Mod editing
 

100% with you there. While I know Mouse and our mod team here are doing their utmost to put out fires left right and center, it often results in a person's own words being altered or removed to do so...And although I know this is a last resort measure, I don't feel that it is last resort enough, and it takes away a person's own right to decide. Having said that, I think a huge credit to the mod team though, because honestly, what they have is a community of Meat fans that runs high in emotion, and vastly differing opinions, and tempers. Consequently (from what i've seen around the net), a greater volume of inappropriate things are said on this forum than I've ever seen elsewhere. This is usually because of said differing opinions, emotions, anger or frustration at what another person has said. At the end of the day, many of us are unapolagetically ourselves on here, and that I think is the ultimate reason why there is more inappropriate behavior than any other fan forum I have seen. I like to think it is because we are tighter-knit than said other forums :P And its great that we can be ourselves and have fun. But as with any family or tight group of friends, usually we get to see more of each other - in both good and not so good ways. Moderating this in the past has caused upset, but we have caused ourselves upset, equally, by the words we say and vibes we give out.

So, the mods have their work cut out for them, and they do what is needed to put out the fires WE create :-) What I think is needed is a slight change to policy. If something is said that is deemed inappropriate:

1. PM the user and instruct them to re-phrase or alter their own post to be more appropriate.

2. If the thing that was posted was *really* bad, Put the message in spoiler tags, and send the user a PM. This way, less users will see the post in passing, and it does not alter a person's own words, which I find greatly inappropriate in itself.

3. Mods do not edit a user's words ever. If a user has ignored the Mod's request to make their wording more appropriate, the user is banned for a short time. If a user repeatedly does this, the user is banned for longer, or perma-banned for not following the rules. Simple. Cut. Dry. :)

Of course, there's also the issue of what is "inappropriate". Is "~~~~ you" more inappropriate to repeatedly, aggressively arguing your point and minimizing the validity of another's point - without the use of swear words our foul language - but making a person feel like their opinion is garbage because someone has given 9,432 reasons why its garbage? I find "~~~~ you" far less offensive, and far more to the point :P However, we need to address both issues. Neither should be allowed to fester. Ultimately I find the latter issue - Inappropriateness so well written that you have to read between the lines to see it - is the one that is missed COMPLETELY on here, where a simple eff you is jumped on like its a sin. This is wrong IMO, for the simple reason that if a person consistently and vigorously tells you that there are 500 reasons why your opinion is not entirely accurate or complete, or valid, or you missed something, it can be FAR more hurtful FAR more often because it is psychological abuse, and it is detrimental to other user feeling free to express themselves because it promotes the fear that you will soon be invalidated. It is negative energy, and can easily cause a derogatory remark to be thrown out in frustration that ones own opinion has been torn to shreds in detail persistently enough that that person feels just like someone hammered "~~~~ your opinion" at them multiple times for stating an incorrect opinion. HAVING SAID THAT, IMO resorting to swear words or derogatory remarks towards others can be extremely hurtful, and is neither acceptable nor a "better alternative", and I am in no way defending the use of it...It was used as a comparison to bring light to other forms of unacceptable things said.

Once a mandate for what *is* inappropriate has been determined (or perhaps posted somewhere or updated if it already exists), we should be good to go. And "spiral" threads can stop spawning every time something newsworthy happens. With the ultimate goal of having more positives vibes and an atmosphere more open to discussion. Isn't that what this place is here for? :P

I think Rainer and his team have a perfectly good system of moderating. The thread you are quoting from is rather different. It's not about exercising a set of rules generally on a forum, but an attempt to get a contentious thread cleaned up and some of the anger moved so it can stay open.

