forget, without members, the fiefdom that is under the moderator's benevolent dictatorship ceases to exist.

Two last questions before I go: What percentage of our membership fees go to pay for the message boards? When can Rhett expect his check for a refund of that portion of his membership?



I understand your argument and with pretty much everything this broad, there will always be a "well, what if" rebuttal.

Most of the things are taken in context and read like that.

Also, something very close or "on the fence" so to speak that was removed doesn't mean that the person was placed on probation or sanctioned.

Many times we issue warnings and something that small that I felt was a personal attack, I would more than likely just give a warning.

Many times we issue warnings and something that small that I felt was a personal attack, I would more than likely just give a warning.



So the person is intentionally being stupid.

I say they are being stupid.

I get warned for calling it like it is.

Does this warning go down on my permanent record?

Is there ever a negative directed at another person that doesn't merit some sanction?

And your homework for tomorrow: What does the decision tree look like for sarcasm? Subtitled: 2007 Miami Dolphins the Best NFL team ever!

So the person is intentionally being stupid.




You can never prove this. This is an assumption.

after we figure out sarcasm, i'd like to see us address parody. think of the op. ed. cartoons this place would generate! :)

What does the decision tree look like for sarcasm? Subtitled: 2007 Miami Dolphins the Best NFL team ever!



Sarcasm is tough to relay through text. While you and others may get it, I can garuntee someone will not.

Whenever I post sarcasm on a message board I usually end my post letting everyone know it was.

I.E.

Man the Miami Dolphins were awesome this year *sarcasm*

"While you and others may get it, I can garuntee someone will not."

why wouldnt they get it? are they stupid? to what percentage of message board readers do you feel so superior?

:cool:

(whenever i post on a message board, i use the :cool:sign cuz it means its all good)

Man the Miami Dolphins were awesome this year *sarcasm*

Gotcha! That's a personal attack to this fish fan. Who do i need to notify? :p

Is it a personal attack just because the poster mis-spelled "awful" ?
:eek: :o:cool::D :D
the more the better..... ;)

So the person is intentionally being stupid.




You can never prove this. This is an assumption.



You can never prove that the person isn't stupid. You are assuming that it is a personal attack. Is posting fact against the rules?

To quote the great orator Y. Smirnoff, "In Russia, Your Mother Wears Combat Boots is not an insult, because she does."

If I know the person, and have been discussing things with them for a long time on a message board, and I know that they are an intelligent, thoughtful person with highly developed logic skills, and then they post the most ludicrous piece of text either: They have suddenly had a mental meltdown, or they are acting stupid (or are drunk).

We as moderators are not suppose to determine the difference between fact and fiction b/c there is no way for us to do it, esp. when it comes to people claiming that someone has lied about them or in this case, someone acting differently that normal.

As we have posted many times before and I'm sure we will post many times again, when we receive a complaint of a post we have no knowledge of who made the post until after we make the decision. This ensures fairness and also ensures that we are not "picking" on anyone and if someone should claim that, we have the evidence to back up we are not.

If we were to make decisions with knowledge of the poster that could (and I'm sure would) sway some of our decisions. While I would hope that it would not, the subconscious is a mighty powerful thing.

Once again, attack ideas thoughts comments and decisions, just don�t attack those who make the ideas, the thoughts, the comments and the decisions. It really is that simple.

Is there any way that when a post is under consideration due to a possible personal attack that the target of said insult could say "Let it ride"?
For example, if someone said I was stupid for suggesting this and their post was sent to the moderators, the moderators could ask me if I thought it was an attack. I could then respond that the poster was clueless and to let it go. :)

Is there any way that when a post is under consideration due to a possible personal attack that the target of said insult could say "Let it ride"?
For example, if someone said I was stupid for suggesting this and their post was sent to the moderators, the moderators could ask me if I thought it was an attack. I could then respond that the poster was clueless and to let it go. :)



That's a very good question and one that was actually asked recently of Communications Director Peter Shive. His outlook on that was basically:

1) It would add another layer of effort to our job.
2) We don't want offensive material on the board, period.

Once again as we have posted many times and I'm sure will post many times more...

Just b/c you are not offended by the post does not mean someone else would not be.

I know that if I don't want to have to read through a bunch of attacks on someone on here when I'm trying to find some information.

Also, please keep in mind that we have PDGA members under the age of 18 (remember Jacob Loper, yeah he was 10) that use this board and also many non members as well as potential sponsors read this.

