Get Yer Ya-Yas Out [FR Moderating Gripe Thread]

[I Am Not A Mod]

LM here.

It's been a while since we had a thread along these lines.

I can tell from comments I am seeing in threads, on abuse reports, and in Freepmail that some people are unhappy with various policies and their implementations by the staff here.

I've seen allegations that certain factions are picked on. I've seen allegations that the moderators have killed activism. I've heard rumors that we killed Kenny, and even that we killed the radio star. I see certain personality conflicts acting up, and know that one (or both) sides in it feel that we aren't doing what we should.

So let's open this can of worms.

This thread is for making your grievances heard. If you think something stinks or is wrong, make your case here. Back it up with facts. Let the audience at large weigh in on your evidence.

I'll read the thread. Jim will too in all likelihood. So will the other moderators. Depending upon how well you make your point, and depending on if you can convince Jim, me, the other moderators, and/or the world, maybe you can change things. And if you don't, then it might make you feel better to have vented, so it won't make this thread a total loss.

I'm not going to reply to this thread for quite a while. Rather, I am going to sit back and watch to try and get a feel for the general tenor. I encourage those who are both happy and unhappy with things to particpate in this thread.

Let's rock.

[theDentist]

Yeah. What he said.

[NittanyLion]

Looks as though I'm a bit late to the party, and unfortunately I do not have time to wade through 1200+ posts, but here's my $.02:

There are too many posters on this forum that delight in chasing others around and trying to incite "ZOTS". They'd rather flame someone into an offensive reply that will get that person banned, than they would rebut the other poster's argument. And unfortunately it appears to me that, all too often, this transparent ploy is successful and the other poster is banned.

No doubt this is the case because many of the "ZOT-inducing" posters are unabashadly pro-Bush, and they generally attack criticism of Bush. I understand that the stated goal of FR in this election year is to elect as many Republicans to office as possible, but I submit that site management needs to consider whether the best method of doing so is by allowing pro-Bush posts (no matter how demeaning or obnoxious) to clutter the forum at the expense of all other substantive posts.

99% of the participants here likely already know who they'll vote for - the forum will only have utility as something other than an echo chamber if outsiders take it seriously. And it seems that serious commentary is being overrun by a chatroom mentality in many cases. IMHO, FreeRepublic stands a better chance of fulfilling its stated goal of electing Republicans if the level of discourse (including dissenting views) was raised a few notches, and those who think this forum exists for them to chase others off it, were chased off it themselves.

In short, the threshold for whether a poster is banned shouldn't be political persuasion, but rather how disruptive they are to the forum. Let other posters rebut liberal/foolish (they're one in the same, after all) arguments using logic and reason - not vitriol and insults. (And it seems to me that should be communicated to all posters...reasonable, honorable criticism of the administration shouldn't be met with scorn and ridicule, and I see that happening far too often. The argument itself is ignored while the poster is told to take it to LP, LF or DU...that criticism of the administration is not tolerated here...that this poster since 1998 is in fact a Moby plant.)

Take it for what it's worth...it occurs to me that I'm beginning to adopt the same tone of many of the "oldtimers" when I first signed up here. And at the time I thought it was foolish. Perhaps it's just the natural evolution of internet fora that posters become disgruntled and are replaced by newer posters...

[Copernicus]

Continue. This is interesting.

Okay, small suggestion Number 1:

Instead of "moderators" why not have "Parliamentarians"?

The job of moderators seems to be to CONTROL debate, the generally accepted job of Parliamentarians is to ORGANIZE debate.

Both jobs are the same except they are completely different.

"Parliamentarian" has the added advantage of being PART of the legacy of 2000+ years of proud Western (Conservative?) tradition.

Best regards,

[Texas2step]

But I think there'd need to be a policy of not bothering with carping and rebuttles about what was listed in such a penalty box.

Definitely. Just as in hockey, you're not allowed to criticize the referees. That will get you fined. Hmmm. A new fundraiser? :-)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you, Copernicus. Very thoughtful idea. Is it possible some moderators have the parliamentarian viewpoint? After all, aren't they posters, too?

I do believe that common courtesy is a necessity, even though I have risen to the bait on more than one occasion.

Best wishes.

[Devil_Anse]

Wow, a sighting of the Insider Troll, and we missed it, hellinahandcart. (Shouldn't we be feeling grateful about now?)

I wanted to say, "a sighting of the RARE Insider Troll", but, alas, that would be inaccurate.

[Copernicus]

Thank you, Copernicus. Very thoughtful idea. Is it possible some moderators have the parliamentarian viewpoint? After all, aren't they posters, too?

I believe it is ENTIRELY possible SOME moderators have a Parliamentarian viewpoint.

They, above all, should recognize the importance transparency, protocol and procedure bring to civilized debate.

As a side note, once, for entertainment purposes, I did a Free Republic Keyword/Title etc. search on the word: "Etiquette"

Try it. Unless things have changed, you might be entertained also.

"The medium is the message."

Best regards,

[Triple]

Thanks for your reply.

Fine, ban the Mobyites.

Banning conservatives that are pointing out anti-conservative actions by republicans is not as constructive as banning RINO/cheerleaders that spin every republican action (such as signing CFR into law) as conservative strategery.

