LGW Moderator Problems

[roboturner 562]

First of all, Thanks for replying and trying to clear some stuff up! And I'd also like to apologize for my part in whatever problems I've been contributing to. I've on occasion been acting in ways that I would never act like if I was person to person with you guys.

I'd like to think of this place as a virtual sports bar, with each of you pulled up on your own stool, with a cold beer in your hand and a hearty rant about the values of CORSI and Jimmy Howard's SV% on Saturday afternoon games during Leap Years when Mike Emrick is calling the game and Babcock is wearing his McGill tie at the tips of your fingers. Don't take it too seriously, and enjoy it in a manner that contributes to make the site better for everyone.

Is that too much to ask?

That sounds great. But typically in a situation like this you wouldn't be having a conversation with a few people only to have some random person jump in in the middle of it and start saying

"You guys started off talking about this, and now you're talking about that. That isn't allowed!"

"This topic has been discussed at length already (possibly by people that aren't you), I'm putting a stop to this discussion and you guys can't talk about it anymore!"

"No you can't discuss that, move your conversation to something else"

"Oh, this topic again! I'm sick of reading about this (and I'll just assume that since I'm tired of it no other fan of this team would want to discuss it anymore either), I'll just gonna pretend you didn't want to talk about and shove it back to the bottom of the barrel!"

"I know you just spent 15 minutes developing this well thought out and nicely worded opinion about something, but I'm now going to say it's invalid and nobody will ever hear it."

None of that would happen in your laid back bar scenario. And if it did I imagine you would be extremely frustrated (As many of us have been when this kind of stuff happens here) that somebody just started controlling/demanding the manner in which your dialog continued, or even putting an outright stop to it.

Edited October 15, 2014 by roboturner

[Matt 1,048]

There was a thread about 4 or 5 years ago that somehow, spontaneously, amazingly, evolved into a 3 page running joke using players names as puns. It was completely harmless and was in no way offensive or insulting to anyone. It was the funniest thing that has ever happened around here. It got deleted.

Can we have that one back? I still think about it sometimes...

Honestly, this sounds hilarious but I don't recall seeing it (which isn't entirely surprising since I'm not poking around every day).

Too many posters I liked have come and gone since then because of these petty internet arguments. I miss a lot of their posts.

What's disappointing is that on a good number of those users we broke our own '3 Strikes' guideline in trying to keep things in line because some of them I considered valuable members. But continually violating the rules of the forum can't be ignored in the end. There were plenty of warnings and a monstrous amount of discussion among the moderators before decisions were made.

Matt, do you honestly not think this is creepy?

I understand deleting -- but never, ever editing -- a post if it contains something illegal or an image that isn't "family friendly," but you do not need to try to purify threads so that they contain only "respectful" hockey talk. I wouldn't read this forum almost daily if I didn't want to read about hockey, but I want to read a forum, not a blog. Lock -- or why not just move -- threads if you must, but do not, if you're an adult man or woman, delete or edit posts.

'Creepy' is the last word I'd use to describe that. And it's not about keeping the discourse on here "respectful" -- you can get heated, get animated... That's fine. But at least do so with some tact. Being an "adult man or woman" is a plainly ignorant way of putting it -- the moderators and myself have years upon years doing this job. Removing a 'page' from a thread isn't some huge deal -- 99% of the time it's because the topic at hand was derailed, quoted comments of something that had to be removed followed, etc., etc.. These aren't "yeah, I think that post sucked"-type removals. That doesn't happen.

I have a feeling that some of you don't see the forest for the trees in the respect that your off-topic banter or derailment of threads makes it more difficult for casual (or new) visitors to follow along or try to jump into a topic mid-thread. I don't want the site to be clique-ish where potential new members are turned off from joining because they don't feel a part of the club. In small doses I have absolutely no problem with it, but when it starts to dominate a thread it either 1) needs to get dialed back, or 2) the thread needs to get split or a new one started.

That sounds great. But typically in a situation like this you wouldn't be having a conversation with a few people only to have some random person jump in in the middle of it and start saying

"You guys started off talking about this, and now you're talking about that. That isn't allowed!"

"This topic has been discussed at length already (possibly by people that aren't you), I'm putting a stop to this discussion and you guys can't talk about it anymore!"

"No you can't discuss that, move your conversation to something else"

"Oh, this topic again! I'm sick of reading about this (and I'll just assume that since I'm tired of it no other fan of this team would want to discuss it anymore either), I'll just gonna pretend you didn't want to talk about and shove it back to the bottom of the barrel!"