Personally I prefer calm and rational argument any day that the hurling of epithets and personally offensive remarks. We shall have to differ on that one ;)

No disrespect Adje :P But I'm thinking we do need to give him far more credit than that. Mouse and our mods been putting out our fires for years, and much respect for the care they have taken to let our discussions fly until things get out of hand :metal: I don't think the problem is our mods - they are ~~~~ing great - I think we may just need a policy that gives some power back to the people. Of course, with that power comes more responsibility :shrug: Which may be a good thing. It may cause people to think before laying hands on the keyboard (or touch screen I guess nowadays :twisted:)

That's exactly the point I'm putting out there for discussion Caryl :D. Calm and rational argument - in the case that we have an argument on our hands - is preferable any day, and could possibly help to open up new avenues and ideas in those discussions. :-P

None taken;)

After many years here and a name change I still consider myself a newbie compared to many MLUKFC veterans. There is one thing I still notice and that is everyones definition of "inappropriate" is different and that includes myself. So the "power to the people" mode may not work here or at any other board. There also seems to be three camps posting here, people who question Meat, those who don't, and others who stay in the middle. The first two tend to go after each other often which IMO is the reason why the mods are needed. Granted, I don't see anything wrong with tough and expressive conversation but if everyones definition is different then it will never work.

Yet you say "if a person consistently and vigorously tells you that there are 500 reasons why your opinion is not entirely accurate or complete, or valid, or you missed something," that you find this hurtful, and label it as "psychological abuse".

I'm not sure I could find 500 reasons to use repeatedly in any argument, nor have I seen anyone use anything like that number, and certainly not the 9,432 reasons why anyone's opinion would be garbage that you refer to ;) (Something I wouldn't say. I might say that in my view it's wrong, or not informed, or unfair, but not "garbage").

However, if you are going to support logical argument rather than emotional and angry statements/judgements (and I would wholeheartedly support that), you must surely expect that people will hold their ground. If you find that aggressive rather than assertive I can't help feeling that you have the issue :shrug:

Calm and logical argument surely would be consistent. And why should anyone put their point weakly? I'm not sure what your definition of "vigorous" is when using the written word, but I can't see how that is likely to be hurtful or psychologically abusive? To be honest I only feel overwhelmed by someone's argument when they have more facts I cannot ignore, than I have to support my view .. at which point I usually realise they're probably right ;) Or that we just have different tastes or standpoints, so we agree to differ.

I said I thought there was a pretty robust system of moderation in place already. One suggestion you proposed was "Mods do not edit a user's words ever." That I disagree with profoundly. I think people on here are perfectly well aware of what is simply out of order and grossly rude. I see no reason if they post in that way to or about other members for it to remain while they are asked to remove it. Do I support Mouse removing the assertion that I, out of all those who posted here that Meat got better every show this tour (and I am not sure I actually did!) am singled out as an arse-kissing sycophant whose reviews are tiresome? Frankly, yes. In my view he was right to remove that under the forum rules that I am perfectly sure the poster was aware of ;)

The like button just didn't do it for me, I REALLY like this post!!

Exactly what Butcher said. Id like to add the disgusting editing that went on in the Termination thread.

I dont really understand definitions either. ive made some comments and I too have a different definition was inappropriate or whatever.

I can see editing personal attacks but when we are discussing PUBLIC FIGURES like Meat and Patti its opinion!

:twisted: The problem with that is this...........

1:00AM Poster A insults poster B.

1:05AM Poster A goes offline.

2:00AM Mod A reads the message. Sends poster A a message asking them to edit their words. Logs out.

3:00AM Poster B logs in.

3:01AM Poster B reads poster A's message.

3:59AM Poster B finally finishes their post telling poster A various new and inventive ways they can go f##k themselves. Plays arcade for a few mins, goes offline.

5:00AM Poster C turns up. Reads Poster B's message and comes to the
defence of Poster A telling Poster B that they are an asshole for overreacting.

6:00AM Mod B logs in.
Reads the thread, sends posters AB&C messages to edit their posts.

7:00AM Posted D logs in.
Tells everyone to get along.

8:00AM Poster E "likes" Poster D's comment.

9:00AM Poster F yells at Poster A.

9:30AM Mod A logs back in.
Knowing they have already sent a message to Poster A, they send messages to Posters BC&F.

