Some people are such big meanies!

[Brad and Vika 129]

Brad, I want to acknowledge your recent even-handed and good-natured posts. IMO, you've evolved into one of the more sensible and humorous posters and I enjoy reading your stuff. The graphics aren't bad either.

As to Mox versus the Mods...my guess is Mox dislikes authority figures and, even greater, feels he is the true moderator and town sheriff. How dare anyone question his online behavior. And he has his posse of fellow posters to egg him on...many it seems from outside the actual RUB forum.

I appreciate the kind words VV, and in return give a nod to you for toning down the rhetoric (except with mox and mapt ).

I suggested to Charles and I hope Ewok that a new policy be put in place that would greatly reduce our entertainment on vj. I think that when these flamefests get started, it is extremely tough for the moderators or Ewok to really get to who started what, as the first salvo could have been fired weeks/threads ago. To keep from a constant string of corrections and investigation, I suggest that all parties to these battles be given an equal timeout. Member or mod, any one who engages in any sort of "take that beyach!" posting be warned - then ALL participants get suspended even if they didn't start it. The message is - do not participate in personal baiting or attacks period. SO threads will not be shut down because a member or mod gets crazy, but the flamers pay the price for TOS violations.

Ewok may not like that idea because of the greatly reduced site traffic, but who knows?

[Kathryn41 3,207]

I appreciate the kind words VV, and in return give a nod to you for toning down the rhetoric (except with mox and mapt ).

I suggested to Charles and I hope Ewok that a new policy be put in place that would greatly reduce our entertainment on vj. I think that when these flamefests get started, it is extremely tough for the moderators or Ewok to really get to who started what, as the first salvo could have been fired weeks/threads ago. To keep from a constant string of corrections and investigation, I suggest that all parties to these battles be given an equal timeout. Member or mod, any one who engages in any sort of "take that beyach!" posting be warned - then ALL participants get suspended even if they didn't start it. The message is - do not participate in personal baiting or attacks period. SO threads will not be shut down because a member or mod gets crazy, but the flamers pay the price for TOS violations.

Ewok may not like that idea because of the greatly reduced site traffic, but who knows?

Actually, this is pretty much what we try to do right now. The real problem comes, though, in deciding when the line has been crossed. What determines real attacks and baiting and what is playful? What is acceptable and what is over the line? Unfortunately, there isn't a one size fits all and what is perfectly acceptable for some is over-top for others.

Generally, if someone baits and the 'baitee' rises to the thread I will issue a warning. If they continue, both parties will share equally in any administrative action carried out. I have often suggested in private warnings that one 'ignores' any baiting or posts meant to incite a reaction of some sort and refer the posts and poster to the mod team. When this happens, things work well and there is a timely intervention with little collateral damage. Unfortunately, sometimes we don't hear about what is happening until long after the opening salvos have been fired - and return fire is rampant in both directions. It is always a balancing act trying to decide who is right/wrong, what the motivation is (intentional/accidental), the situation (emotionally hurting/psychologically stable) etc. trying to find the right action at the right time. As it is, even with this approach we often get tarred with the 'heavy-handed moderator' label and the forums fill with grumbling and complaints about bad moderation. Interestingly enough, we also get quite a number of thank yous from those who watched the train wreck happening.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Kathryn41

[visaveteran 0]

Actually, this is pretty much what we try to do right now. The real problem comes, though, in deciding when the line has been crossed. What determines real attacks and baiting and what is playful? What is acceptable and what is over the line? Unfortunately, there isn't a one size fits all and what is perfectly acceptable for some is over-top for others.

Generally, if someone baits and the 'baitee' rises to the thread I will issue a warning. If they continue, both parties will share equally in any administrative action carried out. I have often suggested in private warnings that one 'ignores' any baiting or posts meant to incite a reaction of some sort and refer the posts and poster to the mod team. When this happens, things work well and there is a timely intervention with little collateral damage. Unfortunately, sometimes we don't hear about what is happening until long after the opening salvos have been fired - and return fire is rampant in both directions. It is always a balancing act trying to decide who is right/wrong, what the motivation is (intentional/accidental), the situation (emotionally hurting/psychologically stable) etc. trying to find the right action at the right time. As it is, even with this approach we often get tarred with the 'heavy-handed moderator' label and the forums fill with grumbling and complaints about bad moderation. Interestingly enough, we also get quite a number of thank yous from those who watched the train wreck happening.