"I know you just spent 15 minutes developing this well thought out and nicely worded opinion about something, but I'm now going to say it's invalid and nobody will ever hear it."

You're not being oppressed. Using the bar scenario, I would look at the off-topic derailment of someone jumping into a group conversation (where the discussion topic was already established) and trying to talk over everyone or change the subject.

Now, some of your other concerns (the "this topic has been discussed at length...", "... this topic again!...") I do share on occasion. Sometimes the idea of 'mega-threads' or bumping old topics from a couple pages down to merge with a new post (on the same topic) isn't the best -- particularly if there has been a significant change from the time the original thread was started, etc... Every time Jimmy Howard has a bad stretch in net doesn't mean we need to bump a 3-year old "Howard is Average" thread to continue the discourse. The main intention with the duplicate thread remove/merge was to fix situations where there would be five "HOWARD SUCKS", "Howard is the Second Coming of Our Lord and Savior" or "Howard ________" on the main page.

_____

I do want to add: I love discussing things like this. There's no reason for people to get hot and bothered and keep things pent up when we can just talk about it. You guys can air your thoughts and concerns, and the moderators and I can explain the other side of the coin and see what we can do together to continually improve things.

[vladdy16 2,154]

Matt, do you honestly not think this is creepy?

I understand deleting -- but never, ever editing -- a post if it contains something illegal or an image that isn't "family friendly," but you do not need to try to purify threads so that they contain only "respectful" hockey talk. I wouldn't read this forum almost daily if I didn't want to read about hockey, but I want to read a forum, not a blog. Lock -- or why not just move -- threads if you must, but do not, if you're an adult man or woman, delete or edit posts.

So you think it's better to just delete the whole thread rather than clean out a flame war and leave the good part for everyone else to discuss. It's much easier for mods, but if we delete every thread instead of taking the time to clean them up, quite a few threads, including game day threads, are going to disappear.

And also we should never, ever, ever edit a post? So if someone has a post of substantial length that for the most part is a great point but they have included something against forum guidelines (circumventing the curse filter), then the whole post should just go *poof* rather than simply editing out the small portion that technically could get them suspended.

It does happen, especially during very busy times around here, that I'll delete a post that would actually be better served by some minor editing but I just don't have the time or, admittedly, the patience at that point. If you guys think you're sick of hearing the same old stuff from mods time and time again, trust me, we are much more sick of having to say it.

[Franzine 739]

I have a feeling that some of you don't see the forest for the trees

We're talking about the forest. It's the principle of deleting and editing posts that is offensive. Especially editing -- you should take away the moderators' ability to edit posts. That should never happen. I can't understand someone who isn't basically repulsed by altering the content of what another person said, no matter how dopey or "tactless" the content. A forum, like the world in general, is about personalities.

a thread it either 1) needs to get dialed back, or 2) the thread needs to get split or a new one started.

I just want someone to acknowledge that #2 is a much better option than #1 (assuming #1 means deleting and editing posts).

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

We're talking about the forest. It's the principle of deleting and editing posts that is offensive. Especially editing -- you should take away the moderators' ability to edit posts. That should never happen. I can't understand someone who isn't basically repulsed by altering the content of what another person said, no matter how dopey or "tactless" the content. A forum, like the world in general, is about personalities.

I just want someone to acknowledge that #2 is a much better option than #1 (assuming #1 means deleting and editing posts).

When I edit posts, it's almost always to remove a quoted post that I've had to delete. And I typically show that it's been edited along with an explanation why. I think I've also edited a post on occasion when someone has circumvented the profanity filter. But then all I do is type the profane word out and let the filter do its job.

There have been instances where part of the post is off topic and may be responding to someone trolling the thread, but then the rest of the post is on topic. In cases like that I'll sometimes delete the response to the troll, but keep the on topic section. I'm asking in all seriousness, would you rather I nuke the whole post? Or go ahead and leave whatever portion can be saved? (Leaving it be is not an option).

I can't think of a reason or instance i've ever changed someone's post, other than the above examples. I've never changed the words or content.

As for being repulsed by editing or deleting content, no matter how tactless, you have to remember this is a community. We're hardly rated G here, but there are times where we've had to remove things not so much because they offended us as moderators, but because they offended a lot of members here. Again, it's not like we're making these decisions purely based on our personal biases. We're trying to maintain a fairly friendly environment that keeps most people happy.

That being said, honestly I can't remember the last time I've had to remove something because people found it offensive. I think if people spend a bit of time on the site the parameters of what's acceptable becomes clear pretty quickly.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

_____

I do want to add: I love discussing things like this. There's no reason for people to get hot and bothered and keep things pent up when we can just talk about it. You guys can air your thoughts and concerns, and the moderators and I can explain the other side of the coin and see what we can do together to continually improve things.

