CS posts full of OP ew suck.

[linguist]

Easier to clean up a mess if you catch the plate before it falls to the floor.

but those of us who were actively posting in or reading those threads then become punished for what we might do, not what we've actually done. that's not the way any sort of punishment system should work.

[Peppergirl]

but those of us who were actively posting in or reading those threads then become punished for what we might do, not what we've actually done. that's not the way any sort of punishment system should work.

So what would be your suggestion then, just let it go down the shitty path it might be on and then clean up the mess afterward?

How is that productive?

[Peppergirl]

And, for the record, I just spent the better part of 30 minutes cleaning up such a thread as I described above.

30 damned minutes. It would have taken less than 5 if someone had reported it before it spun totally out of control. Instead, people called one another out in the thread and went back and forth until it because a huge issue.

Trust me, I'd LOVE for some of you to see the kind of crap we deal with behind the scenes, especially those of you who apparently think we mods should spend all of our time cleaning up after people. And before you say "I didn't say that", well yeah, you sorta did. We've offered point after point as to why we have to run things a certain way, and yet it still doesn't seem to sink in.

Please - offer some contructive ideas on how we could do things differently, as Raps suggested. I promise to keep an open mind.

[Rapscallion]

cs currently shows my join date as 7-7-2006, though i'm pretty sure i was on for at least two years, maybe three, before that and had to submit a new registration after a hack or some such. i do remember cs under mr. slugger, and honestly while in some ways things are better under current ownership, i felt a lot more free under mr. slugger's ownership, at least on cs. fratching's always been a different beast, and i've never felt restricted here in the least.

I tend to the view that you do have pretty much free speech on my boards, but free speech is over here, and it's more controlled over there. As Peppergirl has re-iterated, I'm more than happy to listen to suggestions on how to get around the need for the FTSTS rule.

Rapscallion

[linguist]

So what would be your suggestion then, just let it go down the shitty path it might be on and then clean up the mess afterward?

so, you're ok with punishing people for things they haven't done? in your own words, things might be on a shitty path. then again they might not be.

Trust me, I'd LOVE for some of you to see the kind of crap we deal with behind the scenes, especially those of you who apparently think we mods should spend all of our time cleaning up after people.

i see this sentiment expressed a lot. if you'd really LOVE us to see the crap that goes on behind the scenes, then show us. maybe it would change our minds. otherwise, we only have your word to go by, and what we see on the boards often doesn't match up.

Please - offer some contructive ideas on how we could do things differently, as Raps suggested. I promise to keep an open mind.

provided that responses are kept tactful and respectful, what's wrong with taking things on a case-by-case basis? i see railing against zero-tolerance policies here all the time, sometimes, if memory serves, participated in by the mods, and yet you've established your own zero-tolerance policies on cs.

[Peppergirl]

Hmmm, okay - and where do we recruit the manpower to allow this to happen? Modding is voluntary, remember?

[Peppergirl]

i see this sentiment expressed a lot. if you'd really LOVE us to see the crap that goes on behind the scenes, then show us. maybe it would change our minds. otherwise, we only have your word to go by, and what we see on the boards often doesn't match up.

Okay - I really hope I'm wrong here, but are you accusing us of lying? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm honestly reading that (since we won't 'prove' what we say by showing you some of the stuff) you feel our word isn't enough. Am I wrong?

[Racket_Man]

There is a message board that I NOW mostly lurk on because it DID get way out of hand and the owner and sole moderator did little or nothing to rein in all of the crap, flame wars, name calling, posting of very incorrect or wildly inaccurate information, FTSTS rampaging, the "you young little assholes know NOTHING about this buisness" (meaning pining away for the 'good ol days' that no longer and will never exist again), newbie bashing was a full contact sport, and anyone who went against the "norm" (whatever that was) got bashed, cursed at, and multilated. anyone offering a differeing opinion or a different set of facts was immdeiately set upon and trashed.

Now the only good aspect of the above was when business owners tried to come onto the board and basically tells us as employees to "suck up the shit they (the business owners) were pedeling cause that is the way things were and were going to be for the rest of time". many tried to reason with the business owners but they (owners) just started spewing vile stuff in the boards direction and they were promptly pounced on and driven off the board.

I got all of the information I needed fromthat site and have found one or two other sites that serve the same population but is moderated well. One site is run by a member of the first board who just got tired of the non-involment of the owner/sole moderator

I have been around CS for the better part of 11 years now and I DO remember the constant flame wars, calling out of FTSTS and . old owner/founder different times.