10:00AM Mod C logs in.
Reads thread and sends Posters ABC&F PM's asking them to change their posts.

11:00 Poster A logs in to a full PM box.
Edits message, but not enough to be acceptable.

11:30 Mod D logs in.
Sends messages to ABC&F telling them all to edit their messages, and logs off.

11:31AM Poster A sends PM to Mod D saying they've already done it.

In the meantime Posters GHIJKL&M have also put their $00.02 in.

11:43AM Mod E logs in, sees thread, runs for dear life.

That's a whole lot of PM's, and it's not even noon yet :shock:

And that's just one thread.



It wouldn't work.
Human nature would make most posters click the hide button to see what's been said even though (or perhaps, especially) because they think it's because somebody has posted something offensive.

Example.

The HIDE button does not HIDE anything in my mobile app.

thats true. Sucks when you're on a walking dead forum on your phone

Editing of posts by Mods
 

what a nightmare :roll: just close the thread if your going to be deleting posts. It changes the flow of the conversation, and misconstrues what people originally reacted to. It alters context. Not to mention all of the people's words that were changed or outright removed on here. It wasn't even my words and I find that disgusting, and disrespectful to the person who wrote them. If it was inappropriate, PM them to at least give them a chance to alter what they wrote, and state that it was altered to remove defamatory remarks, that way the flow of the conversation remains intact. Nobody should be above the law on here. I'm so tired of seeing things get swept under the rug. People need to take responsibility for what he or she writes because it does effect others.

I won't disagree with you on that but I also think that taking responsibility for what you say is not whining if your posts are edited to remove offensive content by a moderator, just accept that you said somet6hing you shouldn't and move on.

I agree that cens.. er I mean "cleaning up" is not a solution. People wrote what they wrote. I stand behind my posts and if necessary will apologize should I feel the need to, but only if I feel I posted something that was wrong or hurtful.

Editing of posts by Mods
 

That's the thing (and I'm not sure if you meant this or not Jenna) but my posts weren't even edited this time. I watched it happen to others, and saw them react and feel downright terrible about it occurring. No mod should have god-like powers to alter what a person says. Give the person the right to change their own wording. They are they only person who truly knows the point they were getting across. Therefore, a mod changing those words adds a bias to the original statement. Not to mention it is downright rude to dictatorially decide that *usera* is not allowed to make *pointb*. What I find truly disconcerning about that is certain things are removed, while others are above the law consistently. Who do I pay so I can have this too?

Its really very simple. And no, it is not *more* time consuming than spending an hour cleaning a 10 page thread, and having Meat start a new thread because the first thread was locked, and then having to merge and clean both. And them re-moderate and clean again. :roll: Gods, how many times has this happened? How many hours has it taken from our mods lives? :|

Give the people the power to make their own decision on the matter. Lets make a use case! :)

Use case 1:
There is a thread about Patti's dismissal from the band. Conversation spirals out of control, hurtful things are said. Its 5 pages long.

Solution: Lock the dismissal thread. PM those who said things in a hurtful way. Lets say there were 15 posts that need to be macheteed to death. Each of those users gets a chance to change their own post. They have a timeframe. Pick a number depending on the topic. If its HOT, give the person 5 hours to change it. PM's send an email to the inbox, so the person should receive a reminder email. No need to add new functionality. Next, wait for the time to elapse. If the time elapses and not all 15 users have edited their own post, DELETE THE POST. I REPEAT, NO ONES WORDS SHOULD EVER BE EDITED BY ANYONE. Add a message to the deleted post. "user did not respond within timeframe to edit defamatory remarks, and therefore, post has been removed as per forum rules". As a last resort, this at least helps the conversation flow still make sense . (Eg. a reaction to a removed '~~~~ you') Immediately make a new thread with a shpiel similar to what Mouse did for this one, stating to please keep speculation to a minimum and that any further defamatory remarks will cause an immediate 5 hour user ban. Yes, it seems a bit extreme, but its honestly far LESS extreme than having someone alter a user's own words without consent. That is outright disgusting and rude.

