Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bing101]

https://www.proboards.com/
You can make your own forum on Proboards.

[tolbs17]

https://www.proboards.com/
You can make your own forum on Proboards.

Some of them remind me like the layouts that they used in the early-mid 2000s.

[Alps]

one thing I think might be valuable is a post or notification of some sort from the moderator when part of a discussion is removed.

This has been the case on two other forums I've participated in.  You'd get a PM from the mod.

Sorry. I've been exceptionally busy lately so I just move the thread and move on. I should do better.

[tolbs17]

Usually, we only send a message upon removing a post as part of a formal warning through the board's warning system. This warning system allows us to issue up to 100 points to a user. When a user reaches 31 or more points, a moderator must approve each of the user's posts before it is displayed to the public. At 90 or more points, the user is muted and cannot post at all. One point expires per day, so a user's warning level will degrade naturally.

Basically, if a post is removed without a message being sent, the matter is more or less considered settled by the removal, and we didn't feel  additional admonishment through PM was warranted. I can appreciate that this may sometimes be baffling, though, so I can definitely start providing a PM to the members in question whenever I remove posts.

I've had several of my posts removed when the entire subdiscussion was problematic, but I was clearly not at fault (sometimes a heated argument between A and B where I do a fact check or make a joke one-liner, or sometimes it's a single person who is the problem).

We do check context when deciding when to remove posts. A post will still be removed even if it doesn't violate the rules, if removal of other posts results in the context of the given post being missing. The idea is that we don't want a straggler post clearly referring to something that is missing causing a side discussion about what was there before, which returns the conversation to the topic that caused the posts to be removed anyway.

I'm pretty sure I got 25 points cause of that offensive post (I obviously didn't know what to say but I wanted to be hilarious), maybe I shouldn't of said anything at all.

What's the difference of being watched and not watched mean?

Also, I'm guessing being moderated and muted is to prevent bans from happening.

[tolbs17]

Well, at least you possess a grain of wisdom.  Or even a dozen grains of wisdom.

 

Usually, we only send a message upon removing a post as part of a formal warning through the board's warning system. This warning system allows us to issue up to 100 points to a user. When a user reaches 31 or more points, a moderator must approve each of the user's posts before it is displayed to the public. At 90 or more points, the user is muted and cannot post at all. One point expires per day, so a user's warning level will degrade naturally.

Is there a way for the average user to know how many points they have, or is this something that's internal and only shared between the administrators?  Asking for a friend.   

If you don't see any number for yourself, you're at 0.

Yes, this is correct. I learned this the hard way once. You would know if you had points, not only because you'd get a PM from a mod, but also because your warning level displays (IIRC) right near the online/offline icon.

Yup, I learned the same through experience once (I was given a warning for baiting NE2, of all people). You receive a PM that says "You have received a warning" and is from user "AARoads Forum," and your point total is visible to you in your profile.

I'm guessing the AARoads Forum is from the admins or the global mods.

[Scott5114]

What's the difference of being watched and not watched mean?

We have access to the following menu in our moderation panel:

"Member" shows a list of all watched members. "View by post" shows all of the recent posts by all watched members (just their posts, not the rest of the thread).

If you are not watched (you have 0 points), you will not show up on either of these lists. The vast majority of members have 0 points most of the time. Currently, there are six members on the watchlist, which is a higher number than usual.

Also, I'm guessing being moderated and muted is to prevent bans from happening.

Correct. Moderation points and bans are separate tools, because moderation points expire automatically, while bans expire at the time and date we set (which can be "never"). Moderators and administrators can both issue moderation points, but only an administrator can issue a ban. The hope is that moderation/muting will get a user's attention and cause them to change their behavior so a ban will not be necessary. Although sometimes it has the opposite effect.

[1995hoo]

If you don’t mind my asking, how many users have been banned? (Obviously I know the stat is imperfect due to sockpuppets, such as the Marves.)

[tolbs17]

What's the difference of being watched and not watched mean?

We have access to the following menu in our moderation panel:

"Member" shows a list of all watched members. "View by post" shows all of the recent posts by all watched members (just their posts, not the rest of the thread).

