New "Clean Start" Policy on Creating Threads

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I don't even know how you get a warning without a mod name on the distribution. Would have to be identified as "system" or "pastadmin" or something., . I'm gonna sock in and TRY it right now...
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
6,088
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
 
Last edited:
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Regulations are meant to get rid of people you don’t like..View attachment 371323typical lefties
No.. The FCC controls speech on airwaves for a reason.. OUR reason is to RAISE the grade level and effort of discussion... If ANYTHING we're doing DECREASES or BAN CONTENT -- Then you're gonna have to point out examples..

Once a thread is ESTABLISHED -- we don't care about the topic.. That's nowhere NEAR censorship..

Content is good.. We want MORE of it in the RIGHT THREADS and forums..
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
Then they are alerts, not warnings. You get them for deletions, or moving, merging, closing threads that belong to you...

I just warned FF Sock and did not check the box for a PM convo... The warning on the clown didn't even POST !!! No record of it in the clown's profile.. So it appears IMPOSSIBLE to get "an anonymous warning"...
 

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
1,758
Reaction score
1,543
Points
1,893
Regulations are meant to get rid of people you don’t like..View attachment 371323typical lefties
No.. The FCC controls speech on airwaves for a reason.. OUR reason is to RAISE the grade level and effort of discussion... If ANYTHING we're doing DECREASES or BAN CONTENT -- Then you're gonna have to point out examples..

Once a thread is ESTABLISHED -- we don't care about the topic.. That's nowhere NEAR censorship..

Content is good.. We want MORE of it in the RIGHT THREADS and forums..
Sounds like a member is in your head.
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
6,088
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
Then they are alerts, not warnings. You get them for deletions, or moving, merging, closing threads that belong to you...

I just warned FF Sock and did not check the box for a PM convo... The warning on the clown didn't even POST !!! No record of it in the clown's profile.. So it appears IMPOSSIBLE to get "an anonymous warning"...
The very notion of deletion contradicts your claims about free speech.

Would you like me to post your exact words regarding the source of these deletions?
 
Last edited:
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Regulations are meant to get rid of people you don’t like..View attachment 371323typical lefties
No.. The FCC controls speech on airwaves for a reason.. OUR reason is to RAISE the grade level and effort of discussion... If ANYTHING we're doing DECREASES or BAN CONTENT -- Then you're gonna have to point out examples..

Once a thread is ESTABLISHED -- we don't care about the topic.. That's nowhere NEAR censorship..

Content is good.. We want MORE of it in the RIGHT THREADS and forums..
Sounds like a member is in your head.
Who do ya think that member is? Paranoia strikes deep.. But don't flatter yourself... I wouldn't be typing this hard just for you...
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
Then they are alerts, not warnings. You get them for deletions, or moving, merging, closing threads that belong to you...

I just warned FF Sock and did not check the box for a PM convo... The warning on the clown didn't even POST !!! No record of it in the clown's profile.. So it appears IMPOSSIBLE to get "an anonymous warning"...
The very notion of deletion contradicts your claims about free speech.

Would you like me to post your exact words regarding to the source of these deletions?
I have no freakin' idea what's got your undies in a knot here.. Deletions are NECESSARY when posts dont have ANY RELEVANCE to the topic.. That's the way we moderate.. It is NOT censorship, because you could say those same off topic things in a DIFFERENT thread or forum.. What part of that do I have to write an equation or draw a diagram for??

It's LIBRARIAN work.. To make USMB readable.. It's why they dont mingle the science section with the self-help section.. Except at new arrivals.. LOL...

You really need to think about Free Speech and Free-for-all speech.. What we got now is free-for-alls.. Same "illegal" content is LEGAL in the right forum and the right thread.. AINT in ANY FASHION -- censorship....
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
6,088
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
Then they are alerts, not warnings. You get them for deletions, or moving, merging, closing threads that belong to you...

I just warned FF Sock and did not check the box for a PM convo... The warning on the clown didn't even POST !!! No record of it in the clown's profile.. So it appears IMPOSSIBLE to get "an anonymous warning"...
The very notion of deletion contradicts your claims about free speech.

Would you like me to post your exact words regarding to the source of these deletions?
I have no freakin' idea what's got your undies in a knot here.. Deletions are NECESSARY when posts dont have ANY RELEVANCE to the topic.. That's the way we moderate.. It is NOT censorship, because you could say those same off topic things in a DIFFERENT thread or forum.. What part of that do I have to write an equation or draw a diagram for??