This is the Raps era with HIS rules. Yes I have had my wrist smacked twice by the Mods. once with good reason and an another time where I thought seriously about contesting my "lifetime point against me". for some reason another member just would not understand a point I was trying to make and I made it again a little too forcefully (and used a very graphic example) to make my point. I used the graphic example to make my point because it did point out what happens when things go horribly wrong.

Did I like the situation???? NO!!!! Did I understand the Mods position???? Mostly YES because of the board rules in place. and I took my lumps.

THe whole point of this thread can be summed down to this ---- The rules are made by the owner and his panel of Mods. It is THEIR interpetation of those rules that is the overriding factor. If one wants to be in a place where a little more "free stying" is accepted then go there and be free.

[Ree]

If a post had gone on for several pages and was suddenly closed with a note that we had concerns about where it would head, you can rest assured that there was a lot of shit behind the scenes that you didn't see.

Somebody, at some point must have hit the line of fratching, requiring an edit or post deletion, and you missed it.

We do not close threads at CS, especially fairly active ones, without good reason.

As much as some think the moderation at CS is a dictatorship, we do take our cue from the members.

That thread Peppergirl talked about?
It was reported by no less than 2 members.
Not a moderator who happened by and decided that posts needed to be slashed and burned.

It's the same with a lot of those kinds of threads.

Sometimes we get 4 or 5 reports from members with concerns about a thread.
It's not random judgment calls by mods to shut down threads when it happens.

Sometimes we will get a member who is known to stir up shit every time they enter a thread, despite repeated warnings. They will make a beeline for the threads that have the most potential to go south. In those cases, we know for certain that it's not a matter of if the shit will fly, but when, and so the thread gets shut down as a preemptive measure because we just don't want to deal with the crap yet again.
No, in that case, it hasn't happened yet, but history has shown us that it most likely will.

We get certain topics that we just know are a minefield waiting to blow up because it does every damn time the topic comes up.
No, in that case, it hasn't happened yet, but as I said, history has shown that it's just a matter of time before it does.

It's very sad that people felt they had to leave CS because it was too restricting. The thing is, a message board is a living thing.
As some leave, others join.
Some people join and stick around for years.
Some join and leave after a few days of venting all their frustration.
Some join just to get access to the "members only" areas and once they've had their peek, they go.

We go through stages where there may be several new members joining daily, and then there are periods where the only new memberships we see are spammers.

So, yes, it would be great to have all those statistics requested, but it would be quite difficult to pinpoint whether fluctuations are due to FTSTS implementation, or just normal website ebb and flow.

I only cited that statistic that was a snapshot of where the board was at that moment to show that it is still quite an active board with a pretty high membership count, despite all these complaints about how restricting the moderation is.

We have repeatedly said that we know FTSTS is not a perfect way of handling it, but at the moment, it's the only way we can think of.

I have said that I sometimes resent the rule because there are times I would love to tell someone they need to get the hell out of customer service, and I am appalled at what some people boast about doing or saying to customers.

The thing is, Raps has also said, if people have a better idea of allowing that type of thing while keeping a lid on the squabbling over hurt feelings that result from it, then let's hear them.

So far, the only suggestions being put forth is to remove that rule, trim all the other rules, allow people to post as they wish and just let the volunteer staff of mods sort out the mess and clean the shit off the walls when everybody's done.

[linguist]

Okay - I really hope I'm wrong here, but are you accusing us of lying? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm honestly reading that (since we won't 'prove' what we say by showing you some of the stuff) you feel our word isn't enough. Am I wrong?

i apologize if that's how it came across; that isn't how i meant it. all i meant is there's often a disconnect between what we see and what we're told. we see a thread closed for apparently no reason; we're told things got out of hand and posts were deleted. if the offending posts were deleted, what's the point in closing the thread as well? and how are we to know (unless we happened to actually be reading at the time) what was so offensive about the posts that it caused them to be deleted, and get the thread closed, in order to avoid such a mistake in the future? why not close the thread and leave the offending posts in place, or delete the posts and leave the thread open?

[Andara Bledin]

Note: some of this has already been said, but as I'm not sure it sank in, I'm re-iterating:

perhaps controversy was the wrong word choice. my point was that i'd seen threads allowed to go on for pages with no issue suddenly closed down because the mods were afraid of the direction it might head in.

