Notice of Thread/Post Moderation

[inquiry]

About a dozen or so post by richard in the climate control thread in the water cooler were deleted. These were "cut-and-paste" from Karl Marks writing on capitalism or something like that. The reason it was that many was this was a many, many page thing. It was so long, it seems like it had to be cut and pasted in multiple post to get it to fit in space allowed in the forum. These were removed because:

 

1) They might have violated some copyright stuff (although probably old enough not too

 

2) They were way-way off topic (purpose was might be to point out cut-and-paste of others in the same thread, but that is just a guess)

 

3) The others seem to cut-and-paste small sections to support whatever their view was, Richard cut and pate the entire thing complete with 100 referenences or so that were in the original.

 

4) If it is necessary to show the words of Karl Mark's a link to the original source on the internet at another website would have been just effective.

[Vampyr]

Karl Marks writing on capitalism or something like that.

 

Any relation to Karl Marx?

[inquiry]

Any relation to Karl Marx?

 

 

:)

[hrothgar]

About a dozen or so post by richard in the climate control thread in the water cooler were deleted. These were "cut-and-paste" from Karl Marks writing on capitalism or something like that. The reason it was that many was this was a many, many page thing. It was so long, it seems like it had to be cut and pasted in multiple post to get it to fit in space allowed in the forum. These were removed because:

 

1) They might have violated some copyright stuff (although probably old enough not too

 

2) They were way-way off topic (purpose was might be to point out cut-and-paste of others in the same thread, but that is just a guess)

 

3) The others seem to cut-and-paste small sections to support whatever their view was, Richard cut and pate the entire thing complete with 100 referenences or so that were in the original.

 

4) If it is necessary to show the words of Karl Mark's a link to the original source on the internet at another website would have been just effective.

 

I'm sorry if Das Kapital was considered off topic.

I will make sure that I only cut and paste from climate change related web sites.

Please look forward to a LOT of stimulating content tomorrow evening

[inquiry]

I'm sorry if Das Kapital was considered off topic.

I will make sure that I only cut and paste from climate change related web sites.

Please look forward to a LOT of stimulating content tomorrow evening

 

Normally I would not respond to this, after all I was 1) against the water cooler forum being created (I wanted the site to stick to just bridge), and 2) against Uday's decision to allow climate control thread back in (several have been deleted).

 

There is no doubt that some people post in that thread and not about bridge on this site. There is no doubt that feelings run strong on both sides of the issue. I have my own thoughts on that issue, but I am not going to get into whatever is passing off as a debate in that thread. I am sure that 99.9% of the forum members are not reading it, and I am not reading it (I do however get more "reports" about that thread than any other, so I occassional have to take some form of action, despite not wanting to be a moderator of that forum---- notice my name is not on it as a moderator, but the software sends me reports when the button is pushed anyway).

 

Since I don't want to have to deal with whatever this childish problem is that you are threatening, and since A :LOT of cut-and-paste from other websites violates our fair use rules when a hyperlink would do, I am not going to allow it. To make sure this DOES not occur, your post are going to have to be reviewed by a board moderator until you decide to tell us you are not going to continue in this childish behavior.

 

Since I am enforcing a no large cut-and-paste on your post, the same rule will apply to others. Feel free to point out where large secions are cut and paste from other sources (as opposed to original content). These will be reviewed on a case-by-case for each post unless a violator either goes overboard or threatens to go overboard (as you did), in which case the same moderation of his or her post will be in effect until they also stop their childish behavior.

 

If I had my way, we would all get back to just posting about bridge here, and go somewhere else for these climate control postings, but since we have a water cooler forum and since uday has allowed it back in, let's keep the discussion and posting mature. The good news is the 99.9% of forum members can ignore the flame war in that thread and the childish behavior of a few of our members on this hot-button topic. Sure wish I could too, :( but I only read post in that thread reported to me, no other ones.

[matmat]

Since I am enforcing a no large cut-and-paste on your post, the same rule will apply to others.

 

Ben, if you are going to go this way (which I feel is probably the right direction), I'd also urge you to encourage people to cite where they cut and paste the shorter snippets from as well, otherwise it really is stealing.

[inquiry]

Since I am enforcing a no large cut-and-paste on your post, the same rule will apply to others.

Ben, if you are going to go this way (which I feel is probably the right direction), I'd also urge you to encourage people to cite where they cut and paste the shorter snippets from as well, otherwise it really is stealing.

 

You are of course correct. Fair use rules require citation when copying part of the text (or illustrations) from another source. We should fully require a correct citation in any cut-and-paste activity from another website, and we need to limit the amount of material copied to meet the fair use requirements.

 

I have no intention of routinely patroling for copyright violations, but when pointed out to me, I will delete the material if it does not conform to fair use rules. Since we have just made it clear today that citatation will be needed, I am not going back through the forums to 2003 to zap old post, but any post dated as of 1:30 pm EST July 7 2011 (or later) will have to conform or be deleted without further notice.

[Foxx]

Since I am enforcing a no large cut-and-paste on your post, the same rule will apply to others. Feel free to point out where large secions are cut and paste from other sources (as opposed to original content). These will be reviewed on a case-by-case for each post unless a violator either goes overboard or threatens to go overboard (as you did), in which case the same moderation of his or her post will be in effect until they also stop their childish behavior.

 

Dang! This foiled my evil and nefarious plan.