It's LIBRARIAN work.. To make USMB readable.. It's why they dont mingle the science section with the self-help section.. Except at new arrivals.. LOL...

You really need to think about Free Speech and Free-for-all speech.. What we got now is free-for-alls.. Same content is LEGAL in the right forum and the right thread.. AINT in ANY FASHION -- censorship....
So, is that a yes or a no as far as posting what you actually said to me in a P.M. in regards to the source of my warnings and post deletions??
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
Then they are alerts, not warnings. You get them for deletions, or moving, merging, closing threads that belong to you...

I just warned FF Sock and did not check the box for a PM convo... The warning on the clown didn't even POST !!! No record of it in the clown's profile.. So it appears IMPOSSIBLE to get "an anonymous warning"...
The very notion of deletion contradicts your claims about free speech.

Would you like me to post your exact words regarding to the source of these deletions?
I have no freakin' idea what's got your undies in a knot here.. Deletions are NECESSARY when posts dont have ANY RELEVANCE to the topic.. That's the way we moderate.. It is NOT censorship, because you could say those same off topic things in a DIFFERENT thread or forum.. What part of that do I have to write an equation or draw a diagram for??

It's LIBRARIAN work.. To make USMB readable.. It's why they dont mingle the science section with the self-help section.. Except at new arrivals.. LOL...

You really need to think about Free Speech and Free-for-all speech.. What we got now is free-for-alls.. Same content is LEGAL in the right forum and the right thread.. AINT in ANY FASHION -- censorship....
So, is that a yes or a no as far as posting what you actually said to me in a P.M. in regards to the source of my warnings and post deletions??
I dont know what kind of game you're playing here.. But you've been bouncing this thread and my Inbox for hours.. And if you want to continue the PM discussion -- we can.. But I'm not playing whatever game you think we are....
 

BasicHumanUnit

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
12,486
Reaction score
5,072
Points
390
Location
Everywhere needed
Always tried to adhere to this for the most part, but the problem with rules is that they are enforced at the whim of the moderator who happens across the post.

More rules means more opportunities to inject Moderator censorship....based on personal biases. Yes, it's human nature.

Could be wrong, but we'll see. There's always that little voice in the back of my mind that says, stop putting so much out there on the Internet.
This might help with that ;-)
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,200
Reaction score
12,952
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
We always HAVE been a Discussion board. We've always focused almost solely on getting thread topics to be discussed and not on arbitrary content issues.. STILL completely committed to the Free Speech thing.. But lately, the thread titles and Opening Posts have been giving Free Speech a bad name..

The basic rules are not gonna change much.. There's already a clause for not allowing "baiting and polarizing" Titles and OPsR=21665]Dont Taz Me Bro[/USER]
Free speech is impervious to having a "bad name" and that makes speech you hate all the more difficult to tolerate but the Constitution says we must. As for "baiting", it's the essence of a lively discussion and way to expose liars. Imagine telling a prosecutor he can't bait a defendant to get the truth out of him in court. And now you're going to ban "polarizing" posts? LOL! What is your target audience.....the Mormon church? There ain't nearly enough HOT BLOOD here anymore so you're charging those trying to get something going with a crime? I ain't long for these parts....already decided not to OP here anymore after today. By next week at this time I'll be gone johnson.
The Constitution doesn’t ‘say’ anything about private media and how it edits its content – save for government cannot preempt freedom of the press.

And as a private message board the administration is at liberty to edit USMB’s content as it sees fit, where however that content might be edited, it in no manner impedes, undermines, or otherwise violates the doctrine of free speech.

If one doesn’t approve of how the content of this message board is edited, he’s at liberty to not participate.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
12,486
Reaction score
5,072
Points
390
Location
Everywhere needed
We always HAVE been a Discussion board. We've always focused almost solely on getting thread topics to be discussed and not on arbitrary content issues.. STILL completely committed to the Free Speech thing.. But lately, the thread titles and Opening Posts have been giving Free Speech a bad name..

The basic rules are not gonna change much.. There's already a clause for not allowing "baiting and polarizing" Titles and OPsR=21665]Dont Taz Me Bro[/USER]
Free speech is impervious to having a "bad name" and that makes speech you hate all the more difficult to tolerate but the Constitution says we must. As for "baiting", it's the essence of a lively discussion and way to expose liars. Imagine telling a prosecutor he can't bait a defendant to get the truth out of him in court. And now you're going to ban "polarizing" posts? LOL! What is your target audience.....the Mormon church? There ain't nearly enough HOT BLOOD here anymore so you're charging those trying to get something going with a crime? I ain't long for these parts....already decided not to OP here anymore after today. By next week at this time I'll be gone johnson.
The Constitution doesn’t ‘say’ anything about private media and how it edits its content – save for government cannot preempt freedom of the press.