Its that simple. Discuss and refine the process. What I said is just one idea from one brain and two eyes :P To state the most stupidly obvious thing. And we as a group can come up with better.

Stretch, I am not comfortable with you trying to rewrite board rules.

I am not happy when my posts are edited sure but I do not own this place so everything I post can be deleted and I can't do anything about that and that in fact is fair I think. In fact the owners can do what the hell they want really as long as they don't bully anyone. It is entirely funded by them and can thus be controlled by them. There is nothing that states this is a full democracy or that it requires to be that. And in fact a democracy does not work in all cases. For example there is 1 sheep and 2 wolves. The two wolves, who have the majority of the vote can in a full democracy vote to eat the sheep!! :shock:

I know it is "house rules" but free speech sure is a much easier way. Let people have their say. Nine out of ten forums I visit are totally gloves off and I have had my fair share of lumps, but it made me defend and argue my positions. Most posters here would not survive a single post on some boards I frequent.

Can we call editing what it really is yet?

Yes. Bollocks isn't censored. :twisted:

Hey man, I'm not trying to re-write anything. They were ideas, ponderings, ways to try to fix the problem. Those are your words not mine Andrew, and I'm sorry what I wrote gave you that impression.

Bottom line is that people don't like when their posts get rewritten or removed. All I did...Let me repeat, ALL I DID, was put out an initial idea, just an inkling, a suggestion if you like, of how we could stop everyone from being upset all the time by their posts being torn apart. This is a discussion forum, and as such, I was discussing ideas for avoiding upset. Apparently, discussing that is actually causing upset though :| So perhaps its easier to sweep things under the rug. Its all good, whatever works. I really don't care. Just trying to help. I come here because of Meat, and because there are some people here who are great fun, yourself included :D

But what really peeves me is when I make a suggestion, and in that suggestion I say *hey, this is an idea, lets discuss it*, and rather than discussing it, everyone gets mad at me for trying to help solve the problem that upsets them, and 2) point fingers at me like, "MATT YOU ARE TRYING TO BE GOD AND REWRITE THE RULES". That is so far from the truth hahah! Its an IDEA, not a mandate. I have no desire to be a mod! nor do I think I'm above or below anyone on here, nor am I trying to dictait something to the mods, nor do I think anything EXCEPT that a user's words perhaps shouldn't be edited, and here are some suggestions for working around that if the people want it. The mods on here do a great job, AS I POSTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD :D This is about what the people want, what everyone feels is right! So can we stick to that rather than finger pointing? :P

I completely understand where you are coming from. And also Loaferman who indeed said most forums are completely gloves off. I don't think you are both wrong, I'm just saying what's right is something quite subjective in this case (also considering the artist posts here himself which I can't think happens anywhere else except for on Twitter which mostly sucks I think).

The flip side is, this is pretty much the only message board that I still visit so for me they must be doing something right I think.

We've had plenty discussions about how things could be improved in the past. I just don't see things changing really and this a board on which two recently promoted mods left because of Meat's own actions. However mostly those who are offended/irritated usually come back.
Does all this stuff make it 100% right? Probably not. Does it make it interesting and fun (even the frustration at times)? - Yes. :-P

All good :D :D Yah its very true, and I'm in the same boat. This is the only forum I keep coming back to as well, and I'm totally with you there that the are doing something right! We have a great thing here, and even the frustration and tension can be interesting and the reason I keep coming back. This place is full of high's and low's, just like Meat's career and any long lasting marriage :lol: I'll be here for the long haul regardless. Ideas are always fun to play around with, even if it took a year to figure out some small change, it might just improve things a bit so we can have more fun even with the tension. Who knows right? Just ideas, and I'm glad to hear yours and everyone elses...Glad we cleared this up cuz in all honesty i was just frustrated for others, and wanting to help....Imma hop over to the other thread, looks like Meat's on :D

This I have to agree with 100%, hense my original comments in the Patti thread. If a thread is that "bad" that it needs be locked for 24 hours for a clean up then honestly, I'd prefer it just to be locked.