If you are not watched (you have 0 points), you will not show up on either of these lists. The vast majority of members have 0 points most of the time. Currently, there are six members on the watchlist, which is a higher number than usual.

Also, I'm guessing being moderated and muted is to prevent bans from happening.

Correct. Moderation points and bans are separate tools, because moderation points expire automatically, while bans expire at the time and date we set (which can be "never"). Moderators and administrators can both issue moderation points, but only an administrator can issue a ban. The hope is that moderation/muting will get a user's attention and cause them to change their behavior so a ban will not be necessary. Although sometimes it has the opposite effect.

I get it now, thanks.

[1]

If you don’t mind my asking, how many users have been banned? (Obviously I know the stat is imperfect due to sockpuppets, such as the Marves.)

4078 members using the default theme + 7 using other themes - 4041 members in the members list = 44 members who have either had been banned or had their accounts deleted entirely.

[Scott5114]

If you don’t mind my asking, how many users have been banned? (Obviously I know the stat is imperfect due to sockpuppets, such as the Marves.)

Hard to say for sure, since we can ban by username or IP range, and we have a few large-ish IP ranges banned for originating spam accounts. Also, if we issue a ban and it expires, then we issue a new ban for the same user, that is counted as a new ban. Expired bans also still show in the list.

If you don’t mind my asking, how many users have been banned? (Obviously I know the stat is imperfect due to sockpuppets, such as the Marves.)

4078 members using the default theme + 7 using other themes - 4041 members in the members list = 44 members who have either had been banned or had their accounts deleted entirely.

Okay, maybe not as hard as I thought.

I want to know who the two masochists that have everything set to display in Clearview are.

[hbelkins]

I see some folks here have the same questions/concerns I do sometimes; that being unexplained moderation decisions. DIfferent people perceive things differently. An individual moderator might take something that's posted entirely differently than another reader, or the person who made the post. The poster may believe in good faith they are not violating any forum guidelines. Hence my recent question about the locking of the RIP Rush Limbaugh thread. The moderator who made that decision came to the conclusion that because Limbaugh was a political commentator, any discussion of him was a political discussion; even one mourning his death while other prominent celebrities are eulogized here often.

I think moderation transparency is important. If something is deleted, a thread is locked, or some other decision is made that comes without a system-generated warning, it would be helpful to know why the decision was made.

That's actually a feature, not a bug -- and what I miss most about misc.transport.road. You had the ability to silence anyone you wanted in your own feed through the use of killfiles. Others were free to engage or not if they wished.

Bear with me, as I've never been on misc.transport.road.  But wouldn't that also prevent you from seeing valuable posts by that user as well?  I mean, if I had "silenced" NE2 years ago, then I wouldn't get to reap the benefits of his encyclopedic knowledge about 80-year-old highway routings.

That's a risk I was willing to take. I killfiled Randy Hersh and all his numerous identities as they would pop up. He was toxic and if I missed some tidbit of his, so be it. Same for John Lansford. I got tired of his leftist rantings and his NCDOT superiority complex so I eventually plonked him.

Of course, a Usenet killfile doesn't keep you from seeing what they posted if it's quoted. The biggest difference between that and the "ignore user" feature here is that you see the fact that the ignored poster posted something and you have the option to read it. I've tried it with a couple of posters here but it wasn't worth the effort, and I eventually un-ignored them.

[Scott5114]

Hence my recent question about the locking of the RIP Rush Limbaugh thread. The moderator who made that decision came to the conclusion that because Limbaugh was a political commentator, any discussion of him was a political discussion; even one mourning his death while other prominent celebrities are eulogized here often.

We had a discussion between the moderators on that one, in which I stated my opinion that we probably shouldn't have any celebrity eulogies here, since it's not like any of us can offer any unique perspectives on their life and career that isn't just a rehash of their IMDB profile or Wikipedia page. My position was not very popular among the staff. 

[kphoger]

Hence my recent question about the locking of the RIP Rush Limbaugh thread. The moderator who made that decision came to the conclusion that because Limbaugh was a political commentator, any discussion of him was a political discussion; even one mourning his death while other prominent celebrities are eulogized here often.