This is another great point that bears repeating.

We are not some secret society. Feel free to ask questions and make suggestions. The goal is always to make LGW a great place to hang out and discuss things.

As I've said many times before, I'm ultimately here to talk hockey and would prefer to spend my time doing that rather than moderating. I don't seek out opportunities to wield mod powers.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

BTW, I'm thinking about starting a thread that talks about how much Harold Snepsts sucked as a player and was an overrated fighter. What do you think?

Honestly you're probably one of the few people who know he was actually a player.

Snepsts didn't need to fight. The play would head up ice with him behind the play, then you'd see a guy laying on the ice and Snepsts skating away.

[roboturner 562]

I don't really have a problem with people getting offended though. If someone thinks that gays should be stoned to death wherever you find them, I'll be the first person to say I'm offended by that. But I wouldn't tell somebody else they aren't allowed to voice that opinion. I would try to have a conversation with them and try to change their mind. Just silencing their voice is never going to result in a discussion that can change their view.

[Echolalia 2,961]

When I edit posts, it's almost always to remove a quoted post that I've had to delete. And I typically show that it's been edited along with an explanation why. I think I've also edited a post on occasion when someone has circumvented the profanity filter. But then all I do is type the profane word out and let the filter do its job.

I will say when I first started posting here, I don't think the mods put much effort into explaining why certain threads were deleted or why some posts were edited, and it was very confusing for me to have a discussion, leave my computer and come back a few hours later and have no idea what happened to the thread I was in, or the posts that I was responding to, posting, etc etc. It was confusing and frustrating, and I didn't agree with it because in some instances I had content deleted and had no idea whether my post was offensive or not, or if the thread was just given a general cleaning and everything from post x to post y was removed. It was also odd to leave a civil discussion and have it get out of control while I was away from the computer (and thus oblivious to the thread degrading), and come back a couple hours later to have the entire thread mysteriously removed (not just locked but removed from visibility all together), and have no idea what happened, or why, or if I was even a part of it.

Since then the moderators have been much better and explaining why things are crossing the line, and demonstrating more transparency with edits and deletes. I also appreciate when threads that need to be locked for whatever reason are kept visible to the posters to see exactly what happened for the thread to be locked up. That clarity I think is important.

[Matt 1,048]

We're talking about the forest. It's the principle of deleting and editing posts that is offensive. Especially editing -- you should take away the moderators' ability to edit posts. That should never happen. I can't understand someone who isn't basically repulsed by altering the content of what another person said, no matter how dopey or "tactless" the content. A forum, like the world in general, is about personalities.

It would appear you're not grasping the nature of what editing a post here entails. Vladdy and harold have done a good job explaining it. It isn't picking out bits of posts that aren't agreeable, or don't make sense, etc.. -- it's never that. Removing a portion of the post that included a quoted post that was removed? Yep. Removing a personal attack? Yep. Tried to work around the curse filter? Sure. Other than that... no.

Find something a bit more worthwhile to find offensive. Like socks with sandals.

[Franzine 739]

I do think it's important to note that all mods are not created equal. For example, other moderators seems much more reasonable than vladdy16. I know, as fact, that vladdy16 has edited posts and even whole subjects not because they broke forum rules (which are excessive anyway) but because he or she simply did not approve of the formulations -- in fact, a long time ago I was banned for seven days for politely pointing this out. Check the history if you can, rather than just assume your mods are beyond reproach.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Franzine

[vladdy16 2,154]

I don't remember specifically the incident you're talking about, but I do have a PM conversation between myself and haroldsnepts about it. Whatever it was that you were suspended for, I can tell you that harold was in agreement it was the right thing to do. If Matt would like, I will be happy to share the conversation with him.

I save all such conversations, and you are not the first to have it refute your baseless allegations.

[Matt 1,048]

I do think it's important to note that all mods are not created equal. For example, haroldsnepsts seems much more reasonable than vladdy16. I know, as fact, that vladdy16 has edited posts and even whole subjects not because they broke forum rules (which are excessive anyway) but because he or she simply did not approve of the formulations -- in fact, a long time ago I was banned for seven days for politely pointing this out. Check the history if you can, rather than just assume your mods are beyond reproach.

Sorry, no one needs you to point out that all moderators are not created equal.

If you find the forum rules "excessive" then all I can do is simply suggest you post elsewhere where you're not so heavily oppressed on a day-to-day posting basis. It must be a struggle for you, I know, but you're not obligated to post or be an active member here.