I know how difficult a job the mods have here at times - believe me I know, I married one! :lol: A thread like the Patti thread was always going to be heated, but you edit one post then you have to edit the reply which may also have a quote and it snowballs from there. What remains is a thread made of posts and replies, none of which are the originals, which to me defeats the object.

I'm a bit lost here. Your suggestions started a similar thread yesterday, yet you made no attempt to discuss the replies Matt. Then when on this thread somebody makes the observation "In fact the owners can do what the hell they want really as long as they don't bully anyone. It is entirely funded by them and can thus be controlled by them. There is nothing that states this is a full democracy or that it requires to be that." you seem to go off on one. No-one has accused you of trying to dictate .. and I'm not sure why you're suddenly seeming to defend yourself against "finger pointing".

Just because some feel the system works pretty well most of the time, that there are pretty clear rules of engagement we should all be aware of, and that it's acceptable for moderators to enforce this by way of editing/removal (and you can always appeal via PM) why do you feel peeved, or it would seem attacked in some way? Not all agree with your proposals, that's all.

The current situation isn't an every day one .. it's not unique, but events were almost guaranteed to create a furore. The moderators will simply do their best to deal with it as it unfolds .. and are.

A couple points on this to respond to:

1) I was working all day yesterday, and didn't get a chance to discuss the replies then. Today I have more time to do so. The entire purpose of the thread is to discuss and come up with a solution as a team, if and only if, the people want a solution.

2)The observation that I responded to as finger pointing was that, somewhere in what I wrote, I think It sounded to Andrew like I was trying to dictate a rule change. Actually, it wasn't finger pointing, it was probably a combination of the way I wrote things, and the way he reacted. All good :D. I apologise for saying that, but I also hope that anyone reading what I wrote knows that there is no point to this thread unless it is a wide open, as wide as the sky, discussion. Any one user trying to dictate what must happen is acting against the good of the user base, and is disrespectful to all the hard work our mods do for us. If this thread ever BECOMES someone dictating to others what MUST be done, I would only hope that this thread is shut down as it's purpose has gone the way of the dinosaurs :/

3) a) Totally agreed Caryl. As I said in the first post, the mods are constantly putting out our fires, and doing what I feel is an amazing job for each situation. They do what they can, and they do it well.
b) Feeling attacked because others feel the current system works may be something others have done, but it certainly is not what I am doing! :D And just for the record, I feel that the current system is great, except for the slicing and dicing of people's words, and the outfall of people feeling hurt by that. I feel there may be a way to avoid that in the future for the good of all of us :D And actually, I feel that the slicing and dicing has been necessary up until this point, because no better solution has worked. Perhaps as a team we can put our heads together and find something that works, through open discussion :)

Yeah, that's a totally separate avenue that could totally work. My wife brought that up yesterday. Eg. on Facebook, everyone can say what they want. If you get a person who throws out insults and derails the comment thread, others will sometimes ignore them and just continue the discussion happily. Other things, people will argue or defend the thing in question. Eventually, no matter what thread it is, things peter off eventually. Is that possible here? No idea! lol

To be honest I think from reading the two threads, not that many feel there is a problem requiring a solution.

I think that's generally not a big issue .. certainly not as obvious as with the thread that occasioned this one. I really don't see it makes sense to forge a new system for the forum because very occasionally a thread gets out of control and is admittedly rather savagely pruned. Problems with the unusual shouldn't imo necessitate you change the way you manage the norm.

Personally I thank a merciful God that this isn't Facebook, nor is it unmanaged like Facebook.

:D me TOO

Unmanaged is fine in theory, but there is a certain other forum that took this to the other extreme. A couple of nutters were allowed to constantly spam the board with shit and it ruined it for everyone else. :shrug:

Spam and nutters delete and edit the shit shit outta them.
But to go in and butcher a thread of loyal users who ar shaving a harmless argument is kookoo

Only thing I'd say Warrio is that this was an exceptional situation/thread .. and I'm not sure I'd describe it as a "harmless argument" .. whether it was had or shaved .. love that Freudian slip ;) It wasn't typical, dear Jesus let it not be repeated too often, and for all it ended up looking odd, it can't have been an easy task. No-one has been seriously injured as a result imo. A number of my posts were edited ... I can live OK with that. One didn't make sense, I sent a PM, and it was corrected.

