Site moderation feedback

A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes.

MEMBER CONDUCT
Interestingly:
You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will we be liable in any way for any Content...

Yet:
MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
  1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
So, you may be exposed to something which members, by registering (I presume) & coming here, have agreed not to do...but if you are exposed to it, we (Solo) have no liability.

OK, so I get that we can't have full, real-time monitoring/moderation, which therefore suggests, that conduct is reliant on 'members' reporting posts which they find objectionable, for whatever reason, provided that objectionable item fits into any of the above categories, & someone (mods) happen to agree with it being objectionable.

Are 'anonymous' posters considered 'members'? I suspect not.

So, if that's the case, then they are maybe not subject to the TOU, & in these circumstances, again any moderation is, in effect, reliant on 'members' reporting objectionable content, & will only be removed if the mods agree with it being 'objectionable'.

So, common denominator for the enforcement, or application of the site rules/TOU, is the moderator. Application of said rules is triggered either by the moderator seeing the content him/her self, taking action, or the content being reported to them by a member.

Irony is though, these elements, which I would class as sub-elements of the man category of 'objectionable' (threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable) in particular, are ever present on this site, yet they seem to be permitted with impunity.

Am I missing something?

Edit: These are the kinds of things which I personally find 'objectionable':

  • Calling someone in a hateful manner: You aul racist bastard.

  • Vulgarly stating that: Someone loves paedos!

  • Abusively & vulgarly advising someone to: Try being less of a racist cunt.

  • Comment: Paedos are in synagogues, mosques and Hindu temples too. Unfortunately they exist everywhere. In every nation and institution.
  • Vulgar & harassing Response: You’d know. You love ‘em!

A considered response.
 

Pippistrella

Well-Known Member
OFF TOPIC

The comment below appears in the thread "Leeds - First Direct Arena (Mar. 6, 2020) post-show" It'd be helpful to know why this remains in the thread when other comments from the same thread were deemed Off Topic and were removed swiftly.
Context, my friend, is everything.
 

davidt

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Subscriber
Yes.

MEMBER CONDUCT
Interestingly:
You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will we be liable in any way for any Content...

Yet:
MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
  1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
So, you may be exposed to something which members, by registering (I presume) & coming here, have agreed not to do...but if you are exposed to it, we (Solo) have no liability.

OK, so I get that we can't have full, real-time monitoring/moderation, which therefore suggests, that conduct is reliant on 'members' reporting posts which they find objectionable, for whatever reason, provided that objectionable item fits into any of the above categories, & someone (mods) happen to agree with it being objectionable.

Are 'anonymous' posters considered 'members'? I suspect not.

So, if that's the case, then they are maybe not subject to the TOU, & in these circumstances, again any moderation is, in effect, reliant on 'members' reporting objectionable content, & will only be removed if the mods agree with it being 'objectionable'.

So, common denominator for the enforcement, or application of the site rules/TOU, is the moderator. Application of said rules is triggered either by the moderator seeing the content him/her self, taking action, or the content being reported to them by a member.

Irony is though, these elements, which I would class as sub-elements of the man category of 'objectionable' (threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable) in particular, are ever present on this site, yet they seem to be permitted with impunity.

Am I missing something?

Edit: These are the kinds of things which I personally find 'objectionable':

  • Calling someone in a hateful manner: You aul racist bastard.

  • Vulgarly stating that: Someone loves paedos!

  • Abusively & vulgarly advising someone to: Try being less of a racist cunt.

  • Comment: Paedos are in synagogues, mosques and Hindu temples too. Unfortunately they exist everywhere. In every nation and institution.
  • Vulgar & harassing Response: You’d know. You love ‘em!

Anonymous posts and member posts are treated differently as anonymous posts require approval. If you are personally offended by a specific member's posts you are free to add them to your 'ignore' list and you won't see their posts.
 

Mozmar

Well-Known Member
Anonymous posts and member posts are treated differently as anonymous posts require approval. If you are personally offended by a specific member's posts you are free to add them to your 'ignore' list and you won't see their posts.

Thanks @davidt, yes I'm aware of that, & I'm applying that tack.
However, if, in my opinion I consider that something is contrary to the rules (TOU), or I consider it 'objectionable', insofar as fitting any of the sub-categories, then I shall use the 'report' facility (stating why I find the content 'objectionable' & under which sub-category) which is also available to users.
All I am, & others are, asking, is that if we do report something, that application of the rules/TOU by the mods is done fairly, without bias or favour, and done in a consistent manner. As stated in an earlier thread, I'm not seeing consistency.
I'm asking this, not only for myself, but on behalf of other members too who regularly visit.
I'm asking for this also for the common good of the site; the existence of which we are all grateful.
Thanks for giving this your attention.
 
Last edited:

Pippistrella

Well-Known Member
I find all things WOKE objectionable and deeply offensive.

Ideally I would like all woke comments removed from this site.

I wonder what percentage of a chance I have of this happening?
 

davidt

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Subscriber
I think it's been consistent - member posts have rarely been removed, I don't recall the last one, it's been at least a year. Members have been warned for some posts and if they continue on without regard to the simple rules then they get a timeout and if they continue on get banned. The posts you have reported have not fallen into the category of requiring a warning. I realize that may not be how you see it but as Uncleskinny said, no one is stopping you from creating your own site with your own rules.

