New Policy Regarding Inappropriate Posts

[iamsuperdan]

2 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Nobody in this part of the world uses this term basically AT ALL!

 

You're exactly right. Key point being "in this part of the world."

 

You do know that this forum's membership is international in scope, right? Just because a word means one thing here, doesn't mean that it's the same elsewhere in the world.

In England, the infamous C-word is a somewhat regularly used word, also used to describe an idiot or a moron. How about we start using that one here, because "Nobody in this part of the world uses this term basically AT ALL!"

 

 

If following some simple rules is enough to cause people to leave, then I'd agree with their assessment and say that this isn't the right place for them. And to those people I say, this isn't an airport, no need to announce your departure.

 

[bobthehobbyguy]

Forum rules:

No vulgar language or "fake" vulgar language (as in #&@$$!#$!! or changing the spelling of the word). Offensive language is completely unacceptable. Everyone here is capable of getting their point across without using crude language.

We do not allow political or religious discussions or comments. We know it can be tempting sometimes, but please don't. 

====================

To me these rules are clear for how the site is moderated.

The mods are volunteers giving their time for the site. Their role often demands their judgment calls on enforcing the rules.

Truly a difficult and often under appreciated job. 

Overall all if we stick to topic of modeling we make their job easier and are less likely to have these types of problems. 

 

 

[Casey]

31 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

To me these rules are clear for how the site is moderated.

What is not clear, or at least, seems selective and incomplete, is this one:

• We do not allow political or religious discussions or comments. We know it can be tempting sometimes, but please don't. 

 

Why not just forbid all religious, political, sexual, etc. content entirely, including in avatars and signature lines, to ensure this forum focuses on modeling?

[SfanGoch]

I concur with Casey. I asked Dave about the biblical quotations and references used as signatures and he didn't reply. Using them is an violation of the board policy regarding prohibited subject matter. So, Dan, Mike et al, why do you let that obvious flaunting of board policy continue? Rules are rules and ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Remember writing that, Mike? If you're going to penalize members for inappropriate subject matter, political content,alleged sexual innuendo, maledicta, etc., the mods are obligated to flag and discipline ALL violations. You'll probably catch hell from members who use them in their signatures; but, being a moderator is a thankless job which all of you volunteered to do. You're all delegated the responsibility to enforce board rules and policies without bias.

[Earl Marischal]

19 minutes ago, SfanGoch said:

I concur with Casey. I asked Dave about the biblical quotations and references used as signatures and he didn't reply. Using them is an violation of the board policy regarding prohibited subject matter. So, Dan, Mike et al, why do you let that obvious flaunting of board policy continue? Rules are rules and ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Remember writing that, Mike? If you're going to penalize members for inappropriate subject matter, political content,alleged sexual innuendo, maledicta, etc., the mods are obligated to flag and discipline ALL violations. You'll probably catch hell from members who use them in their signatures; but, being a moderator is a thankless job which all of you volunteered to do. You're all delegated the responsibility to enforce board rules and policies without bias.

Completely agree about the need to remove all religious and biblical references. Car & truck modelling is a secular activity and should not be associated with anything related to religion.

steve

[Xingu]

We allowed the references in signature lines and avatars as they are read or noticed by a smaller percentage of folks that regularly use the board. They generally only become a problem when people bring them up to try and prove another point, and it is usually someone who has been given a warning point for something unrelated. Some of the avatars and signatures that contain religious and political quotes are from members that are dead. So someone (one of the 4 moderators) would have to manually remove them, if we even have that power.

We have tried to be a bit forgiving with some of the minor things, language isn't one of those things. If we start cracking down on  every little thing, like animated avatars, we sure would have a lot of angry folks. I guess we also couldn't talk about our holy grail kits.

When we start cracking down on everything, I will point to this thread as why we are doing it. You guys feel cheated, when you get called out when you break a rule that has been actively enforced, when someone else is allowed to have a cross in their avatar.

What will actually happen is all customizable avatars and signatures will be turned off entirely.