Mostly I think the mods can edit and check to make sure inconsistencies don't follow, because they are dealing with a few posts. This was a whole thread and to do it perfectly would have taken far, far more time than would be fair. Should it then have been left? Possibly, I don't know. Should the same kind of thing happen again, they may decide to take a different tack.

But this one has been done, and I don't think it makes sense to change a system that basically works pretty well because of it. It is what it is, and to me it's small in the scheme of things. I have survived far worse nightmares ;)

Yeah, that's a good point. A person can always PM a mod and ask for the change to be edited. The thing is, sometimes we are not even aware this has happened, and we come back later to see that our key point has been removed from the discussion. So perhaps some sort of system to indicate that a mod has edited a post, showing both the original post, and the edited version? This would be fairly easy to automate. Eg. A mod clicks "edit", modifies, and clicks save on a normal user role's post, and the user is emailed with the original post, and the edited post, and a link to PM that mod with new wording.

I'm a programmer/web developer and I would happily implement upgrades on this site for free.

I think some edits are accompanied by a PM !!;) Infraction points or even a brief holiday ;)

But Matt, generally edits are made on abusive/rude posts, or to remove quotes from other sites, inappropriate links etc .. and noted as edited. These do not deserve negotiations, and don't change any key point in a discussion surely. Hurling some verbal abuse is hardly useful discussion, and when a quote or link is removed it's made clear. I really think the current thread which caused you to raise this is a big fat exception to the norm

Yeah, when the edits are made on abusive posts, inappropriate links, etc, I think those are ok in extreme cases. In those cases, Hell yes, the person does not deserve negotiations. If they are not outright banned for being abusive, then they are free to re-post on the thread in a more civil way. The current system for this works great :-) I may or may not have personal experience with the matter :facepalm:

The current thread that's the exception has happened before though, many times I think? From people responding to Meat disliking Bat 3, to reviews of shows/tours, to the infamous Meat Chart campaign, to album releases, to when Meat posts something with his heart on his sleeve randomly, to the Meat/Jim argument, and the list goes on :-P The apply named "spiral thread" seems to have made a fairly regular appearance over the last ~5 years...So often that it has acquired its own title :P :P Although it has happened less since Meat decided to retire from touring. I think, like any tragic loss, it brought everyone a little closer on here. Something which has been great to witness. Certainly if it continues to happen very seldom as it has the last 6 months, I really see no reason to go to work fixing a system that works most of the time. But now that we know Meat is likely going to remain an active live performer and recording artist, I think the discussion is still worthwhile. If past patterns hold true, we may be faced with more users posts being edited more often due to heated discussion and the mods putting out the fires we create for them...I hope this doesn't happen, but if the frequency increases again, this discussion serves as a place to discuss what to do in those types of situations.

I think what it comes down to is what we as a community want. Once some time has elapsed, and this thread has either long died, or is still actively being discussed and has input from more of us, I think we'll be closer to the answer. As with any long-standing problem, I don't think there are any easy answers here. Perhaps down the road, someone (It won't be me :P) could make some sort of feedback poll if there is enough interest. If the thread dies and stays dead, then we have our answer there as well :-)

:twisted: For anyone interested, here's a summary of the edit job from the dismissal thread, and reasons for those edits..........

9 posts were deleted because they were an argument weather this convo should be held on the forum (off topic).

6 posts were edited to delete content that was an argument weather this convo should be on the forum.

9 posts were deleted because they expressed angry speculation in a way that was unfair considering the lack of facts.

8 posts were edited for the same reason, or because they were direct replies to those posts.


4 Posts were deleted because it was posted by Meat at forum members in frustration (who thought better of it) or in reply to that posting.
1 post was edited to remove a reply.

