Posted on 09/08/2001 4:56:20 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
I did notice this going on: "Incidentally - there are a few bad-apples who have abused the abuse button. These are those who goad or bait people, until they get a response in kind -- and then hit the abuse button to dispense with their foes and look angelic in the process. That scam worked for a while -- but we’re wise it now."
But as soon as I recognized it as a practice and commented on it to the 'powers that be,' it was nipped in the bud.
I know I have been tempted to retaliate when attacked, but in the long run I know it useless, and I just move on.
That's a great idea!!
Thanks; I'll look forward to it.
Second, I have no quarrel with pulling threads where flame wars break out and there is no longer discussion of the topic. I do object to threads being pulled for the nature of the topic, although these topics are essential to discuss as part of the direction of our country. Referencing monitoring every post, as I stated previously, THAT would be quite spooky.
Third, you asked for input, and I do think what I expressed was constructive. I also believe that anyone can attest that disruptors purposely try to get threads pulled. My suggestion to ignore them is one to consider.
Keep dialog civil and something you would not be ashamed to have young children read, and our job of pulling posts would disappear.
Last, excuse me? That comment sounds as though you are directing me and others about what you consider to be civil dialogue, and since when is Free Republic considered a site for children? Rarely have I heard any dialogue that even contains profanity; morevoer, it is up to parents to monitor what sites their kids visit!
Hold on a bit! Please re-examine my comments. First, the official position was that there were board monitors for the sidebars, i.e., "Breaking News."
The sidebar moderators began over a year ago and Jim Robinson watched over us for problems. When he decided to make the extended trip to Texas recently, our powers were expanded to include the ability to pull threads/posts and for some of us, to ban people. Jim & John continue to monitor our actions and anything we do can be undone.
Second, I have no quarrel with pulling threads where flame wars break out and there is no longer discussion of the topic. I do object to threads being pulled for the nature of the topic, although these topics are essential to discuss as part of the direction of our country. Referencing monitoring every post, as I stated previously, THAT would be quite spooky.
We do not monitor every post. We rely on abuse reports as Jim did. We also FReep the threads as you do and occasionally we will spot a thread/reply that is in need of pulling before anyone reports it.
Third, you asked for input, and I do think what I expressed was constructive. I also believe that anyone can attest that disruptors purposely try to get threads pulled. My suggestion to ignore them is one to consider.
John Robinson has put in a weighting system to evaluate the credibility of abuse reporters. It is currently being used to rate abuse reports by non-registered members (some of who are AF'ers). It's still in the experimental stage. We also have become pretty good at figuring out who is abusing the abuse system. We read the thread/post before taking action
Keep dialog civil and something you would not be ashamed to have young children read, and our job of pulling posts would disappear.
Last, excuse me? That comment sounds as though you are directing me and others about what you consider to be civil dialogue, and since when is Free Republic considered a site for children?
I am certain the admin moderator was not addressing you specifically.
Rarely have I heard any dialogue that even contains profanity; morevoer, it is up to parents to monitor what sites their kids visit!
There are a considerable number of posts which are reported to us for profanity. You may not be reading the threads that contain them or we may have pulled them before you got there, but trust me, it happens.
Is there a difference between moderators and FAB members?
Some moderators are FAB members, some may not be. Only 3 people know who all of us are. Jim and John Robinson and the admin moderator.
Freepers are some of the most resourceful people in the world, when you present them with a mystery they perceive it as a challenge. Ever hear the term 'linguistic forensics'?
"...thier efforts to suppress any investigation into the Charlie Foxtrot also known as the James Beck..."
Suppress? What I saw was some rational folks trying to interject some reason into the discussion. And that's probably what the moderators saw, also. Sorry, looks like the LE=evil crowd don't get to make the rules.
Thank you for your response. Referencing the subject of moderators, I recall, when I signed up, that there was an explanation about the FAB, the reason for its existence, and a list of the members. After reading some of the posts about this FR procedural change, perhaps it is better to be more forthright.
This is just my opinion, and definitely, I have no clue about running a forum, but what has always kept the spirit of the mission statement is the candor. I do have management experience, however, and most posters contribute to the forum's success. Forgive my cliche, but please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Check the threads bookmarked in my profile.
Dio.
First of all, I recognize that some level of moderation is necessary. These are the easy calls: obvious obscenity, incorrect placement, unsourced articles are perhaps among this category.
I have seen on Free Republic a significant number of materials pulled that I could not imagine a reasonable explanation for this action. I have had civil discussions with people on threads where flaming was going on between others, only to have the thread pulled. I’ve watched articles I was interested in posted, been distracted for a few minutes, only to return to find the article gone. I’ve posted articles that lasted less than a minute. I’ve watched passionate posters banned for their words.
This has led me to personally reject the label “Freeper”. I suspect I do not deserve the title in that I find this heavier hand – one used to prevent the introduction of select ideas – is not about civility. It is about “Conservative Correctness”.
If I were to offer suggestions that would change my somewhat hesitant impression of FR, my first suggestion would be that materials that are dropped be replaced with a graphic that says “CENSORED” and the poster’s name be retained. This would give everyone an opportunity to realistically determine what frequency of censorship is happening and who is being censored. It would also give us opportunity to privately contact the censored party to determine what it is they are trying to communicate through the posting.
My second suggestion is that a list of reasons for censorship be compiled and the appropriate reason be posted for each occurrence of censorship. In other words, if a thread were pulled because of the use of profanity, the thread would show “Censored because of use of profanity”.
Thirdly, I think the moderator who pulls a thread or posting should be identifiable as well. That way readers would be able to observe potential behavior patterns of different moderators. Certainly moderators using their own judgment are likely to bring some perspective to their decisions. If the FR public can see that a particular moderator is using one category over and over, it would give the body of FR the opportunity and perhaps the motivation to correct bias.
So a censored posting might be: “Jack Barbara CENSORED because of use of profanity by Moderator12”
I make these suggestions in good faith. It is not my intention to promote chaos or to prevent intervention where intervention is necessary – my intention is fairly increase the level of accountability of those who generously take on the role of censor – accountability to the FR participants.
It's also good to know that when I get too exuberant or testy I can can get a reply pulled. Coffee and reasoned political discussion don't always mix!
You know not the truth of what you speak. Bob J insists on getting this wrong every time he addresses the issue...I know because I'm the one that originally named a group of nasties, The Coven.
1. It was composed of self-censored
2. DonMorgan, navigator and Mojo were never in the coven in that they lack cojones; therefore incapable of being warlocks. They did, however, have pimp status along with UncleDaddy, nom and a few other jerks. They quickly took over the joyful extermination of all who opposed Republicans and others who annoyed them.
3. Mojo still leads a group of effeminate anti-freepers from his psychotic seclusion in a rusted trailer down by the crick. They still lie about all things Free Republic and all who defend them.
Bob J gives them great pleasure in being wrong on the subject every time.
Your reinforcement of the insult does not speak well of your maturity, judgement and fairness.
You should seek to moderate as steward, not stewed. I pray you are not someone I know personally as it would trouble me.
Very well. I will take your advice.
Peace
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.