Censorship concerning forum management and decisons?

[hbelkins]

OK, so is it not allowed to even question how decisions are made, and by whom? I see my latest attempt to find out who was responsible for my warning, and why, was removed.

All I want to know is if it was one person's decision, or a consensus of the mods, or a vote by the mods, or what. I think I deserve at least that much.

[AlexandriaVA]

This is a forum paid by someone other than yourself. As such, you deserve nothing. I'm only replying because your constant demands for political correctness are clogging up the "recent post" queue at the bottom of the page.

[hbelkins]

This is a forum paid by someone other than yourself. As such, you deserve nothing. I'm only replying because your constant demands for political correctness are clogging up the "recent post" queue at the bottom of the page.

Me demanding political correctness? You've obviously been asleep or don't know me very well. Political correctness is the last thing I want, here or anywhere. All I'm asking for is some transparency regarding decisions made by management that affect me and others.

[Rothman]

HB, although I took a long hiatus from the online roadgeek community, I do remember you from my first time around.  I don't know what happened between then and now, but I wouldn't have guessed that you would have been someone that would fly off the handle so greatly over just being modded on an online forum.

Besides, what punishment came your way, anyway?  You seem to still be free to post on here like you want.

There's more to life out there and if getting that e-mail makes you this upset, it may actually be an indication that your perspective on life is a little out of whack -- get outside and get some real face-to-face social interaction!

[SSOWorld]

H.B.  You know full well what your actions are.  I do not believe that the moderators need to repeat to you what you are aware of.  Nonetheless, personal attacks and toxic behavior are not tolerated.  Please end it.

[Dougtone]

May I respectfully suggest that we bite our collective tongues on this matter and move on? Muchas gracias.

SCH-I545

[Brandon]

May I respectfully suggest that we bite our collective tongues on this matter and move on? Muchas gracias.

I concur.  This shit is getting old and fast.

[Dougtone]

Certainly. I can understand and even support HB's position on the matter, but I think in this case, there has to be a different approach to take , since his pleas aren't going anywhere when brought up publicly, and quite frankly, many people don't have the patience to hear it.

SCH-I545

[roadman65]

Just because you move on does not mean you agree with the person you are at odds with.  Many of us let our egos get in the way and we argue till the end.  The one who swallows his pride is usually the bigger person, not saying the one you are arguing with is wrong, but it takes a lot of courage to overcome our own pride.

[Alps]

HB, although I took a long hiatus from the online roadgeek community, I do remember you from my first time around.  I don't know what happened between then and now, but I wouldn't have guessed that you would have been someone that would fly off the handle so greatly over just being modded on an online forum.

Besides, what punishment came your way, anyway?  You seem to still be free to post on here like you want.

There's more to life out there and if getting that e-mail makes you this upset, it may actually be an indication that your perspective on life is a little out of whack -- get outside and get some real face-to-face social interaction!

Never thought I'd agree with Rothman.

[NE2]

Be patient and let it pass

[1995hoo]

Be patient and let it pass

Are you talking about arguing or suffering from constipation? Or both?

[hbelkins]

Revisiting this topic after staying away from it for a few days...

So, this has been probably the crappiest year of my 53-plus orbits around the sun on this earth and things aren't going well in my life at all. Some of you know the details, some don't.

I may have taken some of those frustrations out on someone who was advocating for dangerous and reckless behavior, and who was doing so in an arrogant and abrasive manner. I'm not going to apologize for defending my position, but I will admit that some may have felt I was a bit overzealous in doing so.

But I still think it would be beneficial to know how reprimands and other decisions are made. Are moderators empowered to unilaterally hand out warnings or bans, or remove posts or entire threads? Or are these decisions made by consensus or by majority vote of the mods?

At least one moderator dislikes me personally. I'm not sure how much of a hand he had, if any, in the decisions that were made concerning issuing a warning or deleting my original thread asking about management decisions.

I merely think that it would be beneficial to know who makes such decisions and how decisions are made. Thread locks apparently can be done unilaterally by the mods.

Transparency is all I'm seeking. I'd think most everyone would want that as well.