1 Post was deleted because it was flaming toward other members (If you think what Meat said to mlukfc members was bad.......... :bleh: )
2 replies to that post were deleted, 1 post was edited to delete the part that replied to that post.

4 posts were deleted or edited because they contained terms that were disrespectful to other users.

As there has been so much negative reaction to the edit job, and so many calls to just delete it, that's what i'm going to do.


If anybody thinks that any of the deleted material listed above was appropriate on the thread, I would respectfully disagree.

As I demonstrated on the other recent the thread concerning moderation, I believe it simply isn't practical to moderate just by PM'ing members to change their posts themselves.
By the time that member comes back and changes what they've written, half the forum have read and replied, and we have to sent out a whole new batch of PM's asking people to edit their replies, by which time more people have waded in, and on and on and on.

I believe that the only way to stop a mod editing/deleting your posts is to.....

Consider the know facts.

Be fair minded.

Find a way of posting your point of view that shows respect and consideration for the opinions and feelings of others........

........before you hit "Post Reply".

That is something that is in the hands and capabilities of each and very member of the forum.

To Neil,

The mods have a crazy job with trying to keep all of the posts respectful and dignified. You guys have to do what you feel is right.

Everyone at some time or another has posted out of haste or out of running on pure emotion and I am sure that is what has happened the last few days, from all of us!

I do not wish to have your job! Keep up the good work!!!

No, just PM'ing members on its own won't solve the problem. Locking threads will need to continue. Deleting things that are really bad will need to continue. But I still think a simple email system, after the thread is locked down, giving the user a chance to edit his or her own work directly after a sentence or paragraph is *altered* by the mod, and giving them a timeline to reword it in a more respectful manner would work wonders for reducing backlash regarding "taking a machete to the thread". The entire system is automated, creating very little extra work for mods, and at the same time, enforcing respectfulness with less backlash.

Deleting stuff without a PM sounds great for heat of the moment situations...as long as it doesn't remove/change a point someone is trying to get across.

Eg.

Could be altered like this without altering the meaning/changing context (no PM involved IMO):

The following is more of a case where I think an automated PM system would work great and cause less of the backlash we've seen this week from the culling of words from threads. While I think we as users need to do our part to ensure we are respectful, and govern ourselves before we hit reply, I've seen handfuls of us who are pretty shook up about their stuff being removed.

The Situation

Eg. "Sally insults Emanuel for the 5th time, without the use of swear words, deciding once again from cellphone video, shot at a school talent show and uploaded to facebook with terrible sound, that he can't whistle. Sally posted her thoughts, The mods haven't seen it yet, and Emanuel responds, understandably upset."

Sally:
Emanuel:
CASE 1

The post is later edited by a mod:
Emanuel is shocked that his own words, written in self defence, were changed and outright removed with no explanation. Why was he disciplined this way, when the other person could have been far more polite in saying she didn't like his whistling. And, unbeknownst to the mods, he felt that she had been bullying him for years, so consistently and frankly that he finally got so upset that he stood up for himself and went a little over the top...He felt that his own self defence was silenced without explanation. He doesn't come back to the forums for 6 months.

CASE 2

With the edit-notifications in place, The mod edits the post in exactly the same way as Case 1. Only this time, when the mod clicks "save" on the edit post window after entering some basic instructions into a text box, an automated email goes out to Emanuel:
Emanual realizes that he flew off the handle, and feels rather sheepish about letting that happen. He re-writes his post as follows:

Emanuel is still quite angry, and he knows he broke the rules, but he is glad he had a chance to re-write the post, and he'll think twice about breaking the rules next time...Far easier to just post rather than worry about receiving discipline. He notices that most others on the thread are quite respectful, and although some don't prefer his performance, other's love it. He starts to feel somewhat better, and knows that next time, as long as he remains respectful in the way he says things, he can say whatever he pleases in self defence without worrying that it will be deleted. He feels empowered enough that he PM's Sally and asks her to please be more kind if she doesn't like what he writes. She puts him down in a similar way 3 months later, and Emanuel PM's the same friendly mod, who decides to edit Sally's post and give her a chance to be more appropriate. Things begin to improve and Sally and Emanuel can now tolerate each other's company on the forums.