If we had someone wanting to sponsor disc golf and they came and read some of this stuff, don't you think that would hurt the cause? If not, it certainly would not help it.

to Terry_Calhoun:

1) The IP address "proof" is circumstantial. It would take too much time and effort to make it stick.
2) Even if we could make it stick, nonmembers and banned members can just send their post to a friend in the PDGA and have them post it from their computer. There is no way we can prevent that.



Not to mention the only way to get an IP address from an ISP is with a court order for proof that a crime was committed. (IMO this would be an invasion of privacy)

I know that Kozak, but the IP address thing is a secondary, "straw man" argument.

The post in question was a personal attack whether it was made by Joe Proud, whose identity was used for the posting, or by Jason Southwick using Joe Proud's identity, with permission or not. (Which is what most people who know about the IP address thing really believe, although they won't say it here.)

If it was made by Southwick using Proud's identity, then it just violated a second norm/rule, as well as being a personal attack in the first place.

When I spoke with Proud on the phone, he claimed to have no knowledge of the post.

Since it is a personal attack and the identity which posted it claims no knowledge of it, then it should be easy to remove it, right?

Nope. The moderators and PDGA communications director Peter Shive refuse to, exposing me to potential physical harm.

have you appealed to Brian Graham yet?

releasing the information would prove this statement. if i get one request from one member, i will act in my authority as Oversight Director to obtain from the moderating team a full list of all reported posts, the name of the poster and communications within the moderating team regarding the resolution of all reports.



PM sent.

If we had someone wanting to sponsor disc golf and they came and read some of this stuff, don't you think that would hurt the cause? If not, it certainly would not help it.



This is one of the weakest points that gets consistently made regarding this subject on this bored...though the poster himself is brilliant and phrased it exceptionally well. Hiding behind this position is laughable (as a general Association principle) in light of what "someone" could see, and more importantly smell, on any disc golf course and in any tourney at any time. That is a much greater problem than referencing someone as a device readily purchased at Home Depot with positive uses.

If we had someone wanting to sponsor disc golf and they came and read some of this stuff, don't you think that would hurt the cause? If not, it certainly would not help it.



This is one of the weakest points that gets consistently made regarding this subject on this bored...though the poster himself is brilliant and phrased it exceptionally well. Hiding behind this position is laughable (as a general Association principle) in light of what "someone" could see, and more importantly smell, on any disc golf course and in any tourney at any time. That is a much greater problem than referencing someone as a device readily purchased at Home Depot with positive uses.



I can't imagine any outsider would look at the message board and take it or anything on it seriously.

If people would put even 10% of the effort that goes into this message board into something useful, it'd be amazing what we could do.

Chap

Once again as we have posted many times and I'm sure will post many times more...

Just b/c you are not offended by the post does not mean someone else would not be.



I wasn't referring to offensive material, just the borderline "you must be an idiot to think that" type stuff that falls in the gray area.

I think Jeff's point about trying to not create extra work is a valid point.

Maybe I'm the only one, but it seems like a couple of moderators constantly contradict themselves when they say they are regular users of this message board (and other boards as well), actually spending lots of time in front of their computers, and reporting many posts as being against the rules. Then they want us to believe that when they go into moderator discussions amongst themselves, they have no idea who's post they are ruling on. I'm calling BS on this (btw, BS means blown snot, not what it looks like it means ;)). These moderators are all over this board and I'm pretty sure they know exaclty who they are ruling against in most cases.

If we had someone wanting to sponsor disc golf and they came and read some of this stuff, don't you think that would hurt the cause? If not, it certainly would not help it.



This is one of the weakest points that gets consistently made regarding this subject on this bored...though the poster himself is brilliant and phrased it exceptionally well. Hiding behind this position is laughable (as a general Association principle) in light of what "someone" could see, and more importantly smell, on any disc golf course and in any tourney at any time. That is a much greater problem than referencing someone as a device readily purchased at Home Depot with positive uses.



I can't imagine any outsider would look at the message board and take it or anything on it seriously.

If people would put even 10% of the effort that goes into this message board into something useful, it'd be amazing what we could do.

Chap



Hear Hear!

As a previous advocate of the notion that this board has an impact on public perception, I have to say, baloney. It is patently obvious that MBs as a medium for building valuable perceptions are limited at best. There is simply no way to make them a selling point.

They should be fun and even separate from the other PDGA information present on this site, but they are not what is important here.