[jakeroot]

Transparency is all I'm seeking. I'd think most everyone would want that as well.

I've been pretty quiet up to this point on how moderation is handled, but I also agree that some transparency would be nice. Website management whereby each individual moderator has his or her own set of rules is not okay. I'm not saying that is the case here, but sometimes it does feel that way.

[rickmastfan67]

I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.

No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first.  The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)

[roadman65]

Sometimes it is.  As with one particular moderator, who once scolded me for being political because I suggested naming the Hugh Carey Tunnel in NYC after the 9/11 victims.  In addition I expressed my haste in naming the Triborough Bridge after one of the Kennedy's, and he got again political like I was campaigning for the Republican Party because I used the term "a Kennedy." 

I of course was not and everyplace I have been in my life most people were totally against the big political family for decades whether elderly, young, middle aged, liberal, or conservative or all other categories of people I did not include thought that the Kennedy Family were all too up there with themselves, and even those who liked JFK even thought that the family and what they all stood for and all was not right.  Most of all this moderator was the first person I have ever met in my life who thought that the Kennedy's were not overrated.  Even people who agree on the name JFK for New York's International Airport would even say stuff like "a Kennedy" in regular discussions!

Anyway, I was not campaigning nor am I a Republican nor Democrat.  To me my opinion on politics is to not take a side and stereotype myself.  I do vote when the time comes, but base my opinions on the character of the candidate and not the party he or she belongs to.

However, you are right you have some moderators on here who have their own set of rules with some being prejudiced against you for who your are, or in the case of the said moderator, who they think you are.  Then some take a dislike toward you if you say something bad about one of the many trolls on here who happen to find favor with that particular moderator. 

Bottom line you may be right on that one.

[Zeffy]

Moderation pertaining to users is a group consensus involving applicable staff members which is discussed in private. Due to the fact that personal relationships are relatively common on tbis forum, especially with staff members, any staff member may choose to not be a part of the decision making process.

If you feel like someone is bypassing the discussion part entirely then please let an administrator know so that it can be handled properly.

[roadman65]

Actually I got over it along time ago.  I learned from others on here that tempers flair quite easily in most cases the user forgets the day after.  The moderator who declared war on me for personal reasons is no longer a staff member, and even if he was I learned a long time ago how to deal with the situations that arise from our differences.

[sdmichael]

Revisiting this topic after staying away from it for a few days...

So, this has been probably the crappiest year of my 53-plus orbits around the sun on this earth and things aren't going well in my life at all. Some of you know the details, some don't.

I may have taken some of those frustrations out on someone who was advocating for dangerous and reckless behavior, and who was doing so in an arrogant and abrasive manner. I'm not going to apologize for defending my position, but I will admit that some may have felt I was a bit overzealous in doing so.

But I still think it would be beneficial to know how reprimands and other decisions are made. Are moderators empowered to unilaterally hand out warnings or bans, or remove posts or entire threads? Or are these decisions made by consensus or by majority vote of the mods?

At least one moderator dislikes me personally. I'm not sure how much of a hand he had, if any, in the decisions that were made concerning issuing a warning or deleting my original thread asking about management decisions.

I merely think that it would be beneficial to know who makes such decisions and how decisions are made. Thread locks apparently can be done unilaterally by the mods.

Transparency is all I'm seeking. I'd think most everyone would want that as well.

Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!

[Brandon]

I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.

No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first.  The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)

What about signs that just happen to have pr0n in front of them? 

[Brandon]

Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!

Just knock it off.  HB didn't bring up the topic, didn't even discuss who it was by name, and didn't even suggest bringing back the topic just to "insult" you.  Knock it the fuck off as this shit is getting old.

YOU brought it back, YOU mentioned it, and YOU are exceedingly defensive about it.

[DaBigE]

I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.

No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first.  The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)

What about signs that just happen to have pr0n in front of them? 

Or in the background.

I can hear Barney Stinson now: "Challenge accepted!"

[US71]

[vdeane]

Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!

You sure post about it a lot for someone who's had enough.

[roadman65]

Anybody got popcorn?