I was asked by Aaron to post this addendum to the now locked thread. The words are Aaron's, and I changed nothing.



the addendum...


First, I'd like to say that I didn't say that much different in my emails to matt than what I said on that thread. Of course, I wasn't as nice in emails. But then, I was being intentionally non-flamey on the org. There is no rule against that when it comes to emails. I'd like to point out to the mini-despot that his all-powerful prince.org powers do not yet extend to email. In case he wasn't aware.



More...


my point about the moderation is that if ben himself doesn't have enough interest in maintaining the site, he shouldn't put rules in place that he isn't willing to enforce. that's why i think the whole moderation system is a joke. if ben isn't interested in putting the time and effort into it, with such "strict" rules, then why should he expect others to do it for him for free? that's why i think the moderation position should be that of someone who does routine maintenance. approving avatars and news items, rerouting threads started in the wrong forums, locking/snipping/deleting posts/threads that get out of hand. which is pretty much what they do. but sometimes certain moderators feel like they want to flex some muscle. i've never understood the strike system in that you aren't always notified when you get a strike. it's a great system, but without knowing you've been reported or made some unspeakably offensive post, what's the point of it? the deactivations without warning are also a bit extreme. it generally causes more problems than it solves, especially if you haven't been deactivated all that much. i have, so i "get" the whole game of it. i think it would make more sense to restrict accounts from posting to the forums, entering the chat, etc., while things are resolved with the moderator, rather than just deactivating people.

the thing is, i don't even know where these rules came from. until org 2.0, there was no rule against flaming. definitely not in the chatroom, and not that i can remember on the newsboards. in fact, ben used to laugh it up when there'd be an all-out flamewar in the chatroom.

i just think that it's ridiculous for him to ask people to do that nonesense for him for free when he doesn't really seem to care. why create a set of rules for a site you own but you aren't even involved in enough to contribute? can a moderator (or even ben) tell me, as someone who dealt with him moderator-to-owner that he actually CARES that people are flaming or insulting each other? he doesn't even care enough to post there or enforce the rules himself.

and the fact that there is NO consistency to enforcing the rules, because people get used to one moderator's style, because one moderator is doing the job 90% of the time, and another comes along to do something totally different, makes it even worse. case in point, Deja is on a thread right now asking where my thread went, and she said we'd have to ask matt, and that she agrees with everyone else that it shouldn't have been deleted. and she didn't even lock/delete the thread talking about the deleted one.

Here is Matt's post from the previous thread, which is part of what Aaron responded to:




Internal affairs crew for moderators on an Internet forum? That'd be a first.

Anyway, the thread in question was removed for a very simple reason: Aaron has been deactivated. He had been advised that any new accounts created to circumvent this would also be deactivated.

I've attempted to resolve things with him via email, but the thrust of his responses has been, "Screw you, I'll do as I please." His post, which I thought was generally reasonable and thoughtful, was significantly different from what he has said to me privately.

I'd also gently point out that both Aaron's thread and this thread were posted in the wrong forum. If people want to continue the discussion in the prince.org Site Discussion forum, feel free to do so--I'll participate.

Matt said:

Okay, well, I don't agree that the thread should be removed just because Aaron was deactivated. He brought up a lot of valid points, as did many other Orgers. In addition, I don't really buy the whole thing about "it was in the wrong forum". Threads can be moved, so that's no reason to lock them. This has the appearance that the mods cannot handle any criticism of them, and that they will delete your threads or posts if you speak your mind. If that's the case, then I have no desire to participate. This is the kind of mindset that Prince's official website has, and this place was suppossed to be the alternative to that. If you plan on restricting free speach, then I won't be around anymore. I've sent my list of concerns and complaints to Ben, and hopefully this will become a less restrictive environment. If not, then you can count me out of the Org in the future.

JediMaster said:

1) I agree that the strike system should be modified to provide automatic notice of a strike (and warning of a possible auto-ban, if it's strike number two) via orgNote. I try to do this manually, but I could be more consistent about it.

2) "Version 1.0" of the .org had the following in its User Agreement:

Be respectful of other users. There are many other users of prince.org. Please be kind to them and refrain from 'flaming' them or being otherwise (verbally, in e-mail, etc.) abusive towards them. We'd like to keep the site a nice place to visit. Self expression (and "freedom of speech") is very important to us, but please try to keep the discourse intelligent.