We had a discussion between the moderators on that one, in which I stated my opinion that we probably shouldn't have any celebrity eulogies here, since it's not like any of us can offer any unique perspectives on their life and career that isn't just a rehash of their IMDB profile or Wikipedia page. My position was not very popular among the staff. 

For what it's worth, I thought it was an over-step to lock that thread without so much as a warning or even reasonable explanation.

I also thought there was a 35% chance HB had posted it as troll bait to begin with.

[bing101]

https://www.proboards.com/
You can make your own forum on Proboards.

Some of them remind me like the layouts that they used in the early-mid 2000s.

https://xenforo.com/
https://simplemachines.org/
https://www.vbulletin.com/
Here are the other ones for forums.

[webny99]

Hence my recent question about the locking of the RIP Rush Limbaugh thread. The moderator who made that decision came to the conclusion that because Limbaugh was a political commentator, any discussion of him was a political discussion; even one mourning his death while other prominent celebrities are eulogized here often.

We had a discussion between the moderators on that one, in which I stated my opinion that we probably shouldn't have any celebrity eulogies here, since it's not like any of us can offer any unique perspectives on their life and career that isn't just a rehash of their IMDB profile or Wikipedia page. My position was not very popular among the staff. 

For what it's worth, I thought it was an over-step to lock that thread without so much as a warning or even reasonable explanation.

Not that it really matters at this point, but I agree.

There was basically three possibilities:
(1) No discussion occurs
(2) A reasonable discussion occurs
(3) The discussion goes off the rails

Even if (3) is the most likely, (1) and (2) should have at least be given a fair chance.

[Scott5114]

Well, in the case of Limbaugh...political discussion is against the rules unless it is related to roads. We don't want it on the forum. At all. Because this forum has a bunch of conservatives and a bunch of liberals, and if we let people talk about politics then half of the forum will end up hating the other half, and then we won't have a forum anymore. (See the old covid thread that got locked this summer for an example of what we don't want.)

So it's against the rules. We have to make an exception for a little bit of politics because roads are built by government agencies. Why anyone would want to discuss politics here is beyond me anyway. There are places set up on the Internet for doing that, and they're probably more interesting because their posters think about politics as much as we think about Clearview or APLs.

So you get a Rush Limbaugh thread. Rush Limbaugh was a politician. Or, rather, he's a radio host, who only talked about politics, and very strongly advocated for a certain type of politics. There is no way to have an opinion on the man that does not reflect his political preferences, since that is the only reason he's famous. I couldn't tell you one thing about the guy's personal life, but I damn sure know who he voted for President.

So take what there is to discuss about Rush Limbaugh, and subtract things that are against the forum rules (politics). What's left? Goose egg. That means a lock.

[GaryV]

I couldn't tell you one thing about the guy's personal life, but I damn sure know who he voted for President.

Isn't that political?   

[1995hoo]

It was clear as soon as it was posted that the Rush Limbaugh obit thread would be closed because of the subject. I did kind of regret that it was closed after the lone response was from NE2 saying simply "No." I feel pretty strongly that regardless of how someone feels about someone else's politics, influence in society, etc., it is inappropriate to "celebrate" or "be happy about" someone dying of cancer. That's different from "not mourning" someone's death–in other words, there's a difference between "I'm not sorry to see that person gone" and expressing glee about someone dying of cancer. The latter, I think, is highly inappropriate, but we saw a lot of that from certain quarters when Rush Limbaugh died and, frankly, I was rather surprised that NE2 didn't post something along those lines given other political comments he's made in the past. It was inevitable that, had that thread not been locked, it would have turned into that sort of thing, so the moderators were probably right to close it, but I thought it was unfortunate that it was closed the way it was with that single-word post as the final word.

[JoePCool14]

I've read through everything since my last post on this topic. I appreciate all the explanations of what goes on with moderation here. This is the kind of stuff Reddit admins would never do. 

One of the things I've noticed when browsing old threads is that threads get locked with no explanation message from a moderator. Sometimes it's obvious why a thread was locked (ex. RIP Rush Limbaugh), sometimes not so much. I think it would be nice if when a thread gets locked, the mod/admin who does the lock leaves a post in purple of why the thread was closed. Doesn't have to be a long explanation, just something simple so that when I find myself browsing old threads, I have context to what's going on.