 

I was just about to go on a cut-and-pasting spree, steal from a whole ton of science and technology articles . . . . . . and then make the grandiose claim that I INVENTED THE CYBERNETIC RABBIT!!!!!!!!!!!

[barmar]

1) They might have violated some copyright stuff (although probably old enough not too

Would Marx really have believed in copyright protection?

[aguahombre]

Groucho believed in a lot of things.

[inquiry]

Post with a very large picture of a highway kill of a cat (ie, a dead cat) and no words was deleted. I am sure the sentiment was that of road kill applied to an earlier post in the thread, but such a graphic picture seems inappropriate and generated complaints that I happened to agree with.

[inquiry]

I deleted a thread and two replies say that the thread would not last long. The thread named a several bbo members by name (a site violation) in a very negative light. This was the poster's first post on the forum. I have sent him a private message explaining the rules and how to report the action he claims is happening to abuse. Since one allegation was quite startling, I will forward that information from his post to abuse myself, as abuse can check the validity of that claim.

 

 

Yesterday, another post, by another new member claimed someone on BBO was cheating (#1 BBO cheater). That post was deleted as well (but was deleted yesterday).

[Bbradley62]

btw: That same poster was accused of cheating in a thread that was deleted yesterday.

[inquiry]

A post in the how to become an expert thread was heavily edited. The gist of the post was to simply come to this forum, and call yourself an expert, naming a forum member by name and suggesting this player is doing that. Many would have agreed with the post, and found humor in it (I did), but of course, it violated the rules of the site, so I had to take it down. Sometimes I hate this job.

[Free]

A post in the how to become an expert thread was heavily edited. The gist of the post was to simply come to this forum, and call yourself an expert, naming a forum member by name and suggesting this player is doing that. Many would have agreed with the post, and found humor in it (I did), but of course, it violated the rules of the site, so I had to take it down. Sometimes I hate this job.

Sorry Ben, but I'm glad you liked it. Can you explain why the last part was removed as well?

[inquiry]

Sorry Ben, but I'm glad you liked it. Can you explain why the last part was removed as well?

 

 

I haven't read all the post by the person who was edited out, in fact, I tend not to read those at all. So I was thinking the last part might pointed directly to the same person as well. If not, sorry I removed it.

[inquiry]

Another attempt at humor has been deleted from the "how to become a bridge expert" thread. This one insulted an entire country, and is a "joke" tha causes an a lot of trouble for yellows on the forum because of accussations of cheating by a whole nation. People put similar things in their profile, etc and yellows have threaten suspension etc to get it removed. With that thread in the BBO news (no I didn't put it there, I have nothing to do with what goes in the news) I had no choice but to delete the post with country mentioned in it.

[Antrax]

Uh... I think it was actually meant as a compliment. I've also noticed players from that country are normally very strong.

[inquiry]

I have locked (at least temporarily) the thread by vianu2 dealing with a possible online cheater. I edited slightly a post in that thread attacking vianu2, including striking out (but still readable) comments that violates the rules but that others responded too, including vianu2 (to remove them would make other comments including defense unclear). I deleted one sentence that was insulting but not addressed by others.

 

I think wyman made good points in his last comments in that thread. I think this is an area where we might need a new "rule", so I will open a poll on the issue wyman raised.

[Antrax]

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

[inquiry]

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

 

What private messages have been posted? Am I missing something. Has this been a problem? The things i quoted above is directly from the thread in question.

[matmat]

What private messages have been posted? Am I missing something. Has this been a problem? The things i quoted above is directly from the thread in question.

 

I believe antrax is referring to a PM that was posted in the locked up thread by one of the other posters.

[wyman]

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

 

Agree, however, blatantly lying about the purpose of a thread in order to gain some sort of satisfaction by publicly exposing cheaters (but being oh-so-clever in how you do it) is more absurd.

 

The PM I posted was unsolicited, and I don't think that the sender had any expectation of privacy when he sent it.

 

My contention is that threads of that nature have no place on the forums -- especially after the poster sends a PM confirming that the thread is all about cheating. Apparently Ben and others agree. If you disagree, Ben has mentioned that he's going to create a thread with a poll to discuss the matter, and I encourage you to make your voice heard.

 

Posting a thread saying "no I'm not accusing them of cheating -- their system is just the best in the world! Look at these magic boards," and then sending unsolicited PMs to posters from the thread about how the people were obviously cheating seems like an equivalent infraction to making public accusations of cheating.

[diana_eva]

I still disagree with posting the PM. Better send these to the mods.

[inquiry]

I am thinking PM should be private as well... some exceptions, when bidding contest hands are sent and returned, etc, where the point is to eventually make the PM public. Let logic decide.

 

I have permanently banned a member with multiple aliases for violation of the rules of this site. Of course, proper apologies and promises to do no more evil emailed to inquiry at bridgebase dot com might get this ban lifted for one, and only one, alias in the future. The ban will not be lifted immediately even with an appropriate email, however.

 

Second, I have deleted one gloating post in the "Should the "bidding, play and defense thread stay closed?" Neither the poster who made the deleted post, nor the person caught out that he was gloating over have much to be proud of in dragging those of us into their personal battles. I am beginning to think that the result of what is happening because of this thread is having much more influence on me than the voting ever in that thread ever will. I am strongly leaning towards the recommendation to fred and uday and rain that the forum block such look at this hand showing cheating threads in the future, with the only exception for threads like the 6♦ hand we all remember. Of course, the clever, what would you do type hand with no obvious link to potential UI would be unable to stop.