I'd love to see the polite dialog you had as well. But why should I bother, right? Because according to you -- and your apparent inability to read my previous posts in this thread -- I just 'assume (my) mods are beyond reproach.'

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

I missed the part where we were all treated unfairly. Must have been between the wack of warnings mods give to let people know when they go off topic, before even considering locking a thread, or to let people know why they've deleted messages. If you want chaos to go unruled then you have already been given options. There are site rules, if you don't want to abide by the rules you will get punished. If you can't handle that, why are you here? That's like moving to another country and demanding they change their laws to suit what you had in your old country which clearly wasn't very good or you wouldn't have come to this country in the first place.

[Franzine 739]

The thing about the rules being excessive was a parenthetical. Here, again, are my arguments:

1. Mods edit and delete posts that don't break forum rules, and that's not good.

2. Moving threads is a better course of action than deleting and editing posts.

Would anyone like to address my concerns?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

The thing about the rules being excessive was a parenthetical. Here, again, are my arguments:

1. Mods edit and delete posts that don't break forum rules, and that's not good.

2. Moving threads is a better course of action than deleting and editing posts.

Would anyone like to address my concerns?

I think several of us have tried addressing your concerns.

#1 is just a non-specific statement so it's hard to discuss or refute. The only answer I have is we do not edit or delete posts that don't break forum rules, but obviously there's a difference of opinion there. With some examples I could explain why I deleted or edited a post. And after the discussions we've had in this thread, I will try to leave better explanations when it happens.

Some people have touched on it here but one thing that is important to note is often a thread goes into the gutter, we clean up a lot of it and then may end up locking it anyway. Or we delete the offending posts and leave a warning, so it may look like we're reacting to nothing. When really it's just that the mess has been cleaned up already.

#2 You would rather I move an entire thread so no one can participate in it, rather than delete or edit a few posts? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.

[roboturner 562]

Maybe it'd be possible to let the person know before you change it. It would give them a chance to rework or reword a post in a way that would be more suitable.

[Franzine 739]

#2 You would rather I move an entire thread so no one can participate in it, rather than delete or edit a few posts? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.

No -- just split a thread when part of it is no longer about hockey and move that part to the non-hockey forum. Or, you know, lock the thread if you have to. But leave the offending posts as they are, if for no other reason than as examples of bad behavior so people understand and so you don't seem unaccountable to the community for the decisions you make.

I don't think this would "ruin the thread for everybody." New threads pop up all the time.

[roboturner 562]

I'd vote for the split thread idea. If some conversation evolves into something else and you really, really don't want it to continue in that thread, then why not just grab all the posts and stick them in a new thread (or an appropriate existing thread) with a link to said thread?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I'd vote for the split thread idea. If some conversation evolves into something else and you really, really don't want it to continue in that thread, then why not just grab all the posts and stick them in a new thread (or an appropriate existing thread) with a link to said thread?

I'd have to think back on the posts I've deleted to see if something like that would work.

For editing, as I said it's for profanity or personal attacks or something that does not belong in any thread. I never edit a post because part of it is off topic but otherwise within forum rules.

Looking through the recent deleted posts, they're all things that we wouldn't be split into a new thread, like insults, but in the right instance I guess it could work. It's definitely something we've done in the past, it just doesn't seem that often that a thread splits into clear enough, substantial enough topics to split. But it's something we could keep in mind.

fellow mods?

[55fan 5,133]

Honestly, this sounds hilarious but I don't recall seeing it (which isn't entirely surprising since I'm not poking around every day).

I believe the reference was to http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/topic/62139-ericsson-out-with-deep-bone-muscle-bruise/ which is safe in the archives.

Splitting topics sounds like a good idea, but someone has to go in and sift through the posts in order to split it. I've seen the problem when topics are merged that you think you're reading one thing and then -boom- you're reading 20 posts you've read before. It's just the way the system is set up. Not anyone's fault.

Easier than splitting topics would be if a mod stepped in and asked that everyone who wants to discuss Kindl's lasagne recipe can do so in the water cooler under a topic that they create for that purpose. It gives the culinary types a place to discuss something that is obviously important to them but gets the thread back on topic so that the people who started reading because they were interested in Kindl getting time on the PP can talk about only that without us getting into the tired old debate about ricotta. <--- fictional example.

Also throwing in my 2¢ about mod editing- the only time I've had mine edited was when I've responded to a troll and the trolling post was then deleted but I had other legitimate things in the post about the topic at hand.

They left the other things but edited out the things that probably deserved a warning or two. Thanks for that, mods.