The issue to me is posting and reading posts is voluntary...no one is required to read or post anything. And there are tools to avoid posters one dislikes...by blocking. If people choose to post or read posts, then they have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences.

If the moralists, goody-goodies, or fuss budgets don't like the discourse, log out or go to a new thread. But if it's really necessary, maybe mods could flag heated or controversial threads so people can "enter at their own risk." But really, why can't people simply disengage if they're uncomfortable with a thread?

We also have 1st Amendment issues. Not that VJ can't run the site as a dictatorship, but it goes against our American traditions to allow a few to make censorship judgments over the masses. It's in our DNA.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Actually, this is pretty much what we try to do right now. The real problem comes, though, in deciding when the line has been crossed. What determines real attacks and baiting and what is playful? What is acceptable and what is over the line? Unfortunately, there isn't a one size fits all and what is perfectly acceptable for some is over-top for others.

Generally, if someone baits and the 'baitee' rises to the thread I will issue a warning. If they continue, both parties will share equally in any administrative action carried out. I have often suggested in private warnings that one 'ignores' any baiting or posts meant to incite a reaction of some sort and refer the posts and poster to the mod team. When this happens, things work well and there is a timely intervention with little collateral damage. Unfortunately, sometimes we don't hear about what is happening until long after the opening salvos have been fired - and return fire is rampant in both directions. It is always a balancing act trying to decide who is right/wrong, what the motivation is (intentional/accidental), the situation (emotionally hurting/psychologically stable) etc. trying to find the right action at the right time. As it is, even with this approach we often get tarred with the 'heavy-handed moderator' label and the forums fill with grumbling and complaints about bad moderation. Interestingly enough, we also get quite a number of thank yous from those who watched the train wreck happening.

OK here we go. Hopefully we are both trying to poke some fun at the issue. I get the sense that there is some friendly "you don't get it, we already do that". All this grumbling is membership trying to say that whatever policy already in place just isn't being applied with an even hand in every case. Clearly recently, we have had a situation where one party rightly gets suspended - but others don't. There have been others (I am not going to go through old/ closed threads to find them) where only the person reported gets suspended - Ewok just said so. All I am saying is that if all participants are given the same boot - and I mean all - then folks might think twice. That's it. Maybe that calls for an even heavier hand, but you won't have to go back and decide who is the real offender. Trying to be constructive, but sometimes people (mods and members both) hate any suggestion that there is something not working. Even Ewok agrees in this case - ask him.

[SuperDuper! 230]

So is it true that Mox will have to complete an online anger mgm't class in order to resume his posting privileges?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Hopp

[slim 1,533]

No, he just has to read the TOS again, outloud, and post a link on YouTube.

[slim 1,533]

Please keep that problem out of RUB.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Please keep that problem out of RUB.

No fun at all. You totally discount the entertainment... no wait

[visaveteran 0]

The biggest problem I have with Charles (the moderator hat Charles) is that he wants it both ways. He wants to be a moderator, but he wants none of the holding yourself to a higher standard that comes with it. He wants to be an authority figure, but he also wants to be a poop-flinger. He is rude, snarky, dismissive, condescending, and generally very rude to anybody who offers up the slightest bit of criticism. All of which I've been accused of also, but then I'm not a moderator.

Sort of. This all happened before Charles was made a mini-mod. I honestly don't remember the exact origins, but we basically tangled. As one does on these boards. But Charles was especially nasty, especially towards women, and that's typically my hot button. Honestly it's really too bad that the "great purge" took place, because the man has posted some truly TRULY foul things. He was also particularly nasty towards me, at one point even haw-haw-hawing it up about my then-recently failed relationship (which hey, I'm a man, I can take it, but it's one of those unwritten rules around here that even the most despicable VJ'ers never transcend, but Charles went there.). Now while all that was heating up, I also was having normal conversations with Nessa, as you do here on VJ, completely separate from Charles. Nessa seemed either oblivious, or just didn't care that her husband and I were at each others' throats. Anyway, Charles and I were put in our corners and told not to respond to each other for (if memory serves) 30 days, or participate in the same threads. As soon as that happened, Nessa did a complete flip, started being all kinds of nasty towards me, basically to circumvent the restriction. Which was clever, but it got her restricted too. And that's about the time that Charles started showing up in RUB. Because, you know, Charles has so much interest in Russia and Russia-related topics. But more power to him, I like to think of RUB as all-inclusive, maybe he'll broaden his horizons.

