Posted on 10/18/2003 6:01:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I just wish that when they become unhappy they would simply take their posts to some other site rather than leaving a long, poorly written, boring and insulting rants as their final legacy. Invariably, someone else, either you, the moderators or some other poster is at fault for their inability to function in a civil and considerate manner. I am yet to see a rant where someone says, "I used bad judgement". And all this time I thought part of being "conservative" was about taking responsibility.
The forum will live on without these people.
I read your suggestions. I appreciate them, and I will think them over more, but my first inclination is not positive.
First off, regarding the rotation: one of Jim's biggest problems to date with Free Republic has been in trusting people who could not and should not have been trusted. FAB, FRN, the chapters, the forum itself, and even the mod program have suffered from having people act untrustworthy. A small, static number of freepers who are replaced only on an as-needed basis strikes me as being a good way to minimize this risk. Vetting people, in an online environment, especially when you have no desire to pry into a person's personal life, is simply too difficult to do.
As for the idea that 'refs' should not 'play', I also disagree. My disagreement stems from three places. 1) It is by posting that people develop reputations with most of the Freepers. Our reputations are what made 'coming out' work. And if you don't use it, you lose it. 2) Those who are mods shouldn't be forced to abandon their posting. You don't reward hard-working, trustworthy volunteers by imposing penalties on them. 3) The perception of bias is always going to be there, for at least two reasons: a) There is a certain percentage of people who are always going to be suspicious, b) there is a certain percentage of people who have a vested interest in creating said suspicions and exploiting them (forums that want our audience, groups that want to make Free Republic fail, etc.).
I think the ref analogy sort of proves my point about the perception of bias being ever present, anyway. Go to any youth football league's games, and you will hear certain parents muttering about bias among the referees, who don't play. It is the nature of the beast.
The simple fact is that it boils down to if one trusts Jim or not. He has said he provides, and he does provide, oversight of all moderator activities. If one does take Jim at his word, then other measures to prevent a perception of bias are unnecessary-- because the bias in the system is a reflection of his bias, which can never be eliminated as it is his forum. If one doesn't, then other measures may help but will never remove such a perception.
The degree of mitigation in this regard that your suggestions would provide is unknown, but strikes me as probably not being worth the cost. The cost of added risk, the cost of losing some excellent volunteers who wouldn't want to give up their posting rights, the cost of losing the contributions in-forum of those who would, in order to minimize (but not eliminate) a perception (not reality) problem does not strike me as the way to go.
I am conservative not just by political ideology, but also by nature and instinct. We have just made a fairly substantial (and unplanned) change, by all moderators making their role public. To me, it makes sense to step back and wait, and see how things go right now, before making another course adjustment. Perhaps one won't be needed. Perhaps a stronger one will be. Or one in another direction.
Also by nature and instinct, I am one who believes in autonomy of decisions being pushed downward. I believe states making laws rather than the federal government is a far better setup, because it lets what's right for one to be one way, while what's right for another be another. We have one mod who pretty much has given up posting, altogether. We have one who has taken a new screen name. We have another, me who has another screen name, but hasn't quite decided what he is going to do; I know that at a minimum I am going to continue to do whatever polling tracking and analysis I do under this name. We have a few who are posting frequently. This diversity of approaches will hopefully, over time, give us some indication of which approach is the best.
But as I said earlier, I will give your suggestion more thought, and keep it in mind as things unfold over the coming weeks and months. I am also pinging the others. You see, on the question of those with 'the badge' not posting, I may be biased since I enjoy posting. I enjoy debating. I enjoy making joking comments. I enjoy the banter. I still believe what I believe, but since it also happens to overlap with what I personally would prefer, let's get some other eyes on it.
later learned that this was Ms AntiFeminazi and Mod.#9 (Dales) ripped into DiotimaAnd now for the real story.
One evening, an abuse report came in that someone was calling Diotima a nazi. My first inclination was to pull the comment as a personal attack.
Then I overthought things. The comment basically was that she had posted on a neo-nazi website. The site in question was Original Dissent. I took a look, and in my estimation the site had become haven to some sure seemed like neo-nazis to me. But things were not at all, in my estimation, like the poster of the comment implied. Diotima had indeed posted there- right after it had been created, and when it was created it was not like it was when I was looking then. And her comments were pretty much telling people she was friends with "good luck". (I am going off of memory here).
I posted a thread to the moderators only forum where I explained that I was restoring the comment, because I thought that it was technically defensible, that pulling it would make it look like someone heavily involved in FRN had something to hide, and that I wanted some guidance. The thread was titled "an explanation and request for feedback". The discussion centered on what we should do when someone like Dio faces smears, how we could figure out if the poster who started the whole thing was as he or she appeared or someone looking to do us harm for other reasons, what to do about links on user profiles to certain places the forum does not want to be associated with, and so on.
I never made any such assertion that Joe says I did. And if I am remembering correctly (and I am pretty sure I am), neither did MAF.
Can't you just hear it on radio and TV. FR doesn't originate much news (except for the shuttle burnup) but it's the only place the brings everything instantly together on one site.
Of course, no pundit can afford to credit FR.
Your sarcasm is duly noted.
I once thought that FR would one day have a chapter in American history books and even a library or museum . Since it changed directions I now think that will not happen.
However, it could change direcions once again and fulfill its great promise. What I did for FR is a part of that history. I'd like somone to be able to reference it as I saw it.
If our country remains free, future generations will determine whether or not what I contributed was important.
These websites thrive on controversy. The more controversy there is, the more people participate. I used to tell JR, that the Freepers love to fight, let them have at it. Banning those who caused the controversy only succeeded in dumbing down the forum and deprived all of the opportunity to hone their debating skills.
It is possible that by posting the history of how I became a freedom fighter and my involvement with FR will create another "Badjoe weekend " here and on FR.
If so, it helps both sites.
In not, no harm done.
Badjoe posted on 2003-10-17 07:39:41 ET Reply Trace
Ha! I suppose it does, only longer and with deeper insights into the horrid machinations behind the curtains. /s
They can kiss my ass. All anti-freepers have no life besides talking about this site day after day. They have no clue what it takes to run a business.
This is a great site and their spew is like watching 3 and 4 year olds. Like watching the rats nest. LOL
Keep up the good work. You are doing something right if they hate this site so much.
Yep just checked and this is a hot topic at their rats nest!
BUMP TO #1 Conservative News Forum web site in the world!
I also think we need a rule that nothing said on a drug thread or Creation thread be bannable. Just poke them off into their own corner and let them brawl all they want.
The moderation wanders between extreme and light-handedThe perception of us wanders between us being extreme and being light-handed.
And in specific cases, there have been light-handed approaches, and in other cases, there have been heavier handed approaches. There have been some crevo threads where we have completely ignored everything. There have been some where we have pulled every flame and insult and handed out suspensions. Why? Bias, or something simpler, such as trying out different approaches to see which work best? And not just overall, but which approaches work best with which people?
The wild fluctuations you percieve- how do you square this with Jim's oversight? Do you think he doesn't notice it, doesn't care, or what? Because if that perception is reality, he is letting it happen, and that would mean he wants them to happen. Do you think that is likely?
I don't, and even if I was not in the position I am, I wouldn't.
Again?
Dan, IMO, anybody who has been here more than six months and hasn't had this happen just ain't tryin' hard enough.
;O)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.