Some of Matt's edits are in a class by themselves.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

No -- just split a thread when part of it is no longer about hockey and move that part to the non-hockey forum. Or, you know, lock the thread if you have to. But leave the offending posts as they are, if for no other reason than as examples of bad behavior so people understand and so you don't seem unaccountable to the community for the decisions you make.

I don't think this would "ruin the thread for everybody." New threads pop up all the time.

Sometimes I have left the offending posts, usually because it's been such a battle to stay on top of the thread I don't have the time to go back through and clean it all up. The problem I've had with that is then for people who have had posts deleted or been warned/suspended or simply didn't get the last word, they often feel it's unfair that someone's else post got to remain while theirs got zapped. I've had countless people tell me that in PM conversations about their deleted posts or suspensions. It seems to give the impression that we are playing favorites or persecuting certain members.

When it gets really crazy in a thread, I guess we could consider posting a warning and locking it for a few minutes to get everyone's attention, then reopen it so everyone will play nice. I don't know if that would be effective or not, but it's a thought.

Again, the splitting is something to consider, but looking through the threads I think it's fairly rare that the posts we'd delete are within forum rules and substantial enough for a separate topic. I will definitely have it in mind though now when going in threads to see if it's at all viable.

[roboturner 562]

I understand it wouldn't work in all cases and I guess I'm fine to remove them when it's descended into nothing but insults (like you can't even make a point to include with your insults!).

For example:

If you had a lines thread, and then it turned into what line abdelkader should play on, and then it turned into a discussion about only abdelkader and what he would bring to each line, and then it goes to just abdelkader stats and intangibles.....

Well at some point you could just split it into two threads. People who want to keep talking about abdelkader can do so in the new thread and people that want to talk about the rest of the lines can continue in the old thread.

EDIT: Maybe abdelkader example is something you might just let go. If it's some polarizing topic at the moment that keeps getting brought into discussions (like Cleary or Howard or Holland) that people are getting sick of, then split it up and remind people that they don't have to go into the new thread if they don't want to discuss the topic

Edited October 16, 2014 by roboturner

[Bannedforlife 403]

Honestly, who has the free time to go back and check up on their old posts? They arent children. You write them, people read them or they dont, they get deleted or they dont, who cares?

[Matt 1,048]

Would anyone like to address my concerns?

We have. Repeatedly. But you've chosen to drone on like it hasn't already happened.

Maybe it'd be possible to let the person know before you change it. It would give them a chance to rework or reword a post in a way that would be more suitable.

While it sounds nice in theory, it would only work in rare instances. When it comes to personal attacks and such there's no time given since things can spiral out of hand (and it's against the forum rules anyway), but for others you're still working in a time-based fashion where a member may no longer be signed in, etc.. In some instances, sure, it could work, but mostly no.

No -- just split a thread when part of it is no longer about hockey and move that part to the non-hockey forum. Or, you know, lock the thread if you have to. But leave the offending posts as they are, if for no other reason than as examples of bad behavior so people understand and so you don't seem unaccountable to the community for the decisions you make.

I don't think this would "ruin the thread for everybody." New threads pop up all the time.

This has been done in the past and I personally don't have a problem with it. 'Offending' posts would be handled as they would normally. Attacks on other members, etc., have no place here -- even in locked threads.

Looking through the recent deleted posts, they're all things that we wouldn't be split into a new thread, like insults, but in the right instance I guess it could work. It's definitely something we've done in the past, it just doesn't seem that often that a thread splits into clear enough, substantial enough topics to split. But it's something we could keep in mind.

fellow mods?

I'm not a fan of giving free passes to people that have actively derailed threads. Myself and all of the moderators here shouldn't be babysitters to topic progression here as I feel that members should know when a topic is going off the rails and needs to have its own thread started. The Abdelkader example above makes it easy. Someone just has to take the initiative to go "hey, this should be it's own thread" and start it. Heck, even plop a link in the original thread pointing to the new one so those that wish to continue to discuss it go there. It shouldn't require moderator handholding to know when to pull the plug.

There have been threads that I've split in the past -- the bulk of them are offseason or trade-rumor/re-signing related where the situation can change every few days. I'm not a fan of mega "All Offseason Signings Thread"-type deals. They're a mess. There's no way I, as a casual visitor, would want to click on that thread and try to find the reaction to a signing three days ago. Those should be separate topics. I've broken up massive all-in-one topics like the Parise/Suter fiasco a few years ago whenever it hit significant 'news' benchmarks, just so it's easier to navigate.

This isn't something new. I do feel, however, that members here to have some level of responsibility to know the basic forum etiquette here as well.