28 Apr 08
Originally posted by mwmillerWere you on that first team?
There are a lot of folks here who are confused.
This is just a website. It isn't a country. It does not have a government.
There are a couple of guys who own the site.
They get to decide what is allowed in the forum.
They get to decide how much forum moderation they want.
No matter how high or low they set the standards, they will never mak ...[text shortened]...
When it finally came back, it had moderators as part of the package.
End of story.....
P-
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by mwmillerWell said
There are a lot of folks here who are confused.
This is just a website. It isn't a country. It does not have a government.
There are a couple of guys who own the site.
They get to decide what is allowed in the forum.
They get to decide how much forum moderation they want.
No matter how high or low they set the standards, they will never mak ...[text shortened]...
When it finally came back, it had moderators as part of the package.
End of story.....
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by mwmillerNot quite: the owner wrote a ToS and we all agreed on it. The interpretation we are getting here on this topic from the moderation team (or at least one of them) is just that, an interpretation. With good intentions, no doubt, but logically NOT following from the ToS. It is an extrapolation which is not only unjustified, but also would lead to sterility if applied to all or most topics.
There are a lot of folks here who are confused....
There are a couple of guys who own the site.
They get to decide what is allowed in the forum.
They get to decide how much forum moderation they want.....End of story.....
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mephisto2Yes, we have all stated at one time or another that we agree to the TOS.
Not quite: the owner wrote a ToS and we all agreed on it. The interpretation we are getting here on this topic from the moderation team (or at least one of them) is just that, an interpretation. With good intentions, no doubt, but logically NOT following from the ToS. It is an extrapolation which is not only unjustified, but also would lead to sterility if applied to all or most topics.
Here is an excerpt from the TOS for your review:
"You acknowledge that RHP may not pre-screen Content, but that RHP shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, RHP shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable."
As you can see in the last sentence, content that is "otherwise objectionable" is subject to removal. The content does not have to specifically violate something spelled out in the TOS. It just has to be otherwise objectionable.
In the first sentence, the need to justify content removal is eliminated when it states "in their sole discretion."
I think that pretty much covers the moderation process.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by kirksey957Sometimes I wonder if he's sitting there with a fish-wrap full of chips and a warm pint laughing his ass off reading. I believe he loves drama.
Does he ever read any of this shizzle? If he would show up and say, "hey thanks for giving us something to think about. Appreciate your thoughts" I'd say OK and call it a day.
P-
28 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensAccording to what I'm hearing, that should be moderated. Outside of it being crappy music, it has women foddling themselves and the whole black man salivating over a white woman thing. Truly appalling! I am shocked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKxs8Ge_9g
at 2:20
However, the greater sin is the music.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by mwmillerThe quality of the moderation depends on who finds what objectionable. Since the moderation function is partly delegated, much depends on the subjective opinion of the moderators. In general, I believe that they are doing a good job of it. But when a moderator claims to speak in the name of the owners, then it'd better be the case, and not a way to justify their personal opinion.
... RHP shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable." .....
28 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2Everything moderators do is recorded, including messages sent to users. When moderators can, they all get together to discuss a topic. When moderators must, they often look to the admins for feedback.
The quality of the moderation depends on who finds what objectionable. Since the moderation function is partly delegated, much depends on the subjective opinion of the moderators. In general, I believe that they are doing a good job of it. But when a moderator claims to speak in the name of the owners, then it'd better be the case, and not a way to justify their personal opinion.
Most often, moderators will tell users to use feedback about a decision.
Moderators have disagreed in the past, and it comes down to majority on the subject of 'what to do'.
If one moderator is doing things the other mods don't agree with, believe me, they sort it out eventually. I had to shut my pie hole on one subject some time back. We argued a bit, and all kissed later.
P-
28 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by mwmillerThat's a ridiculous interpretation which makes the listing of specific categories excess verbiage. "Otherwise objectionable" in this context is boilerplate language which clearly means content which is equally offensive as the mentioned categories, though not fitting precisely in them. The same phrase is used earlier in the same way, to wit:
Yes, we have all stated at one time or another that we agree to the TOS.
Here is an excerpt from the TOS for your review:
"You acknowledge that RHP may not pre-screen Content, but that RHP shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing "in their sole discretion."
I think that pretty much covers the moderation process.
Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
According to you, this listing of banned categories is an utter waste of time. That interpretation is unreasonable and illogical.