Moderation feedback

[Rusty]

We are in discussion of some ground rules for moderators and members to follow, the member rules are already there but we are working through anything that needs changing. I'd like member comment, on when something should be moderated. I know things get a bit heated sometime, and topics get off point, we have all sorts of personality clashes.

I'm in favor of as little moderation as possible myself, a recent example is Mike Whan being called an idiot. This is actually against the site rules as it stands, but no one seems to care about it. Should a topic or post only be moderated if it offends someone and gets reported? or should we be moderating more vigilantly. In which case you might say harden up princess.

[Mr3putt]

Rusty
This site should require minimal moderation.....I think the average age on this site is likely around 50 yrs.

Everyone use common sense....if you don't like how a thread is going.....just ignore the individual and the gong show back and forth posts/fighting will end.

IMO....the mods should only have to police the site when trolls/spammers appear.

[dangerbob]

Originally Posted by Mr3putt

Rusty
This site should require minimal moderation.....I think the average age on this site is likely around 50 yrs.

Everyone use common sense....if you don't like how a thread is going.....just ignore the individual and the gong show back and forth posts/fighting will end.

IMO....the mods should only have to police the site when trolls/spammers appear.

I agree with the above.
And don't move any posts to another thread or topics.

[NTB]

Originally Posted by Mr3putt

Rusty
This site should require minimal moderation.....I think the average age on this site is likely around 50 yrs.

Everyone use common sense....if you don't like how a thread is going.....just ignore the individual and the gong show back and forth posts/fighting will end.

IMO....the mods should only have to police the site when trolls/spammers appear.

I disagree there has been plenty of times folks have gotten way out of hand and personnel attacks came about.. You can't let that happen..
I for one will not return attacks..

[dangerbob]

Originally Posted by NTB

I disagree there has been plenty of times folks have gotten way out of hand and personnel attacks came about.. You can't let that happen..
I for one will not return attacks..

Then, don't read the posts...and move on to another threads that interest you.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by Rusty

We are in discussion of some ground rules for moderators and members to follow, the member rules are already there but we are working through anything that needs changing. I'd like member comment, on when something should be moderated. I know things get a bit heated sometime, and topics get off point, we have all sorts of personality clashes.

I'm in favor of as little moderation as possible myself, a recent example is Mike Whan being called an idiot. This is actually against the site rules as it stands, but no one seems to care about it. Should a topic or post only be moderated if it offends someone and gets reported? or should we be moderating more vigilantly. In which case you might say harden up princess.

Rusty,

If you are worried about Smiley being called an idiot, you should be exposed to my unedited opinion of John Feinstein.

[Saint-Just X]

Originally Posted by Rusty

We are in discussion of some ground rules for moderators and members to follow, the member rules are already there but we are working through anything that needs changing. I'd like member comment, on when something should be moderated. I know things get a bit heated sometime, and topics get off point, we have all sorts of personality clashes.

I'm in favor of as little moderation as possible myself, a recent example is Mike Whan being called an idiot. This is actually against the site rules as it stands, but no one seems to care about it.Should a topic or post only be moderated if it offends someone and gets reported? or should we be moderating more vigilantly. In which case you might say harden up princess.

What really needs to happen on this forum is that a group of people need to pull on their big boy/girl pants and stop being so damn sensitive about the tiniest things.

Hey,you asked for our opinions...

Pax Vobiscum
Saint-Just X

[MarinePaul]

For the most part, I view it as adults should act like adults. When a post is reported as being offensive, we should address it. And as far as I'm concerned, the reported posts should remain anonymous.

The site has rules, and they should be followed.

[xman5]

Calling a Player, Official, Sportswriter a name is not a big deal. They have nothing personally to do with what is going on here. They are public figures.

Calling another poster a name is a problem unless you are joking with them. To know when someone is joking can be tricky. I always try yo use one of the smilies to make the point that it is a joke (like the 2 beer guys or the thumbs up).

Attack the facts, opinion or argument, not the person directly.

[MarinePaul]

Originally Posted by xman5

Calling a Player, Official, Sportswriter a name is not a big deal. They have nothing personally to do with what is going on here. They are public figures.

Calling another poster a name is a problem unless you are joking with them. To know when someone is joking can be tricky. I always try yo use one of the smilies to make the point that it is a joke (like the 2 beer guys or the thumbs up).

Attack the facts, opinion or argument, not the person directly.

I agree for the most part, but how can the site attract players is we allow calling players a name?

It can be hard to know when someone's joking, as you said. Most of us have been known each other for quite a while and know who we can or can't joke with. The smilies help, as does Wiefans' "just kidding folks," or "lol."

For the most part, I think it comes down to trying to treat fellow posters with respect. Arguments are going to happen, but name calling and nit picking every post looking for the slightest error to criticize is going over the line.