[Bugatti Fan]

Joe Srodlowski (SfanGoch) you took me to task about not referring to you by name earlier when I referred back to one of your posts. My apology for the omission Joe.

Perhaps too many of us are getting a bit sensitive about the forum and what wordage or subject matter that might be contrived as being contentious should or should not be used on it. There is a simple answer to all this. Guys, just use a bit of restraint before pushing the Post button and review what you are about to send.

We can all tear the moderators to pieces about violations being missed, and you, yourself mentioned that being a moderator is a thankless job that they all volunteered to do. Just the four of them.  So what is the answer Joe?  Yes they voluntarily accepted rather than were delegated the job of moderating. However, they simply cannot man their PC's 24/7 to monitor the site. Given the amount of criticism being aimed at them by a number of different people, would you be prepared to take the job on, lose out on probably a big portion of your modelling time, as well as attend to much more important stuff that has to take precedent like earning a living to keep a roof over your head and family responsibilities?  I certainly would not. Some guys get a bit too passionate about things on this site and it can be in danger of becoming an 'office politics' scenario.  But, like I said before. we need to get some perspective on this.  It is JUST A HOBBY website after all, set up for like minded auto modellers to enjoy sharing ideas, tips, builds and photos.

[bobthehobbyguy]

41 minutes ago, Bugatti Fan said:

There is a simple answer to all this. Guys, just use a bit of restraint before pushing the Post button and review what you are about to send.

 

Great advice.

 

[Casey]

49 minutes ago, Xingu said:

We allowed the references in signature lines and avatars as they are read or noticed by a smaller percentage of folks that regularly use the board.

While it's certainly Gregg's prerogative to have whichever rules he choses, I'm just saying it would be helpful if things were clarified and, if the rules regarding posted content ("discussion") are also applicable to avatars and signature lines, enforced fairly and equally.

52 minutes ago, Xingu said:

What will actually happen is all customizable avatars and signatures will be turned off entirely.

Nobody is asking for such an extreme reaction, and I doubt anybody wants that. While we are not entitled to a clarification of the rules as they apply to avatars and signature lines, I think it would be helpful. I hope nobody is going to use a political, sexual, etc. avatar or signature line to either force the issue or try prove a point, but if they did, it would be hard to blame them when other members' avatars and/or signature lines appear to flout the rules, with no consequences for doing so.

[Xingu]

27 minutes ago, Casey said:

Nobody is asking for such an extreme reaction, and I doubt anybody wants that. While we are not entitled to a clarification of the rules as they apply to avatars and signature lines, I think it would be helpful. I hope nobody is going to use a political, sexual, etc. avatar or signature line to either force the issue or try prove a point, but if they did, it would be hard to blame them when other members' avatars and/or signature lines appear to flout the rules, with no consequences for doing so.

In the past, we have asked members to change offensive avatars and signature lines, most did so without any problems. For us to moderate every avatar and signature line, which can be modified as often as desired, is a bit much for the moderators to police. I am fairly certain we have a few rebellious folks here that would love to try and get hidden messages past us, just because they can. Much easier to just not allow them at all, since it has become such an issue.

[Tabbysdaddy]

On 12/19/2021 at 1:34 PM, StevenGuthmiller said:

Oh, by the way, here is the Urban Dictionary definition of the word that I was admonished for.

Of course, I can't use the word, so.....

 

W_ _ _ _ _.

British slang for an idiot or fool.

 

1. Someone excessively and annoyingly pretentious and/or false, with a strong likelihood of working in the creative industries, especially "new media".

2. Someone with a faintly sociopathic lack of regard for other people. See also a_ _ _ _ _ _.

3. Someone useless, inefficient or time wasting, especially in a place of work and/or position of responsibility.

4. A general term of abuse.

5......... Finally! now we get to the definition of the word that brought the hammer down on me!

 

 

I guess you can all decide if this was worth "moderating" someone over.