Source: http://web.archive.org/we...ement.html

JediMaster said:

With respect to Aaron's thread, the "wrong forum" issue was merely incidental. The thread shouldn't have been posted anywhere. As for rdhull's thread, you're correct to suggest that it could have been moved instead. I went back and added a link to the "Moderation Suggestion" thread here, so at least people know where the discussion is being continued. (I should also note that people have complained about threads like that one being moved out of General Discussion into prince.org Site Discussion.)

As for restricting free speech, any moderation is going to impose some restriction upon free speech. Again: would people prefer no moderation whatsoever? This is an honest question.

matt said:

Some people would...but I don't think that it would be good for the whole org, given the wide spectrum of personalities that exists here. It would start to look like Usenet--you'd drive all the soft and cuddly people away, and that would be a loss. The org fills the gap between the anarchicy of alt.prince and scary church of NPGMC. The org is New York...a little rough, but not without law.

I have wondered, though, if maybe you could have an unmoderated Forum (a flame pit?).

matt said:

Actually, I personally would rather have very little moderation. I think folks have gotten to a point that anything that can even remotely be construed as offensive is reported, even if it wasn't intended as such. Personally, I felt like Aaron was just standing up for himself, and felt no need to get mods involved. MD7 is just as guilty of "flaming", but we don't really see anything being done about it. I know, if Aaron didn't report him, then there isn't too much that can be done about it. The poiny is, the atmosphere around here is almost one of "if you say anything even remotely off-color we will censor you" and I don't like that.

I'm fairly passionate about free speech, in almost every context. I would rather allow someone to come out and say some sort of racist comment than mess with their right to say it. If they do spout something off, several others will jump all over them. That's just me though.

teller said:

Fantastic idea! If you enter the "flame pit" you are going in with an understanding that anything goes, and that you shouldn't participate if you're going to be offended. Let all the other forums stand with the current rules. If things get out of hand, a mod could say "either take this to the 'flame pit' or get snipped".



---

This may be the solution!!
[This message was edited Tue Jan 27 14:04:22 PST 2004 by JediMaster]

teller said:

JediMaster said:

aaron got deactivated for flaming me, not md7. he then proceeded to log in as his other names and that's when he started flaming md7.

can we replace the npgmc w/ the flame pit?

JediMaster said:

It's worth considering. My concern would be posts that cross the line of being criminal, such as threats of physical harm. Also, to protect the .org, we'd have to take moderation action if people started using the flame pit as a place to buy/sell/trade bootlegs.

sosgemini said:

matt said:

it's a very good idea, but i would lay money down that things that happen there will bleed over to other forums, since that already happenes all the time. people get way heated in P&R then carry the fight on over to GD after a few days of back and forth

cborgman said:

Really? I thought it had to do with MD7 and his race baiting. I saw the little flame war you & Aaron had going for a while there, but it seemed fairly harmless (and you seemed to handle yourself just fine).

Sorry, I don't much care for MD7, since he runs around accusing everyone of being racist. I can't stand race-baiting. It's a bunch of crap.

matt said:

Sure, things like buying and selling of boots should be restricted, but I have no problem with that. It should be kept lawful. I'm mainly thinkg of things that are matters of speech only. If I wanna cuss out an order, then it should be a part of the flame pit.

cborgman said:

I'm sure, but that is what the moderators are for.

Perhaps we could simply refer "flame warriors" to alt.music.prince.

JediMaster said:

i thought it was over some time ago, since it's now been three weeks since all this shit began, and i stopped responding to him and just started reporting, cause that's the way to deal with this kind of crap, rather then engage it and make it worse. he ended up with 2 warnings, and i know this because he posted it in one of his threads that got deleted, so i don't understand why he says no one told him. i mean he posted about it, how could he not know? then things got uiet for several days, thankfully, and i thought the drama was over. then he whipped out some more namecalling and that was his 3rd strike.

then he proceeded to log on under his other screen names and threw a massive fit from what i heard.

cborgman said:

You're probably right about that.

Just trying to think of the magic formula.

teller said:

the magic formula is this: people need to respect other people, and treat them with such. it's ridiculous that some people just do not freaking get this, and insist on calling other people names and behaving like third graders on a bender.

other than that, i don't think there is a solution that is gonna be reached that will cure it all.

