The New Mod Procedure

[Drifterwood]

I tend to agree with the new procedure.

I found it strange that someone reacting to provocation got in as much bother as someone initiating the attack, so it is good to know that if you are attacked, you have a choice to report or respond.

I don't report, so if you call me a cunt, I will fart in your general direction, or maybe I will just ignore it.

Will this mean that some prior bans will be overturned? NJ springs to mind, for even though it was taken to be racist, it was rsponding to perceived racism. Oh perception.

 

[Kotchanski]

Firstly, I'm so glad that post made sense and you seem to have come out the other side of it understanding what we meant and what our aim is!

Secondly, we can't back date new procedures, that would involve having to go over years of bans, countless thousands of reports and posts, it would be a never ending stream of issues, that isn't to say that members can't still appeal their bans, including those who have previously appealed and been declined (Not talking about your specific example) and we would look at them on a case by case basis.

 

[Hoss]

this: http://www.lpsg.org/200099-new-mod-procedure.html seems good to me. and as a newbie I appreciate the clear laying out of explanations.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I think it's probably a great improvement.

I particularly like this:

We also appreciate that many of the issues have come from the build up of emotions when heads ups/warnings have been sent as they aren't seen by the membership as a whole and members often feel they have to step up and take matters into their own hands, so when dealing with issues that happened in public, we will make the heads ups/warnings public as well.

 

[Drifterwood]

Secondly, we can't back date new procedures, that would involve having to go over years of bans, countless thousands of reports and posts,

You mean you have something better to do?

 

[Kotchanski]

You mean you have something better to do?

Shh don't tell anyone!

Seriously though, members are always welcome to appeal their bans, with or without changes being made with regards to the ToS or how they are applied should they wish to return.

 

[mitchymo]

I also like the new procedure.

If two members are going hammer and nail at each other then it is fair that a) no 3rd party should waste time making reports on behalf of either member and that b) both parties are given equal warning.
This way it gives a chance to break up conflicts without mods appearing to be taking sides, and eventually, the members proving to be most aggravating are going to get more warnings than anyone else until such time as enough is enough.

 

[798686]

Seems fine.

Altho, it did batter my head a bit, reading it.

 

[Kotchanski]

Seems fine.

Altho, it did batter my head a bit, reading it.

There's a Welsh joke in there somewhere, something to do with being woolly, but I can't quite make it work!

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There's a Welsh joke in there somewhere, something to do with being woolly, but I can't quite make it work!

You English and your ethnic slurs! My blood boils I tell ya, I'm going to rob your cattle ya hear! :tongue:

Yeesh sometimes my Welsh half gets the better of me LOL

 

[Jason]

These procedures seem appropriate.

The whole issue of how a board as big as this one should be moderated is fascinating - I don't think there is yet an internet consensus, so lpsg is ahead of the field in thinking about it. The centrality of members set out does seem to be an important concept. At first sight it looks to me as if lpsg has got it right. Nice one!

 

[798686]

There's a Welsh joke in there somewhere, something to do with being woolly, but I can't quite make it work!

Lends itself more to toad in the hole. :wink:

 

[nudeyorker]

Lends itself more to toad in the hole. :wink:

I'm confused, but I'm seriously considering making this for dinner.
Ultimate toad in the hole recipe - Recipes - BBC Good Food

 

[Kotchanski]

I'm confused, but I'm seriously considering making this for dinner.
Ultimate toad in the hole recipe - Recipes - BBC Good Food

Have you considered making one with mushrooms and tomatoes? I threw some in once to get rid of them before they were no good to use... the kids loved it!

 

[nudeyorker]

Have you considered making one with mushrooms and tomatoes? I threw some in once to get rid of them before they were no good to use... the kids loved it!

I actually have a tomato and mushrooms on hand. I'm off to the corner store to get the rest of the ingredients. I have not had this in years! Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Bbucko]

I do have one question, and, given the heat it's been generating for months now, surprises me somewhat that it hasn't been addressed under what is considered defamatory language: swipes and snipes at religion.

Anyone who's read anything I've written on the subject knows that I have no specific skin n this game specifically, as I'm both a professed Pagan and have decried the influence of religion in secular politics for as long as I've been a member. But why isn't it uncool (and part of the ToS) to dismiss entire religions, with millions of adherents world-wide amongst whom are surely members here, with such enormously broad-strokes as to label them all as terrorists, extreme misogynists and inevitable executioners of gay men?

Specific examples of specific acts, properly cited with corresponding links, are completely understandable springboards for conversations, but random, drive-by shitting-type posts labeling, for instance, all Catholic priests and pedophiles or all Jews as baby-killers would be subject to immediate moderator action, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding Islam and its millions of peaceful, devout adherents.

All exercise free speech is subject to consequences: that's Civics 101. And it's obviously verified here at LPSG by the existing proscriptions regarding language that is blatantly homophobic and misogynistic.

Again: I have no real skin in this game, aside from finding all negative generalizations regarding how people choose to worship their own God (or not). By excluding religious bigotry from the ToS suggests that LPSG condones it, which I cannot believe is possible.

 

[Kotchanski]

Bbucko,

I can't give you any definitive answers at this point in time, but I shall certainly copy this to the mod forum for discussion, and reply here once the "official word" is in.

I suspect I already know the collective opinion, but it would be wrong of me to post it without asking them first.

 

[Bbucko]

Bbucko,

I can't give you any definitive answers at this point in time, but I shall certainly copy this to the mod forum for discussion, and reply here once the "official word" is in.

I suspect I already know the collective opinion, but it would be wrong of me to post it without asking them first.

Thank you, A.

Please pardon the numerous lapses in proper English: I was sober as a judge when typing that post, but tried to do so while eating dinner and didn't review it carefully enough for obviously fractured syntax and dangling thoughts. My bad :redface:

 

[HazelGod]

In my view, the distinction is that religious affiliation is a conscious choice and therefore subject to scrutiny, ridicule, etc. The same cannot be said of gender, race, sexual orientation, or even national origin.

So while it might be bad form to tar all adherents of a particular religion with the sins of its worst, I'm also a big believer in the notions that you're judged by the company you choose to keep...and that if you lie down with dogs, you shouldn't be surprised at getting up with fleas.

 

[Drifterwood]

"Patriotism is the final refuge of the scoundrel" according to Samuel Johnson, yet many "Patriots" would wish to ban if you hold a critical opinion of their country's behaviour. Similarly, I would like to think that Jeremiah, Jesus and Mohammed would like to be able to say "not in my name", yet "this is my faith" would give a blanket defense to views that many others would find offensive and IMO should be allowed to say so.