A lot of people see my dispute with Charles as a personality clash. Which is why I've always been so careful to document my complaints about him with actual evidence. And there is SO MUCH evidence, all of it factual. So yeah, I don't like the person for all kinds of reasons that I won't get into, because it'll just further this notion that I think he's a poopy head so I'm gonna keep telling mom. It's his inability to be a fair, impartial, and respectful moderator that I have a problem with.

In a few words...who cares?

This drama queen nonsense about Charles has sucked enough energy out of the forum. How much attention do you need? Maybe your mother didn't hug you enough. Maybe not breast fed?

This is an open forum, internet, anonymous site. Not Mayberry RFD. Enough with the grandiosity and self-importance and gamesmanship around mods.

You broke the rules...you sat out a day. Now you can come out and play with the kids again.

If you really have a wife, how about spending some time with her and giving us a break here.

[slim 1,533]

No fun at all. You totally discount the entertainment... no wait

This isn't entertainment, this is Jerry Springer.

Sure, at first, it's kind of interesting. People watch Cops and Cheaters on TV too. Why?

It's not so they can get educated about actual problems and find solutions, it's so they can feel better about their own messed up lives by looking at folks who're just a little bit more messed up with them and then they can say, "See, we aren't that bad."

If you watch that ####### enough, eventually you start to believe that's the way it is and then life starts to imitate (I can't say art here because that's not art) what's viewed day in and day out. When ####### permeates every bit of your life you start to live amongst it and it starts to become your life too. It becomes normal. It becomes acceptable and then it becomes the way it just is.

The RUB forum is not like that nor has it ever been. However, if we keep this ####### up... it might become that way.

[slim 1,533]

But I do think it's interesting that every time I complain about the quality of blather that often passes for conversation around here, I'm told to get over myself. You can't have it both ways. If you encourage locker room talk, then you're going to get the quality of people who do nothing but talk locker room talk. If you want a "better clientele" then up the level of conversation.

Locker room talk isn't the source of our problems - it's people who hear something said about them and don't like it and then go tell mom that's our problem.

[Cixelsyd 1]

To be fair, I asked about the background to the Mox-Charles saga.

The recent threads these days became similar to reading the last couple chapters of a mystery novel and skipping the first couple hundred.

[slim 1,533]

To be fair, I asked about the background to the Mox-Charles saga.

Which is fine. It exists. It's there. It's real. The guys don't particularly care for each other and one of them is a mod who stops by here from time to time. Regardless of that fact, he didn't bring the problems to our forum, they were brought here by others who went outside the RUB forum and cried to a mod that their feelings were hurt.

The recent threads these days became similar to reading the last couple chapters of a mystery novel and skipping the first couple hundred.

The recent threads these days, although entertaining for some, have been a lot like the ####### you'll see over in OT - which is where this ####### should be.

[visaveteran 0]

No Slim! NOBODY reported the thread.

I've been saying this for ages, especially when the main thrust of the conversation is stupid ####### like how ugly American women are, etc. You can't have it both ways Slim. You want the level of discourse in the RUB forum to be above moderation? Then help push the level of dialogue up past the gutter. Otherwise you're just part of the problem.

The level of discourse is not your business or anyone else except the mods. And it's a subjective judgment anyway. You talk about pie, ponies and Pitcairn Island and dare to speak of lifting the level of discourse. You want us to tolerate your silly a$$ posts, tolerate others.

Mox, you're not the boss, the sheriff or the moderator. Accept it...your just another swinging dik here. Sorry, you're not a special boy after all.

[slim 1,533]

Part of the solution.