Well...during Ian's reign, the org wasn't without drama, but he ruled with an iron fist--unapologetic, but generally fair and willing to explain his actions. It was by and large a peaceful period, even with deactivations...he gave the a org...what...a good spine?

The org needs moderation and it also needs certain people to act their age. This is a cool site full of cool people, but sometimes I just can't believe how immature people act.

I myself got one strike a long time ago and I realized that it was stupid so I have toned down or eliminated all flaming. It wasn't hard, but if you could see all the posts I have made and then reconsidered before hitting post response I would be amongst the most wanted on the site

Anyway...IMO the mods do a fair job. It's a thankless job and every decision is going to piss somone off but i think they are pretty fair. Plus they always seem to allow people back after a period of time anyways.
[This message was edited Tue Jan 27 15:19:59 PST 2004 by lovemachine]

People need to stop being overly sensitive. The only actions that deserve a de-activation are truely hateful acts or consistant badgering/trolling. It seems any time somebody calls somebody else an idiot or something they are getting banned.
Also, more descretion needs to be taken by the mods. Read the posts related to a particular incident and get rid of those responsible.
I have seen certain people posting pictures of the KKK and pictures of black people beating up white people and other stuff with things like "cracker", etc. written on them. The guilty parties still remain on this site. That is far more offensive than anything I have seen from Icenine, Chemmie or Aaron or anyone else.

what exactly is trolling?

matt said:

But what if people get dragged into the flame wars without their consent? For example, if I went in and starting talking shit about 2the9s, technically it's okay but 9s might not have any idea of its existence.

jessyMD32781 said:

Trolling is when you say something just for the sake of pissing people off. There is no point to the post, just pissing people off. Most of the time the author doesn't even necessarilly aree with what he/she is saying, they are just trying to get a reaction out of people. Another example of trolling is when somebody posts over and over and over and over again. Like when HolyMoses kept posting about his favorite films, all staring DeNero and Pachino. There were 20 posts about the same subject. That is trolling.

"Heal the world...make it a better place..."

Get your facts straight here Jedimaster, I don't go around "Race baiting" but do call Aaron racist due to his prejudice simply on the basis of national background. Neither had I flamed him until after I was attacked and then I remained mild still in face of such ignorance.

Also don't forget he was already banned before he started abusing me on those threads. Defenders of Aaron do themselves no favors, they just look as bad as he is themselves... your allies are Chemmie, IceNine, Teller etc, that's the group he's within now.

MD7 said:

See, right here is my problem with you. You DO race bait all the damned time. You obviously know nothing about Chemmie, Icenine or Teller by calling them racist. I don't know Chemmie all that well, but I've known Ice and Teller for years, and they are FAR from being racist. You go around all the time saying shit like this, when it isn't warranted at all. Icenine and Teller are two of the most fair-minded folks on here, and they have attacked racism over and over again. You joined in friggin' November, so you're hardly qualified to know the history of these two posters.

Icenine can be quite abrasive, but that's part of his charm. He cannot stand bigotry in any way, and he stands up against it. He stands up against discrimination towards blacks, but will also do the same if he feels whites are being treated unfairly. For this, you label him "racist", and constantly name drop him all the damn time. I think this is BS, and I think you have some sort of personal axe to grind. Make no bones about it, I don't like you. Ask anyone on the Org, I'm pretty easy going, and generally get along with everyone, but I have no use for someone like you who puts his personal agenda out there, and goes around trying to make the Org his own personal club.

As for the Aaron issue, I wasn't defending him, merely his right to free speech (something I'm sure you don't agree with. Your philosophy appears quite facist, in my opinion). You see, I don't have to agree with him to defend his right to say what he wants. I think cborgman is also entitled to speak his mind. I'm friends with both these guys (and I'm actually much closer to Chris), so I've stayed out of their fued. I'm merely defending their right to HAVE this fued. I haven't called for YOU to be banned with your race-baiting, because I feel you have a right to do it, even if I don't agree with it. Likewise, I have the right to call you out on it, and argue against your facist philosophy. This is not flaming, merely stating how I feel. I have no intention of reporting you everytime you say something nasty (a courtesy I'm sure you won't extend to me).