Jump to content

Notice of Thread/Post Moderation


inquiry

Recommended Posts

Well here is another suggestion for you. I suggest you delete the above post and get the moderator to post an apology. Moderation is a prickly subject with some posters anyway. Do you really want a moderator who posts the nonsense above? I find it offensive; others may well do.

 

Really?

 

I mean if what Diana wrote "Because I can" came from someone that we don't know I would tend to agree with you. But by now we all know who she is and she is not even close to be a power freak person, most of her posts if not all are written in a very balanced tolerated tone both in BBO and BBF. We are a small community here and she once in a while wrote something which she obviously thought we will understand the joke. And Barmar replied with a counter joke and perhaps implied to her that not everyone can understand it the way she intended and kinda gave her a hint w/o offending her.

 

But asking for an apology? Delete? Calling it nonsense? Cmon, do you really want Gestapo rules to be applied here? After all you me and other posters saying things that we should not be saying all over the forums and they are tolerating us? As Clee said we are a small family here.

 

She just started doing the forum moderator job and I am sure Ben and Barmar will help her appropriately when needed. I am not always happy with what Ben and Barmar does, but this only proves they are doing their job good. I would be more worried if I always agreed with their decisions or if they made decisions that fits to my measures. We have 2 guys doing their job as best as they can given the conditions and Diana is very capable of helping them out and ease a little bit of the weight off their shoulders imho.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well... sorry if my attempt of humor wasn't to everyone's taste. I was very excited about being able to move a thread myself. I guess I got carried away a little :)

 

Anyway, it was my uninspired way to announce the community that yay! I'm an admin now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "mad with power" comment was also intended as hyperbole. AFAIK, she hasn't done anything inappropriate with her moderator powers so far.

 

The other moderation she did recently was to edit the post that I deleted. She removed the offensive part, but in doing so she changed the meaning of the post to something the OP didn't intend (the offense was in an answer to a rhetorical question, so when she removed it it looked like the question was intended seriously). I decided it would be better to just remove it entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removed the thread from the water cooler about legal problems for a Bridge Base Online customer for violation of the terms of service of this site. Also removed the original announcement of this removal for providing a bit too much detail on the removal of the thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removed the thread from the water cooler about legal problems for a Bridge Base Online customer for violation of the terms of service of this site. Also removed the original announcement of this removal for providing a bit too much detail on the removal of the thread.

And in doing so, you provided more detail for those who read the first removal, but not the thread itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in doing so, you provided more detail for those who read the first removal, but not the thread itself.

 

Anyone who read the first removal announcement could use something called google to find out more, so I don't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Barry edited one of my posts: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66856-mi-case-from-another-forum/page__view__findpost__p__799035

I'm mostly curious to know why it broke the forum rule of not naming names. I thought the goal was to avoid lynches, so to speak, but that post didn't let any BBFer find that person on BBO and didn't really say anything defamatory about the player, it just stated Bridge facts, i.e. this was the bidding, that was the ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seemed like the only purpose in naming the player was to embarass them for their infraction. I don't see how it added anything to the discussion to know who it was. And I thought it was the general policy of the IBLF to keep things anonymous.

 

If you think it was appropriate for that forum, ask Blackshoe and Bluejak. If they thinks it's OK, they can edit the name back in. I didn't consult with them before editing because it would have taken too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, actually it was the other way around, since people criticized the player's skill level based on this one action, so I wanted to show I don't just toss the "expert" label around :)

I didn't recognize the name, so I didn't understand that you were naming the player to support the claim that he was an expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
First I moved the thread "Frustration ... Finding teaching tables" from General Bridge Discussion to General BBO Discussion. Then when I started reading that thread, I noticed that they had started a similar thread there, "Accessing teaching tables", so I merged the two threads together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Deleted a series of identical posts containing only a link, and subsequent replies quoting that link. Thanks for the reports.

 

I am surprised, and dare I say I think it a little heavy-handed. I am not aware of anything in the forum terms of service that make it an offence per se to draw the readership's attention to content outside of the site by way of a hyperlink.

 

I know of the posts to which this refers (and I think that my responses were among the deletions). It is possible that the original poster was genuine in his belief as to the validity of his opinion, just as my responses detracted therefrom. Self-policing of the thread should have been adequate, in my view.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised, and dare I say I think it a little heavy-handed. I am not aware of anything in the forum terms of service that make it an offence per se to draw the readership's attention to content outside of the site by way of a hyperlink.

 

I know of the posts to which this refers (and I think that my responses were among the deletions). It is possible that the original poster was genuine in his belief as to the validity of his opinion, just as my responses detracted therefrom. Self-policing of the thread should have been adequate, in my view.

 

There was more to it, but didn't want to post all details. Sorry for deleting your replies, by the way :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I closed the <a href="http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/Is this a trap thread in General Bridge Discussion, because it seemed to have devolved into near-flaming about who was accusing who of what. I've received one PM so far saying my action was premature. If others agree, I'll reopen it.

 

Do you want our opinions via PM or here? I am asking because it would be sad to see "thread lock" thread to be locked too http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

 

Ok, I will reply here anyway.Imho you overreacted. Near-Flaming? What does that even mean? Of course there will be some heat on the forums now and then and people will exchange some spicy words. However the topic locked was a textbook example of how people can be so much against each others views and still can express their frustration without being really ugly. You ain't gonna get any better replies than this when there is a topic with huge disagreements. Yes there were some snarks-jabs and body shots but I do not think anyone hit under the belly so far. Anything less than this will be pretending and fake and unreal which leads to be boring. Anything more than this would be ugly. It was just about how it should be. (at the top but still in our range in bridge terms http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But this is of course my personal opinion and you and other people may have different criteria. Which I respectfully disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want our opinions via PM or here? I am asking because it would be sad to see "thread lock" thread to be locked too http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

 

Ok, I will reply here anyway.Imho you overreacted. Near-Flaming? What does that even mean? Of course there will be some heat on the forums now and then and people will exchange some spicy words. However the topic locked was a textbook example of how people can be so much against each others views and still can express their frustration without being really ugly. You ain't gonna get any better replies than this when there is a topic with huge disagreements. Yes there were some snarks-jabs and body shots but I do not think anyone hit under the belly so far. Anything less than this will be pretending and fake and unreal which leads to be boring. Anything more than this would be ugly. It was just about how it should be. (at the top but still in our range in bridge terms http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But this is of course my personal opinion and you and other people may have different criteria. Which I respectfully disagree.

 

In principle, I agree with you, but the thread ended on a perfect note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...