And as a private message board the administration is at liberty to edit USMB’s content as it sees fit, where however that content might be edited, it in no manner impedes, undermines, or otherwise violates the doctrine of free speech.

If one doesn’t approve of how the content of this message board is edited, he’s at liberty to not participate.
Spoken like a true Tyrant.
Just keep in mind, while this is true, people are also at liberty to participate or not.
it's just my opinion that the more rules, the more censorship.

It's their forum, just like Mark Z is free to make the laws at Facebook. And what's his name at Twitter. It's a balance.
The moderation here has been light handed and I think that made it special.
 
OP
flacaltenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
13,830
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
We always HAVE been a Discussion board. We've always focused almost solely on getting thread topics to be discussed and not on arbitrary content issues.. STILL completely committed to the Free Speech thing.. But lately, the thread titles and Opening Posts have been giving Free Speech a bad name..

The basic rules are not gonna change much.. There's already a clause for not allowing "baiting and polarizing" Titles and OPsR=21665]Dont Taz Me Bro[/USER]
Free speech is impervious to having a "bad name" and that makes speech you hate all the more difficult to tolerate but the Constitution says we must. As for "baiting", it's the essence of a lively discussion and way to expose liars. Imagine telling a prosecutor he can't bait a defendant to get the truth out of him in court. And now you're going to ban "polarizing" posts? LOL! What is your target audience.....the Mormon church? There ain't nearly enough HOT BLOOD here anymore so you're charging those trying to get something going with a crime? I ain't long for these parts....already decided not to OP here anymore after today. By next week at this time I'll be gone johnson.
The Constitution doesn’t ‘say’ anything about private media and how it edits its content – save for government cannot preempt freedom of the press.

And as a private message board the administration is at liberty to edit USMB’s content as it sees fit, where however that content might be edited, it in no manner impedes, undermines, or otherwise violates the doctrine of free speech.

If one doesn’t approve of how the content of this message board is edited, he’s at liberty to not participate.
It's not EVEN editing content.. It's REQUIRING content. Content that addresses each topic. There is no element of censorship in this.. I say that because Congress is cagely trying to circumvent the BoR by making a DISTINCTION about "editing" content.. So that the C-word is not used...
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
64,673
Reaction score
9,819
Points
2,030
I've seen these sorts of rules used as slim excuses for moderators to shelve posts they don't like - any provisions for preventing that?
My favorite is when they respond to you then ban you from the thread so you can't answer.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
1,315
Points
903
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
What happens when threads "wander"?
Threads always wander just like regular conversations, that's why an OP has to have some power in his/her own OP to police the thread and have flagged posts deleted...no questions asked.
OPs are like anyone else and they would ask for posts to be deleted because they don't like the opinions. If you want to regulate the comments to your posts then create a blog.
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,962
Reaction score
9,510
Points
2,030
Transparency on Warnings.

In addition, to add to visibility of who and what is being warned, Moderation will be leaving visible WARNED posts and adding a flag like -- Mod Note: This is a WARNED post.. Do not reply to it.

Of course, ACTUAL transparency would involve the mod who warned the post signing their name to the warning. Otherwise, there is obviously no transparency.

Will the mods be signing their names to these warnings?
There's not a warning generated that doesn't have a moderator name on it if a PM is sent. Occasionally we'll hit the warn button before we check the box for PM and customize the warning.. USUALLY -- a follow-up PM comes right along behind that..

If anyone gets a mysterious warning with no mod included -- contact Mod Staff immediately and ANY mod can trace that with the thread link and tell you who sent it.. Would take 1.5 minutes..

Have you ASKED??? How many times has this happened to you?
How many times?

Almost all from the last 6-12 months or more, I would say. I can't think of too many that WEREN'T anonymous.
We just went over this in private.. I know for a fact your six or seven warnings going back to last fall were completely identified.. Want me to post them here???
I receive them as alerts and not P.Ms.

You DID acknowledge the originating Mod in a P.M., but the deletions all came via unidentified alerts.
Then they are alerts, not warnings. You get them for deletions, or moving, merging, closing threads that belong to you...

I just warned FF Sock and did not check the box for a PM convo... The warning on the clown didn't even POST !!! No record of it in the clown's profile.. So it appears IMPOSSIBLE to get "an anonymous warning"...
Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've received lots of notifications with no identifying information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top