 

 

 

Steve

If you didn't notice, all those definitions are derogatory. 

[stitchdup]

2 minutes ago, Tabbysdaddy said:

If you didn't notice, all those definitions are derogatory. 

and they missed out what it actually means but you guys can look that up in the oxford english dictionary yourselves

[Tabbysdaddy]

11 minutes ago, stitchdup said:

and they missed out what it actually means but you guys can look that up in the oxford english dictionary yourselves

We can all pick what definition we like best, the point is it's a derogatory term and being derogatory to others doesn't seem to be acceptable here.

[Old Nasty]

Enuf is enuf.  Isn't this site about model cars & not political correctness?  I'm getting worn out reading all this back & forth.  Lets concentrate on the models & stop bickering like little school children.  Cheeez 

[SfanGoch]

3 hours ago, Xingu said:

We allowed the references in signature lines and avatars as they are read or noticed by a smaller percentage of folks that regularly use the board.

That is an evasive non-answer, Mike. Personally, I don't care one way or the other if somebody has them in their sigs. I was playing devil's advocate. It also doesn't matter what percentage of members see them. They're still seen more often by regular users because they are in every single comment posted by the individuals including them and that could total thousands of times because of post counts as opposed to a single political comment made during a particular discussion in a single topic. Would political statements in a sig be treated in the same manner since the same small percentage of people would see them?  I doubt it. It just reinforces my assertion regarding selective enforcement of the rules. If one can't be used because it would violate policy, so neither can the other.

I was a member of a now-defunct flightsim board which had a sub-forum, Goose's Bar, in its OTL section. It was a no-holds-barred, free-for-all with no restrictions on subject matter or language which are prohibited here. It was set up so that members could blow off steam by keeping things off the main board. One had to request admittance by agreeing to keep discussions there and not to let them spill over into the regular fora. It was inaccessible to everyone except those who requested to join thereby precluding any vicarious snooping.  One was allowed to say whatever they wanted, how they wanted with virtually no moderator interference. Anyone who violated the agreement was permanently banned from the site. It was one of the most popular sections because members could speak their minds without worrying about getting penalized or banned. Nobody ever continued any discussion, disagreement or argument into the main board. There was never any animosity carried over. There also was an invitation-only section for religious topics where members who were so inclined could proselytize to their heart's content. The same rules for the free-for-all section also applied to this one. The site owner, and the mods, didn't act like hall monitors and believed in treating the members like adults. Is it the consensus of the board staff here that the membership isn't intellectually or emotionally mature enough to handle something like that?

4 hours ago, Bugatti Fan said:

Joe Srodlowski (SfanGoch) you took me to task about not referring to you by name earlier when I referred back to one of your posts. My apology for the omission Joe

No apology necessary, Noel. I was only goofing with you. I don't care how someone addresses or refers to me. Just don't leave an open tab under my name.

 

1 hour ago, Tabbysdaddy said:

If you didn't notice, all those definitions are derogatory. 

How many times have you referred to, or called, somebody a jerk in the course of real life? That is one of the definitions and that word is commonly used in that context exclusive of any sexual innuendo or reference.

[Tabbysdaddy]

10 minutes ago, SfanGoch said:

 

How many times have you referred to, or called, somebody a jerk in the course of real life? That is one of the definitions and that word is commonly used in that context exclusive of any sexual innuendo or reference.

I wasn't bothered by the use of the word, I'm a big boy. I don't think he did anything wrong either, but neither word is used to be friendly. When someone isn't friendly sometimes others are not friendly back. 

[bobthehobbyguy]

1 hour ago, Old Nasty said:

Enuf is enuf.  Isn't this site about model cars & not political correctness?  I'm getting worn out reading all this back & forth.  Lets concentrate on the models & stop bickering like little school children.  Cheeez 

I agree. Time to move on and enjoy all the great projects being showcase on the site. Or building your next project to showcase.

I would hope people would have better things than to find excuses why the rules can be broken.

