"Rate TMP Forum Moderation" Topic

Would you say the forum moderation on TMP is too strict, or too permissive?

Too strict for lefties, to permissive for righties.

And I am saying that as a rightie.

Agree 100%!

I could also do without the rule against razzing news sources. I get all mine from the National Enquirer anyway.

The thing is, if you are going to throw the book at one side of an obnoxious argument, you have to do it to both. You can't have a private conversation admonishment off line with one while the other rots in the DH or gets locked out.
Justice is blind.

>>>Too strict for lefties, to permissive for righties.

Nonsense, .

One only has to look at the "wrong call" thread to see that is a myth. "rebeyell2006" was permitted to get away with personal attacks that would have sent any other TMP member to the DH. The moderation on TMP is random more than ideologically biased.

You just like to stir up trouble…..

There is precious little "discussion" on Ultramodern, and far too much advocacy disguised as discussion. And precious little of the discussion has the slightest veneer of wargaming about it.
Isn't this supposed to be a gaming site?

Any obnoxiousness that occurs there is because the uneven moderation allows it. The cynical might say the moderation encourages it. And they do.

Do I get a troll icon because I disagree with you?
Lovely.

As I recall Rebelyell DID go to the DH. And so did you.

Honestly, I am too far removed from the moderation to have an opinion. It doesn't affect me. If I don't like something, I stop reading it. If a particular poster was ever so offensive that I could not tolerate them, there are Stifle and Ignore features for me to use. If there is currently a moratorium on the mention of Stifle and/or Ignore, and I wind up in the DH because I don't pay enough attention to the rules, it will affect me, but not enough to make me care.

This is a hobby website in which I have total control of what I see and what I do. If I want drama to care about instead of merely observe, well, I am raising a couple of teenage daughters.

Inconsistent.

>>>>>Do I get a troll icon because I disagree with you?

No.

you get it becaue you are a ,

edit:
>>>>As I recall Rebelyell DID go to the DH. And so did you.

I sure did. And I admitted that deserved it. Did you do the same when you got banned?

Wildly inconsistent in your interpretation of the rules.

Having said that, I do think that you attempt to be fair.
You do seem to be more fair to the left, intentional or not.
Everyone has a bias.

Ultramodern is a tripwire for problems. Put it into the Blue Fezz and let everybody have at it.

The forum perception of Bill trying to juggle his judgement over disparate opinions will always be contentious. The Editor is as wired/loose as everyone else here. What do you expect?

The UN can't do it.

Kinda like a beep not as good as a beep, but better than no beep or a bad beep on a beep. Thanks for giving me place to beep my beep.

Moderation is inconsistent.
If you are looking to fix it limit the posts to bring just about miniatures like LAF does. They'll solve 98% of the challenges.

you get it becaue you are a ,

Does using the really free you from violating the "Troll Rule"?

I thought you stifled me, Kyote……
So why so you resond to me me now, ?

Have not noticed one way or the other, part of that is staying away from Ultramoderns, the Tango complaint threads, the TMP complaint threads, etc… So fine with me.

Too strict for the right.

I stay away from post WWII stuff so I don't care.

punkrabbitt +1 (minus the teenage daughters)

>>>>>Would you please answer the question TrenchRaider.

Answer mine first, !

That's not an amser….

Not that I'm surprised…

I agree with John the ofm 150% and Winston….

JJ

Has OFM changed his name? I don't see a post by him on this thread.

Ban politics and modern discussion. DH personal attacks. Let the good times roll.

I'm going to have to go with "inconsistent bordering on arbitrary at times."

Let the ladies handle the day-to-day moderation based on the written rules with the EiC only intervening when requested or on appeal. That should clear any political/philosophical bias – unless someone starts up a Pacquiao v. Aquino reef cage match thread.

Wyatt

Moderation of Miniatures discussions – good.
Moderation of political discussion which is Germaine to wargaming – good
Moderation of political advocacy by both the Left and the Right – too lenient.
Moderation of forum decorum and civil discussion – too lenient.

Perhaps it is time to consider the 'tone' of a post as well as it's content. It is often the 'tone' in a post which sets off a spat rather than the actual words posted.
As wargamers are notorious for figuring out ways around the most voluminous and precise rules, perhaps a more general code of conduct is needed where the expectations of member behaviour are spelled out giving the Editor more freedom to address things which are less explicit like 'tone' or perceived intention.