Also, if there's only six users on the Watchlist and that's "higher than normal", then I'd say moderation is appropriately lax as is.

[webny99]

... I feel pretty strongly that regardless of how someone feels about someone else's politics, influence in society, etc., it is inappropriate to "celebrate" or "be happy about" someone dying of cancer. ... I thought it was unfortunate that it was closed the way it was with that single-word post as the final word.

I agree with this, and as I alluded to above, there's a decent chance nothing ever became of the thread (in either a good or bad way) and it would still be sitting there open ten years from now with just one or two replies. I totally would have taken that chance (which would have prevented all of this ensuing discussion), but at the same time, I get why the mods didn't.

[kphoger]

There is no way to have an opinion on the man that does not reflect his political preferences, since that is the only reason he's famous. I couldn't tell you one thing about the guy's personal life, but I damn sure know who he voted for President.

I've only ever listened to one broadcast of his.  My roommate at the time (18 or 19 years ago) liked Rush and had the radio on.  All I really remember is a comment he made about religion.  It caused me to think a bit, and I eventually decided I disagreed with what he said.  And that's the only opinion of him that I have:  one based on religion rather than politics.  Fortunately, religious discussion is highly encouraged on this forum, so I feel completely free to talk about it here.[/not]

[Alps]

It was clear as soon as it was posted that the Rush Limbaugh obit thread would be closed because of the subject. I did kind of regret that it was closed after the lone response was from NE2 saying simply "No." I feel pretty strongly that regardless of how someone feels about someone else's politics, influence in society, etc., it is inappropriate to "celebrate" or "be happy about" someone dying of cancer. That's different from "not mourning" someone's death–in other words, there's a difference between "I'm not sorry to see that person gone" and expressing glee about someone dying of cancer. The latter, I think, is highly inappropriate, but we saw a lot of that from certain quarters when Rush Limbaugh died and, frankly, I was rather surprised that NE2 didn't post something along those lines given other political comments he's made in the past. It was inevitable that, had that thread not been locked, it would have turned into that sort of thing, so the moderators were probably right to close it, but I thought it was unfortunate that it was closed the way it was with that single-word post as the final word.

I closed it when it was just the initial post, but the "No" stuck in there (must have been the same time). It's the perfect display of why we don't allow political posts.

[formulanone]

I see some folks here have the same questions/concerns I do sometimes; that being unexplained moderation decisions. DIfferent people perceive things differently.

You posted that thread to use it as another excuse to bitch about moderation on the forum...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[SectorZ]

It was clear as soon as it was posted that the Rush Limbaugh obit thread would be closed because of the subject. I did kind of regret that it was closed after the lone response was from NE2 saying simply "No." I feel pretty strongly that regardless of how someone feels about someone else's politics, influence in society, etc., it is inappropriate to "celebrate" or "be happy about" someone dying of cancer. That's different from "not mourning" someone's death–in other words, there's a difference between "I'm not sorry to see that person gone" and expressing glee about someone dying of cancer. The latter, I think, is highly inappropriate, but we saw a lot of that from certain quarters when Rush Limbaugh died and, frankly, I was rather surprised that NE2 didn't post something along those lines given other political comments he's made in the past. It was inevitable that, had that thread not been locked, it would have turned into that sort of thing, so the moderators were probably right to close it, but I thought it was unfortunate that it was closed the way it was with that single-word post as the final word.

And the discussion of muting certain users circles back to reasons like the above being why I did long ago. It's a useful feature.

[hbelkins]

Or, rather, he's a radio host, who only talked about politics, and very strongly advocated for a certain type of politics.

He talked about much more than politics. He talked about entertainment (movies and TV shows and music; he lamented the fact that after he got his cochlear implant, he was unable to hear new music and could only recognize tunes he'd heard before, and he always said he had the best bumper music in all of radio). About golf. About football. About technology (he was probably the most prominent Apple fanboy in the world and I'm really surprised he even offered an Android version of his app.)

To tie this into separate forums, there was even a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to him: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. I discovered it at the same time I discovered misc.transport.road and rec.autos.sport.nascar.