[StevenGuthmiller]

3 hours ago, Tabbysdaddy said:

I wasn't bothered by the use of the word, I'm a big boy. I don't think he did anything wrong either, but neither word is used to be friendly. When someone isn't friendly sometimes others are not friendly back. 

What was unfriendly about it?

If you read the post you could see that it was nothing more than a lighthearted quip, not directed toward any individual on or off of the board, but as a general crack at Americans, (of which I am one) from an Aussie perspective.

But apparently, it was interpreted as something else.

 

 

Steve

Edited December 21, 2021 by StevenGuthmiller

[StevenGuthmiller]

I'm going to agree that I've also grown weary of all of this silliness.

 

I've already spoken to Dave through PM, who appears to be the one mod who understands nuance and has a sense of fairness rather than just being a box checker.

While I don't expect him to, (and am not asking him to) just cut me loose on this, he appears to understand that occasionally people make inadvertent mistakes and are not necessarily hooligans bent on creating havoc on the board just for the sake of creating controversy.

I'm confident that he will be fair in his final assessment of this, and while I expect no special treatment, I feel like I can trust him to use his best judgement rather than just washing his hands of it.

 

 

13 hours ago, iamsuperdan said:

And to those people I say, this isn't an airport, no need to announce your departure

Well, maybe it's because there are people on this forum that actually care about one and other and would like to know whether or not someone that they consider a friend is contemplating whether they plan to leave or not.

Personally, your opinion of whether one should announce their departure or not is of no consequence to me.

You may be a moderator, but you don't get to dictate everything.

 

 

I'm going back to my shop.

 

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by StevenGuthmiller

[martinfan5]

I am currently on this 30 day post moderation for putting a word in front of Probe( sure you can think of the word, think aliens) when posting I got a AMT Ford Probe kit, being my funny wise cracking self, didnt think anything of it, well, here I am.

FYI , the post moderation includes the not very private messages.

 

[Bugatti Fan]

This thread has just about run its course guys.       I think that we have all voiced our respective opinions. So PAX!

The moderators do the best they can under the constraints they have, so like I said in my first post, cut them a bit of slack!

Me?      I'm just a serious auto modeller who doesn't take himself too seriously!

Edited December 21, 2021 by Bugatti Fan

[Dave Ambrose]

Several comments, then I think we're done. 

The limits are set where they are because, more often than not, people don't have the discretion to approach the limits wisely. In both these cases, we realize that they were intended to be humorous. Sometimes our attempts at humor (or humour) don't go the way we intended. We've all been experts at that at one time or another. Had we thought they were hostile, it's unlikely you'd be able to comment on this topic.

That gets to the core of our problem. Sometimes humor turns hostile, and we don't want to be anywhere near that situation. So, we do our best to ensure it never has a chance to get headed that way. That's why we set the limits where we have. 

Regarding religious quotes in signatures: We do not want religious discussions here. I hope the reasons are obvious, but in matters of faith, you ultimately cannot prove or disprove anything. It usually ends up being needless and unresolvable conflict. That said, there are religious elements we do allow. What about someone who requests prayers for a loved one in Off Topic? Technically, that's religious but it's where we support a community member in need. For that reason alone, it's going to stay. 

As for quotes in people's signatures, we've been leaving them when they meet a few criteria. First, they're inconspicuous. They aren't right in your face and easy to ignore. Secondly, they don't try to prosthelytize or criticize people who don't share the poster's faith. Third, they aren't widespread. This is not  permission to put your favorite quote in your signature. If it becomes widespread, we will have to step in and order their removal. 

If you have any questions, please PM me, and give me a few days to respond, especially over a weekend. I have two day jobs and a family. 

Thanks,
Dave Ambrose

[iamsuperdan]

Just as a note: If you feel the need to censor words in your own posts, then it's probably not a word you should be using.

Using a dollar sign instead of an S.

Using @ instead of A.

Using f*!k instead of....

Well... you know what I mean.

 

Maybe this will help people decide what to write and what not to write.

 

Carry on...