THIS. :up:

I can't speak for others here but certainly when I said "just delete it" I meant that being the original moderating decision rather than a post-edit after thought... that thread continued and we've now lost the thoughts that Meat shared re the new show and where he plans to take it :?

Respect, rudeness, attacks...it's all subjective, what I find offensive the next person may not and so I appreciate it can be difficult to deal with "offensive posts" because not everyone is offended by them, but I really feel that threads just need to be allowed to run . Obviously there's the odd post that will be unacceptable without question, but this "cleaning up" of posts to make a new thread, to me, is daft.

Let's keep them open (we are all meant to be adults here after all) and if it really gets so bad then shut them.

Indeed. Did you get a chainsaw for your birthday to go with your machete?

What are you talking about?
Does somebody care about Sally and Emanuel?

Not in my view with the frequency you imply that would need the changes you're proposing in my view. One you list was the Single Campaign (nothing infamous about it imo), which was wholly different to this; others have been dealt with by the mods perfectly adequately. Passions run high at times on this board .. the very music we follow suggests this will happen. But it has imo been the exception, and even more so the past year.

Perhaps the limited numbers of people replying on this thread are an indicator that most aren't looking for some overhaul .. and I refer you back to Andrew's comment on one of these 2 threads. It's owned by Rainer, we don't elect a governing body, and even if we did, most of those then decide what they'll do, not the electorate ;) Management by poll is the last thing I'd llike to see introduced!

I agree

Yes

It's removal is disappointing

Have to agree with this. To be honest I can't remember a time when a thread was so severely pruned. I think it's an exception. No disrespect to Mouse; I think it was an almost impossible task, and really didn't work. It happens.

But given the length of time it ran (very short really) any of the systems proposed in this thread simply wouldn't have worked. When things do get really out of hand it's probably better to simply shut a thread as you say .. until R can come in with one of his very to the point warnings .. experience suggests that does the trick ;)

Honest answer? I didn't, not even enough to read through their problems ..sorry Matt, but there it is ;)

Off topic posts removed. As they were deemed inflammatory attempts at trolling. The authors know what they wrote, and if they'd care to propose a reword I'll consider reinstating and editing.

This thread is for the discussion of any possible ideas as to how to avoid in the future the situation that arose over the weekend resulting in the wholesale editing and subsequent closure and deletion of a thread.

It is NOT the place to raise the exact same issues that caused the thread in question to spiral out of control.

no offense but I'm exhausted after reading all of this.

May I ask which poster called others "really dumb people"? If the man himself says it direct to us is it not relevant and on-topic? Since this thread is about "possible ideas as to how to avoid in the future" may I then suggest that to avoid the problems happening again, that that incident needs to be part of the discussion?
Also, see my signature...

And you seem to be ignoring the thread full of complete BS assumptions about the situation that led to the "really dumb" statement I think I'm starting to see really dumb people myself

It's amazing how so many of you instantly become innocent bystanders as soon as the shit inevitable hits the fan

Saw that, thanks.

Maybe you might want to take the opportunity to remind yourself of the Forum Rules that you signed up to when you joined ...

http://www.mlukfc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15

Bingo. Finally somebody gets it. We are discussing public figures who are directly related to the very board we are on and statements that both made in public, including one directed at this very board. I keep getting posts deleted for mentioning facts that were posted on this very board. I feel that when celebrities make public statements - on here no less- I don't get why that is not fair game.
Next time I stick my foot in my mouth hopefully my moderator team will clean it up for me.

Can we merge this with the other thread? Eg. http://www.mlukfc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19335 I didn't realize until yesterday night that they're separate....But its the same conversation :P

Can we please merge with http://www.mlukfc.com/forums/showthr...063#post597063. Thanks!