Finally, longer sentences (weeks or months) for serious breaches of forum rules/guidelines or for recidivist behaviour. This would allow the editor to reserve the final sanction of locking-out for truly extraordinary events.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

My own interactions with Bill have all been fair. I can't personally say that he favors one side or the other. Given the comments here, and on other posts, people say he always favors the other side, from their own.

I simply assume the moderator is an alien, unfamiliar with Earthling customs, who has occasional access to cheap liquor in large quantities, and a TV loop of Bill O'Reilly.

I know this is not true, but it makes more sense than the actuality.

I think there needs to be more security and perhaps a vetting system for new members to put a stop on the sock puppeting that is a mouth piece for the trolls.

I think get the Ladies to handle non controversial stuff and get you, Bill to handle the rubbish – sorry but there is a taking the garbage joke out here that I am going to avoid.

Overall the forum is great perhaps we need to take some advice we give the Frothers – lets do something with our hobby and not stand around like old nags gossiping.

What I'd like to see:

1. Some form of warning system. Given the subjective nature of defining objectionable conduct, it's very easy to accidentally cross a line. I think a warning can tamp down a lot of objectionable conduct without the necessity of banning someone from posting. Of course, the moderator should retain authority to not issue warnings to repeat offenders.

2. Consistency. I can handle seemingly arbitrary rules a lot more than I can handle unevenly applied rules. I think that moderators lose a lot of credibility when they punish one person in a thread but allow others who are doing comparable things to slide.

3. Shorter sentences for infrequent offenders. Five days is an absurd first sentence in my opinion. One day is enough to make the point (and also makes one less likely to pushback against the punishment).

4. Clean hands. When someone tattles to a moderator, the tattler should be held to a slightly higher standard than the person being tattled on. Assume A says something to B that isn't *quite* a rules violation, and B then replies with something that *is* a violation, but not really that much worse than what A said. A then tattles on B. My response would be either (a) no punishment because A lacks "clean hands" -- while B's conduct crossed an (unavoidably arbitrary) line, A's conduct was very close; or (b) both are punished. There is, in my opinion, a problem with certain posters who antagonize others, then, after inducing a response, tattle on them. These things do not take place in a vacuum; context matters.

5. List the number of complaints filed by a person in his/her profile (if not done already), who they complained about and how many complaints were deemed meritorious. Moderators should take this into account when evaluating a complaint.

6. Right to confront accuser. Anyone who is complained about should be informed of the contents of the complaint and who made it.

7. No right to not be offended. Merely being offended is not grounds for having a complaint sustained against another

8. As objective and modest a number of rules as possible. For instance, "don't be a dick" (aka the Wheaton rule) is a useless rule because it wrongly presumes that there is some objective definition of what a dick is. "Make no personal attacks" is better, but "personal attack" needs to be defined. "A statement that attacks the integrity, intelligence, competence, appearance, race, religion, sexual orientation, [add additional qualifiers] of another is a personal attack" perhaps. Defenses to personal attacks include (a) the statement is true (or a reasonable person would believe that the statement is likely true); (b) a reasonable person would likely conclude the statement was not intended to be an insult; (c) the statement is about a public figure who is not a participant of the forum. So calling Bob the wargamer a liar is a personal attack, unless he actually did lie. Calling George W. Bush or Barack Obama a lying sack of horse manure is never a personal attack.

9. Standing to Complain. You may only complain about personal attacks made against you. You may complain about general statements that are racist, sexist, etc., but the same defenses are available in 8 above. So I can complain if X says that all members of a particular race are stupid. I can't complain if Bob insults Tom; only Tom can complain about that.

10. Clarifications. Culture is not race. The truth (or the likely truth) is never racist or sexist. "Blacks in the U.S. commit more crimes per capita than whites" is not a racist statement because the preponderance of available evidence supports the accuracy of this statement. "All blacks are criminals" is a racist statement because it is clearly untrue and attacks a racial group. False/unreasonable accusations of racism are punished as strongly as racist statements are.

11. (Optional) Loser Pays. Let the complainer suggest a punishment. If the moderator finds that the target is guilty and that the suggested punishment is not excessive, the target receives that punishment. If the moderator finds that the target is not guilty OR that the suggested punishment is clearly excessive, the complainer receives the punishment he suggested. In that case, the moderator can punish the target if he finds the target guilty of a serious violation. The target never receives worse punishment than what is proposed by the complainer.

12. List of sample statements that are clear violations (unless a defense applies). This would help immeasurably in my opinion.