Thanks @davidt, yes I'm aware of that, & I'm applying that tack.
However, if, in my opinion I consider that something is contrary to the rules (TOU), or I consider it 'objectionable', insofar as fitting any of the sub-categories, then I shall use the 'report' facility (stating why I find the content 'objectionable' & under which sub-category) which is also available to users.
All I am, & others are, asking, is that if we do report something, that application of the rules/TOU by the mods is done fairly, without bias or favour, and done in a consistent manner. As stated in an earlier thread, I'm not seeing consistency.
I'm asking this, not only for myself, but on behalf of other members too who regularly visit.
I'm asking for this also for the common good of the site; the existence of which we are all grateful.
Thanks for giving this your attention.
 

Mozmar

Well-Known Member
I think it's been consistent - member posts have rarely been removed, I don't recall the last one, it's been at least a year. Members have been warned for some posts and if they continue on without regard to the simple rules then they get a timeout and if they continue on get banned. The posts you have reported have not fallen into the category of requiring a warning. I realize that may not be how you see it but as Uncleskinny said, no one is stopping you from creating your own site with your own rules.

All perfectly clear.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
" ... as Uncleskinny said, no one is stopping you from creating your own site with your own rules." It's known as a cop-out. The same Uncleskinny who started this thread in regard to anti-semitic comments. Davidt quotes selectively but rarely constructively.

The usual response: if you are offended by racist, homophobic, anti-immigrant and anti-semitic comments don't visit the site. It's hardly a positive recommendation. However, it speaks volumes as to Davidt stance on these issues. He doesn't care. Simple.

If someone is posting content that you find offensive put them on 'ignore'. Hmmm ... how is the site then dealing with the offensive content? It isn't.

Users have for years requested some form of change to deal with all manner of offensive behaviours and in the last two or so years the offensive behaviours have primarily related to the topics above. I'll take Davidt's advice and bow out. I'm done wading through offensive and hate-filled bile.

:thumb: to Mozmar who is asking pertinent questions and good luck.
 

davidt

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Subscriber
There are actually a lot of racist/homophobic/anti-semitic comments that do not get on the site but some are more 'offensive' than others and it's not always black and white. If someone is using specific terms to personally abuse someone those should be reported. In some cases where it's more general / subtle / controversial / open to interpretation you will need to self-censor by adding users to your ignore list.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
'Euclid' might like to consider that the reason they are persona non grata and will remain so is due to their OWN behaviour on & off this site.
Has concerns about racism - makes persistent, targeted racial & sexual comments to the site owner and mods whilst trying to appear oh so reasonable here.
Desperate to comment here - wants the site shut down when they can't get their way.
All textbook troll 'look at me' nonsense and unfortunately, YOUR behaviour & YOUR choices have dictated the situation you find yourself in - deal with it.


Prior to volunteering to mod here, I engaged with this site for about 18+ years. I found it totally possible to take what I wanted from it, find information when I needed it and ignore what I saw as cretinous or inflammatory behaviour when it was required.
I believe I managed all of that whilst trying to be kind, respectful and considerate - regardless of other people's behaviour here or their communicated (often wrong) perception of me.
I'd suggest that rather than digging through the minutiae of 'rules' here, people should engage with the things they want, ignore who they want, contribute what they want etc.
It is possible to enjoy using this site despite other people :)
I don't think this topic warrants any further comment by myself.
Regards,
FWD.
 

evennow

Writers on the storm
I find all things WOKE objectionable and deeply offensive.

Ideally I would like all woke comments removed from this site.

I wonder what percentage of a chance I have of this happening?

That's a pretty WOKE comment. I say strike it down with all haste and remove it from my sight! ??

Seriously though, it would be nice to have the feature to block posts with specific words like "woke". If I see this used in one more post, I am going to lose it!
 

Mozmar

Well-Known Member
OK this is what the process 'appears' to be then:
viz2.JPG
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
Some people appear to have too much time on their hands.

For those of little brain, my opinions, such as they are on this forum these days, are coloured by one overriding sentiment - I despise racists and bigots, and those who support and offer support to racists and bigots. It really is that simple.
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
Some people appear to have too much time on their hands.

For those of little brain, my opinions, such as they are on this forum these days, are coloured by one overriding sentiment - I despise racists and bigots, and those who support and offer support to racists and bigots. It really is that simple.
You despise Morrissey and resent that he's not the person you thought he was. If you wanted to combat racism you wouldn't be obsessively trolling the fans of a pop singer. Unless you're just that stupid.
 
R

R3D3

Guest
You despise Morrissey and resent that he's not the person you thought he was. If you wanted to combat racism you wouldn't be obsessively trolling the fans of a pop singer. Unless you're just that stupid.

Bingo. There's your answer in bold. ^^^^
He claimed in another thread his life was so good, he would be retiring soon :sleeping:... all drivel of course.
I was hoping he'd retire from here before long. I doubt that will happen. Much like his success rate in converting Moz fans to his own personal grievance cause...failure.
Oh well.
 
Top Bottom