Maybe I'm the only one, but it seems like a couple of moderators constantly contradict themselves when they say they are regular users of this message board (and other boards as well), actually spending lots of time in front of their computers, and reporting many posts as being against the rules. Then they want us to believe that when they go into moderator discussions amongst themselves, they have no idea who's post they are ruling on. I'm calling BS on this (btw, BS means blown snot, not what it looks like it means ;)). These moderators are all over this board and I'm pretty sure they know exaclty who they are ruling against in most cases.



Has there been posts reported that I remember reading on the board? Of course.

But many posts reported I do not read. (This is for example sake only).

The Hawaii affiliate club section. I don't read that. I only read 4 of those affiliate club section threads (Charlotte, Onslow, New Hanover and Raleigh). For the most part I only read PDGA tournament, Courses, Other PDGA topics, Other PDGA Clubs and the club information.

Now from time to time a thread pops up in, let's say rules, that I may read. But those are the sections I consistently read.

I would say that 97% of the complaints coming in when I read them in the emailed complaint, it is the first time I am reading them.

publish a report of the accusers, and this issue will go away. dont do it and it will almost certainly continue.

Take this issue up with Communications Director Peter Shive and Executive Director Brian Graham and and this issue will go away. dont do it and it will almost certainly continue.

true dat. no argument there at all.

hey, how did you do that???

Terry,

This is an admitted generalization about what I am seeing in regards to what appear to be interpreted as personal attacks:

"You are a (disparaging word or phrase)"
"Doing that made you look like a (disparaging word or phrase)"
"That was really a (disparaging word or phrase) thing to do"

These seem to be interpreted as personal attacks, since it leaves the reader with very little material on which to formulate an opinion. These are phrases directly disparaging someone else.

"I saw you (acting in an inappropriate manner)"
"You were not telling the truth when you said X"
"You did not tell the truth when you said X"
"I have heard others say that you (acted in an inappropriate manner)"

These have not been generally interpreted as personal attacks, because they are addressing someone's actions without using disparaging words or phrases. These statements leave room for the reader to interpret the inappropriateness of the action being claimed in the statement, and also the veracity of the statement. The subject person could have been telling part of the whole truth, and the statement writer could have interpreted that as not telling the truth. These statements involve facts, truthful or not, and not opinions.

However, if someone said "You lied when you said X", that would be getting in a gray area, because it is referring to a fact or action, but is using a disparaging word when doing so"

My $0.02 YMMV

hey, how did you do that???



You just keep quoting and answering yourself. Though i must agree that if you post a list of the thinskinned conservative complainers that 99% of it will go away.

You can lead the Mods to water but you can't make them drink.

bill, you had me til that next to last sentence. fact is, i got official word yesterday that calling someone a liar is NOT against the MB rules. Mr Calhoun called two people liars yesterday. the post was reviewed and found to be acceptable.

Well, I said that it was a gray area. And now I guess that gray area is white.

But, Terry did not name the two people who he called liars. If I said, "some people who post here are liars", I wouldn't think that it would be considered a personal attack, because no one person can be considered attacked. Or maybe Terry's was allowed because it was the use of a disparaging statement against someone who is not named, and is not easily determined.

?

Well, I said that it was a gray area. And now I guess that gray area is white.

But, Terry did not name the two people who he called liars. If I said, "some people who post here are liars", I wouldn't think that it would be considered a personal attack, because no one person can be considered attacked. Or maybe Terry's was allowed because it was the use of a disparaging statement against someone who is not named, and is not easily determined.

?



I made this ruling, and you are correct Bill. Terry simply stated, "There are liars on this Mb." I am not going to speculate or guess who he was referring to. If he had said "John Doe is a liar" then either a warning or probation would have been issued.

And it sounds like this time we don't have to ask who reported it.

Do some people who post, lie?

Do liars only post on some threads?

Do those people who post lies, only post on those threads where lies are posted?

If you post on a thread where there is a lie, are you a liar?

Is it O.K. to lie on the MB, but not O.K. to accuse someone of lying?

What is the meaning of life, is it to lie?

To lie or not to lie, what is the question?

If a lie is told in the woods, is it a lie?

If a liar tells the truth, is it a lie?

If we have nothing to fear, should we lie about it?

Fool me once, shame on you, if you fool me twice are you a liar?

What is the color of a lie?

How many lies can you fit on the head of a pin?

Is it to lie while you lie or lie while you lay?

What was the first lie?

What is the Cardinal Lie?

If you have a room full of politicians can the truth be found?

How old can a lie be?

Can a lie ever be the truth?