13. Retraction Opportunity. (Optional) A complainer must give notice to the target that the statement violates the rules and demand a retraction. If no clear retraction or clarification is given, then the complaint may be filed. Retractions/clarifications must unambiguously state that the insult is withdrawn or explain clearly why the statement is not an insult. Clever non-retractions will result in additional punishment.

Allen57, I am Winston, and he is me.
It's simply a matter of pc vs cell phone.

They must have had a sale on canned worms this week.

inconsistent bordering on Favoritism

Topics started simply to stir the pot in the Ultramodern threads. F-site mentioned simply to stir the pot. TMP business mentioned simply to stir the pot.

And remember you asked…

The rules are clear, Bill. If they were strictly enforced, there would be less personal conflict on TMP. If the rules were strictly enforced, they would greatly limit the postings on Ultramodern Discussion and TMP Talk, especially.

You don't consistently enforce the rules. You frequently violate them yourself. You like to post provocatively on Ultramodern Discussion and on TMP Talk, certainly violating the spirit of the rules and coming mighty close to violating the letter, which you sometimes also do. Never in your own opinion, of course, but certainly in the eyes of many observers.

How you enforce the rules on others depends on who recently made a good argument to you and which side of the bed you got up on that day. Frankly, there are times when I can get away with exchanging quite nasty barbs with someone who has gotten under my skin, other times when you'll cut my posts or doghouse me for things I haven't actually done, to the letter, if you read my text closely.

Your own opinions tend to be right-of-center, and you more often favor right-wing posters, but if a lefty has appealed to you, you may bend over backwards for a while and favor the lefties. The point is, you're rarely truly even-handed, you usually favor one side or the other, and you're perceived to be biased.

The big problem is, you're inconsistent. And that's what gives the rats in the lab experiments ulcers – unpredictable consequences. If you consistently shock the rats when they push a button, they stop pushing it. If you consistently give them a food pellet when they push the button, they push it as often as they can. But if you sometimes feed the rats and sometimes shock them, with no predictable pattern, they keep pushing the button, and they develop ulcers from the stress.

If for some reason you want to stir up controversy, you're succeeding. However, you are also stirring up personal conflict, leading to much bad feeling between TMP members and directed at you.

Here. I've tried to stay off these TMP Talk threads. (Though I'm a sucker for Ultramodern Discussion. I *worry* about the news.) And here *you've* baited me onto this thread, by asking me directly what I think of your forum moderation. I answer, because the things I complain about bother me, but I don't think you really want to know, or will accept what I have to say. I feel stress. I resent the stress. I blame you.

"So, don't post to the thread, Zippy, if it stresses you so much." "But you baited me to post!" "No, I didn't." "Oh, just forget it."

I'd say it's inconsistent on a good day and blatant favoritism the next.

BTW Trench Raider, you are acting like a troll. In your taunt to RY2006 you said you both need to stop because you're derailing threads, yet here you are on two separate threads I've seen today picking the bone with OFM.

Have you ever looked in a mirror? You seem to get off on causing trouble and arguing. Troll? I'd say so.

I had a good long laugh at the irony of this topic.

Why are you asking Bill? Could ANYTHING that ANYONE said here have the slightest effect?

All of the Sturm und Drang here began when you started the Ultra Modern Board which most people bagged quite early as a "Dawghouse" trap. From there TMP talk took up as both sides beat their breasts and ranted on as to why XYZ or ABC were dawghoused, which led to MORE dawghousings.

I have no objection to this because now on the other boards, one could talk about how to fix broken swords, or a new basing idea, or an Imagi-nation on all the other lists, even argue as to the personal character of Napoleon without rants and raves and invectives and snide insults from the people who now congregated to these lists. Most of the frequent posters on TMP are just here to be nasty to other people and uncivil to them because that's what they like to do and it's far easier to do so over presentist politics and political affiliations than the color of Confederate butternut or How to form a kampfgruppe in WWII. Though, if you look back on those old lists you can see the same people doing it with the same level of personal attack and vitriol. There's hordes and scads of other sites to do this on, but they just like being mean to people so they do it here too.

The moderating is irrelevant.

As for "lefties" and "righties" the fact that these sentiments would even be relevant in a hobby list is a function ONLY of the character of the Boards and that the people chose to bring it up themselves. Therefore those of you who feel that it's important have no one to blame but themselves.