No, generally, you see threads go on for pages, then someone says something that doesn't ping your radar, then a dozen posts were deleted for devolving into sniping but you never saw that because the mods yanked them before you had the chance to read then, you just see a "closed for being too contentious an issue" note.

provided that responses are kept tactful and respectful, what's wrong with taking things on a case-by-case basis?

Does that mean you're volunteering to handle it?

Because, seriously, just keeping a rein on things under the system you propose is a full time job, and there's no pay for doing it, and most people won't thank you for it, either, though you will get all sorts of "love" notes in your inbox...

^-.-^

[linguist]

No, generally, you see threads go on for pages, then someone says something that doesn't ping your radar, then a dozen posts were deleted for devolving into sniping but you never saw that because the mods yanked them before you had the chance to read then, you just see a "closed for being too contentious an issue" note.

then why not leave the offending posts in place, so the rest of us know what to avoid in the future?

Does that mean you're volunteering to handle it?

if they truly wanted me (though i doubt they would, as i've pretty much completely fallen out of touch with what's happening at cs since i left, and i was never a heavy poster there to begin with), i would consider it.

[Canarr]

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say we're doing it right when you have repeatedly told us how we are doing it wrong.

Well, I guess you can, and I'm sure you will justify it, but it all seems rather contradictory.

Both are possible, actually. If you make a decision and enforce a rule for the benefit of a certain fraction of members - as well as for the purpose of the site as a venting vehicle for people working in the service industry - then you are doing something right for this fraction of members. If said fraction is the majority, and if said purpose is the one Raps, as the owner, wants for his site, then it's obviously the right decision.

That doesn't mean, of course, that this decision is without any drawbacks, nor that there couldn't be a better way of achieving this goal. Examining that, trying to maybe find such a better way, is my intention when debating this topic.

People are free to let a mod know if they think a thread might be out of place or made up. I think allowing the mods to handle it is the best way to go.

I believe the majority of the stories are true, they may very well be some embellishments, but rarely do I think someone is making up an entire story just to post on the CS forums.

People lie, all the time. They want to make themselves look interesting, they want other people - even people on the internet whom they'll never meet in RL - to agree with them, to pat them on the back and congratulate them. And the Mods can't very well do much about that, other than call the member a liar to their face.

What might help is not necessarily more reporting (though that's not a bad thing, either) but a healthy dose of scepticism. Don't believe everything you read.

And that, my friends, is why that rule is in place. See how quick it snowballs?

I know I can.

A very adept demonstration.

Hmmm, okay - and where do we recruit the manpower to allow this to happen? Modding is voluntary, remember?

I'd be interested in Modding, if more manpower were needed.

[Peppergirl]

i apologize if that's how it came across; that isn't how i meant it. all i meant is there's often a disconnect between what we see and what we're told. we see a thread closed for apparently no reason; we're told things got out of hand and posts were deleted. if the offending posts were deleted, what's the point in closing the thread as well? and how are we to know (unless we happened to actually be reading at the time) what was so offensive about the posts that it caused them to be deleted, and get the thread closed, in order to avoid such a mistake in the future? why not close the thread and leave the offending posts in place, or delete the posts and leave the thread open?

Thank you. I'm glad I misunderstood.

Regarding your last line, though - are you suggesting that we leave the offending posts up, names and all? Wouldn't that, in essence, be contradictory to what we tell people NOT to do?

We tell people not to 'call one another out' in the threads and to report them. If we used your suggestion, wouldn't we become guilty of exactly what we're telling people NOT to do? Not to mention shaming people publicly.

Like Ree said, we have a fair amount of shit-stirrers. Not many, but a handful. But we're all capable of having a bad day or a brain fart on occasion. If a person who has never disobeyed the rules suddenly breaks one, should we leave his or her post out there as an example of what NOT to do?

This, too, seems counter productive.

[Ree]

Sometimes we do leave the post as a reminder as to what we don't allow.

There will be a mod note asking the members to please not go down that road.
Then, someone will come along, read only the first post in the thread, hit reply and address the very point we have just asked people not to touch on.
Then the debate starts all over again.

Sometimes, we leave the thread and the mod reminder, and that's all it needs.

I recall one thread a while back where the thread was a complaint about people not learning the language.
A member decided to derail it into a discussion about illegal aliens. It went on for a few posts before it was reported by a member and a mod intervened and told people to get back on track.
As I recall, the post about the illegals and the subsequent mod note were both left in the thread.

That seemed to do the trick.