If a golfer lies about his lie, is he lying?

And it sounds like this time we don't have to ask who reported it.

nope - i did. more for the clarification than anything else.

Mr Calhoun doesnt bother me.

my family includes a four year old daughter, and i have gotten very good at letting absurd comments and over the top hyperbole go by without comment.

to Lyle O. Ross:

Message Board Myth #7: �Moderators try to keep mistakes and lies off the board�. The moderators do not have time to correct mistakes, and that is not their purpose. Posters need to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and hopefully the extension of the self-edit/delete window to 72 hours will help them do this. Nor can moderators judge the truth-value of every statement. One person�s profound truth is another�s contemptible lie, and we haven�t the time or the ability to sort it out. So beware, there may be mistakes and lies out there. Caveat emptor.

Yawn.

You know, this beats any 2M or True Am discussion...

to Lyle O. Ross:

Message Board Myth #7: �Moderators try to keep mistakes and lies off the board�. The moderators do not have time to correct mistakes, and that is not their purpose. Posters need to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and hopefully the extension of the self-edit/delete window to 72 hours will help them do this. Nor can moderators judge the truth-value of every statement. One person�s profound truth is another�s contemptible lie, and we haven�t the time or the ability to sort it out. So beware, there may be mistakes and lies out there. Caveat emptor.



:D

Yawn.



I think what you meant was snooooorrrrre...

Myth being perpetuated by LaGrassa:

[Of course, a moderator must not rule on his own post



Reality:
Maybe they should not, but it has been known to happen. (Enjoy this episode from 06/2007):

Terry Calhoun offered to act as a PDGA message board
intermediary &amp;, while UPM serves his PDGA message
board suspension, post his answers to member's
questions concerning his BOD candidacy. PDGA message
board moderator Jeff LaGrassa freaked out &amp; threatened
Mr. Calhoun with probation/suspension for doing so,
even though there is no message board (or
common-sense) rule against anything of the sort. He
fumed &amp; fumed, but finally PDGA Board of Directors
member (and erstwhile Communications Director) Steve
Dodge reeled him in &amp; said that such posting was A-OK.


Mr. LaGrassa then posted a whining rant about his
having been vetoed &amp; broke message board rule #1,
calling the whole saga a "crock of [censored]". I
complained to the PDGA message board moderators about
the post on profanity grounds.

Well, a few hours (and a few evil PMs from Mr.
LaGrassa) later I get an email from moderator "Troy
Polamalu (ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" saying
that the post was reviewed &amp; found to be innocuous. A
cursory Yahoo search revealed that "Troy Polamalu
(ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" is, indeed, Jeff
LaGrassa, ruling on a complaint against HIMSELF. Can
you freakin' believe that?!?!?!"



S. Dodge saw through this hypocritical ruse &amp; slapped LaG with probation.

Myth being perpetuated by LaGrassa:

[Of course, a moderator must not rule on his own post



Reality:
Maybe they should not, but it has been known to happen. (Enjoy this episode from 06/2007):

Terry Calhoun offered to act as a PDGA message board
intermediary &amp;, while UPM serves his PDGA message
board suspension, post his answers to member's
questions concerning his BOD candidacy. PDGA message
board moderator Jeff LaGrassa freaked out &amp; threatened
Mr. Calhoun with probation/suspension for doing so,
even though there is no message board (or
common-sense) rule against anything of the sort. He
fumed &amp; fumed, but finally PDGA Board of Directors
member (and erstwhile Communications Director) Steve
Dodge reeled him in &amp; said that such posting was A-OK.


Mr. LaGrassa then posted a whining rant about his
having been vetoed &amp; broke message board rule #1,
calling the whole saga a "crock of [censored]". I
complained to the PDGA message board moderators about
the post on profanity grounds.

Well, a few hours (and a few evil PMs from Mr.
LaGrassa) later I get an email from moderator "Troy
Polamalu (ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" saying
that the post was reviewed &amp; found to be innocuous. A
cursory Yahoo search revealed that "Troy Polamalu
(ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" is, indeed, Jeff
LaGrassa, ruling on a complaint against HIMSELF. Can
you freakin' believe that?!?!?!"



S. Dodge saw through this hypocritical ruse &amp; slapped LaG with probation.



Giggle

O.K., we're working on a laugh now...

Myth being perpetuated by Vegan Ray Parrish:

A one-sided take, filled with inaccuracies, of an episode on the message board about 8 months ago.