You fouled your own nests. Now live with it.

punkrabbitt returns
Honestly, I am too far removed from the moderation to have an opinion. It doesn't affect me. If I don't like something, I stop reading it …

This.

Cyrus the Great
My own interactions with Bill have all been fair. I can't personally say that he favors one side or the other.

And this.

I would say that it is wildly inconsistent in its application, as well as frequently mind bogglingly ridiculous in terms of reasons given.

I'm going to have to go with "inconsistent bordering on arbitrary at times."

Pretty much.

And most of it seems unnecessary.

As to the left-right thing, I got DH'ed for mentioning that someone deleting their privately hosted emails might make it difficult for the Freedom of Information Act to help write an accurate history of a military operation that occurred a few years ago. That was somehow interpreted as an attack on the left, I suppose, so it happens at random intervals. :)

A naughtly rude little boy said "So why so you resond to me me now, troll?" Does anyone know what this means ?

What moderation? I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think that word applies. For instance, did Trenchraider pose for the original cover art for Type O Negatives first album "The Origin of the "? Trolling? Truth? Doghouse offense? Let's see.

I am a conservative, and have been DHed thrice. The last one I served 30 days in the DH. I don't know if there have been longer sentences without being expelled out of TMP.

The reason was that I refused to stand down when warned by one of the moderators hired by Bill on what I perceived as a xenophobic slur against Spanish.

My opinion on the moderation? That it is too inconsistent.

Inconsistent and arbitrary. Turning off UM helps a great deal though.

Just enforcing the rules as written would help, however there appears to be a culture of frequently ignoring the rules, and once a culture is established it is very hard to break.

I was DH'd once years ago. Since then any type of moderation really has had no effect on me.

I think that the warning for the first offense is fair.

TRUE STORY:

In the interest of fairness, I will state that after receiving a sentence in the DH, Bill wrote to me to explain what rule I had broken.
I thought that went way above and beyond. I wrote back that I was unaware of the rule and asked for clemency, which was granted. He didn't have to do either.
Hey, when the guy does something good it should be made known.

I won't break that rule again, so the warning achieved what it should
It is so much more enjoyable after turning off certain poster and blocking every board that doesn't have to do with minis.

too random to be honest Bill.

to think I gave Trenchy the benefit of the doubt after he grassed me up for a comment (which was said after being tarred by association to another forum by him), now, well I don't want to get DH again, but apparently I can say he is a . One who very carefully insults people who do not do as he wants/expects, in a manner so as not to break the rules.
Bill, can we still call people an arseclown? not that I am, unless we are allowed to, then maybe I am

Arbitrary, inconsistent, shows favouritism, sexism and right-wing leaning tendencies. All of which I hate.

Too strict for lefties, to permissive for righties. (Winston)

Seems that way

Moderation of Miniatures discussions – good.
Moderation of political discussion which is Germaine to wargaming – good
Moderation of political advocacy by both the Left and the Right – too lenient.
Moderation of forum decorum and civil discussion – too lenient. (Rod)

Yes – that's pretty much how I see …

Generally discussion here is helpful, constructive and crucially there are plenty of people prepared to give you answers. There just seem to be quirky corners where the customary balance doesn't apply. I hope to avoid them as my reasons for using TMP are broadly limited to the exploration of military history.

Then again, it is a much happier place since some of the bullies of yesteryear moved on to other places.

Phil

zippyfusenet and David Manley sum up my opinion on the subject.

I've only been DH'd once, despite nazrat's best efforts. When I asked why I was told which rule I'd broken. Except that I hadn't of course. But this made no difference. As has been asked in other threads, does anyone remember Bill ever admitting that he was wrong? He'll debate the matter with you until such point as you show that he was mistaken, but then he'll just stop responding.

I also think that he should just stick to running the place. He appears to want to be both referee and player and a sometimes 'dirty' player at that. I don't see this on other sites I visit.

Really?

Can we stick to miniatures, wars (historical or not,) Wars games that use miniatures and all (and only all) the directly related stuff?

The first time I did CPR on the job was thrilling, scary, frustrating (we lost te patient before the first team member hit the room), and damn hard (lasted circa 30 minutes, off and on for my part, because the attending could not let go.)

The 200th time, it actually was "Not again, I am off shift in 15 minutes."

This subject is the same.

Fix it or don't fix it, just stop harping on it. Everybody, not just Bill.

And it seems it is really all about people insisting the world be run "their" way – it really is all about "me" for too many people here.

Off to read something useful or fun, which these threads are not.