Do you not notice the viciousness of the cheerleader crowd?

Before you dismiss me views as right-wing utpoian understand that I would vote for Zell Miller over Lincoln Chaffee in a second, and realize who is more rational me or those that look at party label only.

The future of The United States of America is dependent on adherence to conservative principles, not party labels.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect anyone who approaches that jewel, for nothing can protect it but downright force, and whever you give up that force you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry

Ibelieve Partick Henry was spot on. He did not say suspect anyone, except those in your party. He said anyone. There are no free passes when the public liberty is at stake.

CFR was a clear assault on the public liberty, I salute all those who condemn it, as you do.

I also believe that those who assaulted the public liberty should feel the consequences, lest they be encouraged to do it again. I suspect that is where we disagree.

"May your chains rest lightly."

[Lead Moderator]

I guess I haven't seen that, and I think it would be strange anyway since Zots only are for newbies.

I do wish that people would stop calling for Zots and let them happen when they are appropriate. There is plenty of time for mocking trolls after it has been established that is what they are, rather than trying to be the first to identify them.

That's one of the ways of the world. Every good has its bad, everything that works in moderation can be taken too far.

Thanks, LM

[Rebelbase]

For the record, the exchange in the SBR between nopardons and myself can be found on my FR profile page.

nopardons, I apologize for calling you a mouthy old bittie, biddie, old nag, and old crock. I am better than to that. I stand by everything else that I said.

As Texasforever said, there is indeed an entire thread at LP that chronicles your vile and putrid comments.

[optimistically_conservative]

I was simply responding to a post I scrolled upon.

Most of my comments were intended for djf.

Is this thread only about the mods?

It seems everyone and anyone is open for Ya Ya tossing.

And BTW, Corrie didn't "throw herself" under an Israeli bulldozer.

Yes, she did. It was a heroic act of martydom by a misguided and misinformed agent of terrorism. I'm sure she is right now engaged in heavenly lesbian relations with her 72 virgins.

[dangus]

Silverback Rules! Put Caption-a-rama in News!

[Lead Moderator]

I don't think we will do that. What would work, would be if they were all posted to one topic, then you could just make that topic a sidebar. But the problem there is quantity. It is nice to have a few of them in news to keep things fun around here, but the sheer volume of them makes it so that we have to move many of them to chat to keep the forum's purpose from being too watered down with news of the weird.

Right now, I think we will go with the status quo. But what I think would be a better solution is this:

1) We make a thread saying that news of the weird should now be posted only to chat under the topic of "weird"

2) In this thread, we tell people how to set up that topic as a sidebar so that the many, who love those things, can have it readily accessible and highly visible.

3) Every so often, we repost that announcement thread.

I think this would work for everyone involved. For those who like the news of the weird, it would put them in one place and give it visibility for them. For those who think it clutters the place up, it would be out of the way and they wouldn't see it as much. And mhking wouldn't have to maintain the ping list any further.

Like I said, the status quo for now, but I would not mind hearing some feedback on my idea. If people are for it, let's do it.

Thanks, LM

[Quix]

AND . . .

---

AND . . .

---

AND . . .

sometimes

even a wonderful patriot's comments can be inexcusable just as mine can be.

[Quix]

Probably.

But I don't know. I've never seen a rule book!

[Lead Moderator]

See my post above that I made to mhking and someone else regarding the "just damn" posts. Pretty much everything I said for them, applies for the caption posts.

The caption threads are fun! They are a FR staple. But as we have grown, we now get times where the main forum gets overwhelmed by them (not just from Mr. Silverback, but from many). Right now, the status quo is to leave some but when we are getting too many to move most to chat.

I think the idea of taking over a chat topic (such as chat/humor) and making a thread announcing it and instructing people on how to make it into a sidebar might be the way to go. That way the folks who want them front and center will have them on their latest posts page, always, and those who don't, won't.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Amusing to entertain the notion that "netiquette" is actually important, while ettiquette is forgotten. Ms.Manners would not enter the FR forum.

Isn't it said that a conversation is had when two people of interesting and witty things to say? :)

Best wishes.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I think THAT business of ignoring annoying folks WOULD SOLVE 99.999% of the friction junk hereabouts.

An ignore button would be grand. It would save me from either passing by interesting threads which certain people are posting on, or arguing with them 'til the cows come home.

[Texas2step]

The thread specificly addressed the issue of domestic job creation.

No, the thread was an "action thread" with a call to action. Your comment, while certainly valid, should not have been posted on a thread that was intended to create activism, not for discussion purposes.

The moral of the story is to not pee on other peoples parades. That comment would have been fine on a thread which was a discussion about job creation/job loss.

I see Jim's point, but you probably won't see his. If the comment is not appropriate for the thread, it shouldn't be kept on the thread distracting from the stated purpose of the thread.

What was your motivation? To keep people from being involved? IMO, if you post that comment on a news story about job loss/job creation, it stays. If you post it on a "action thread" it doesn't belong.

[Lead Moderator]

An idea which would require no software change would be to use keywords to tag those posts. Go to the threads with the ads and add a keyword, say "freeperad". Then all of them could be found with a single link, like http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-freeperad/browse