Reality:
The full explanation of the incident in post#727946 here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Other%20PDGA%20Topics&amp;Number=72 7946&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=724974&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post727 946).

So, you certainly wrote above:

Of course, a moderator must not rule on his own post,



So, does your "explanation" claim that you didn't rule on your own post (sure doesn't read that way to me), or does it explain why it is OK for Jeff LaGrassa to do so, because he's so sharp that things "seem obvious" to him?

Mr Calhoun doesnt bother me.

my family includes a four year old daughter, and i have gotten very good at letting absurd comments and over the top hyperbole go by without comment.


Thanks for the compliment PDGA board member Pat Brenner. (Surely no one is thinking that was a personal attack, are they?)

You are so kind to suggest that my innocence, enthusiasm, creativity, and naive wisdom are equal to that of a four year old. :cool:

If people would put even 10% of the effort that goes into this message board into something useful, it'd be amazing what we could do.


I did, discgolfersR.us (http://discgolfersr.us) and it is in fact turning out, so far, to be truly amazing. It's very friendly to the PDGA, and will remain so.

I see that PDGA board member Pat Brenner did so, as well (http://dgplayersfed.ning.com/). Interesting name, "Disc Golf Players Federation," for something created by a current PDGA board member.

Gee, I don't know, Terry, his words about his four year old making absurd comments is considered the same in these parts as saying that this daughter is absurd. And that is definitely a personal attack.

But I'm not gonna turn him in, I will let someone else.

I think he's safe, she's probably not a PDGA member. Watch out what you say about Dubya, though :D

I'm gonna go hang out over at the Clubhouse for a while. Moderators can heave a sigh of relief. If the stuff at the other end of the link about the players federation disappears and anyone wants to see what was there, just let me know. I prefer email to PMs, so I've disabled the latter.

did you notice the two sentences were in seperate paragraphs? the reason i did that i because the two paragraphs are completely unrelated. i was not talking about you, Mr Calhoun, i was on another point. i figured the lack of any seque would tip readers off.

yeah, i set that up in order to better understand the process of setting up a ning presence. its a learning exercise. notice i havent publicized it at all. what i learned was that it is remarkably easy to se up a really cool ning site that has lots of nice utilities for folks to use. also, like all websites that have come before and all that will follow, it is incredibly difficult to get good content on a site, make it look really good and be easy to use, and make it overall a compatible place to hang out. i commend you sincerely for accomposhing that feat. i commended you and your site to the BoD in the last meeting as a matter of fact.

by the way, i believe in engaging external sites as much as possible. i am consistent in that, and extend it to include not only disc golf affinity sites, but also online vendors, events sites, course directories, designers groups, the whole gamut. i believe that small teams of motivated people can be an amazingly powerful thing for the sport and for hte association. the more some services are encouraged to grow and flourish outside of the the formal boundaries of the PDGA, the better. while you and i may not agree on various other issues. the existance of your site, its longterm success, and its ability to interface with the PDGA (and vice versa) are all wonderful things, in my very sincere opinion.

Gulp. I could not resist coming back. I am going now for a while. Looks like Pat and I have a truce.

moderators: roughly how many warnings are given in lieu of probation or a next-level penalty? answer can be in raw numbers, or as percentages. gracias.

do you wish you were Hawkgammon?



Let's go over Hawkgammon's attributes and see if I want to have them.

<font color="blue"> [borderline personal attack removed] </font>

At least he is somewhat whitty.



So I get three months for calling a moderator a tool but a moderator can call me unattractive? I got tipped off to this vicious personal attack this morning, and went to report it, but someone beat me to the punch. Can't wait to hear that MTL is on a three monther as well. Later today I'll cruise the bored looking for more of this kind of horrible stuff.

do you wish you were Hawkgammon?



Let's go over Hawkgammon's attributes and see if I want to have them.

<font color="blue"> [borderline personal attack removed] </font>

At least he is somewhat whitty.



So I get three months for calling a moderator a tool but a moderator can call me unattractive? I got tipped off to this vicious personal attack this morning, and went to report it, but someone beat me to the punch. Can't wait to hear that MTL is on a three monther as well. Later today I'll cruise the bored looking for more of this kind of horrible stuff.



How could anyone not think you're a babe. Those avatars were pictures of you... right?

myth: I do not believe Peter has EVER reported a post for review.

answer: It has always been Moderator policy that we do not discuss issues or appeals with the reporter of posts, the target, or the appealer (when applicable.) All inquiries should be addressed to Peter Shive. [email protected]