When will my imprisonment end?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Inks and BRTD showing up has really taken this thread to a new level

[Mr. Morden]

Also, being on mod review doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the content of your posts. If you make a post while on review that otherwise would be infracted, you cannot expect to escape infraction simply because you're on review.

But in that case, what does the word review in 'moderator review' mean?  A moderator already reviewed and approved it Nym. 

That's actually a very good point. While a mod might exercise discretion to modify/delete a post on their board even after it was mod reviewed, but assessing points for such a post sounds highly 'bait and switch'-ish.

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

[Grumps]

Also, being on mod review doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the content of your posts. If you make a post while on review that otherwise would be infracted, you cannot expect to escape infraction simply because you're on review.

But in that case, what does the word review in 'moderator review' mean?  A moderator already reviewed and approved it Nym. 

That's actually a very good point. While a mod might exercise discretion to modify/delete a post on their board even after it was mod reviewed, but assessing points for such a post sounds highly 'bait and switch'-ish.

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

If you're worried about that you need new people.....and I don't think you need new people.  Like Badg, I agree that opebo's point is very well taken.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Also, being on mod review doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the content of your posts. If you make a post while on review that otherwise would be infracted, you cannot expect to escape infraction simply because you're on review.

But in that case, what does the word review in 'moderator review' mean?  A moderator already reviewed and approved it Nym. 

That's actually a very good point. While a mod might exercise discretion to modify/delete a post on their board even after it was mod reviewed, but assessing points for such a post sounds highly 'bait and switch'-ish.

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

Nah... Sam's gone now.

[opebo]

But I hope to have you with me for the duration.

Well, that depends on what you consider to be 'me' and how you define 'with'.  I used to be with you, for sure.  But now not so much.

But in that case, what does the word review in 'moderator review' mean?  A moderator already reviewed and approved it Nym. 

That's actually a very good point. While a mod might exercise discretion to modify/delete a post on their board even after it was mod reviewed, but assessing points for such a post sounds highly 'bait and switch'-ish.

Thanks for the reasonableness, Badger.

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

But, Mr. Morden, how can that possibly be my fault, even where such an unlikely event to occur?

[Joe Republic]

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

But, Mr. Morden, how can that possibly be my fault, even where such an unlikely event to occur?

Who do you think is responsible for the content of your posts?

But no, you surely couldn't ever be at fault, right?

[opebo]

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

But, Mr. Morden, how can that possibly be my fault, even where such an unlikely event to occur?

Who do you think is responsible for the content of your posts?

But no, you surely couldn't ever be at fault, right?

But the content was pre-approved in the cases we're discussing here.  Obviously we hardly have any idea what you all want us to write, but if we've managed to please you once, it isn't really fair to go back and death point things you approved before in a magnanimous mood when you feel a fit of pique or indigestion later.

[Nym90]

Dave has made it clear on multiple instances what the standards of conduct are. If you continue to be unclear about them, feel free to e-mail him to ask for clarification.

[opebo]

Dave has made it clear on multiple instances what the standards of conduct are. If you continue to be unclear about them, feel free to e-mail him to ask for clarification.

I'm clear on the statements made by authority, but I'm sure we can all agree that the definitions are very uncertain, subjective, and changing all the time.  It isn't like - 'thou shalt not kill', or 'don't jaywalk'.  For example, 'excessive hyperbole' does actually cover the entirety of many people's political opinions, beliefs, and observations, and it is in any case very difficult for any poster to determine precisely what would or would not be 'excessive'.

The same is true of 'trolling'.  How is one to know whether a moderator will decide that one's heartfelt opinion about an issue is being presented merely to attract vitriol from others?  After all, anything outside a narrow band of very moderate opinion is bound to inflame such vitriol.

I hope you understand, Nym, that there can never be any definitive explanation of how to please the authority that now exists, but only vague guidelines which leave us feeling quite anxious at all times, and I hope you will keep this fact in mind when judging those of us struggling with it.

[True Federalist]

Of course, different mods have different standards, and there's no record of which mod approved which post.  You could have a rogue mod approving every opebo post regardless of content just for kicks, and we'd never know who it was.

But, Mr. Morden, how can that possibly be my fault, even where such an unlikely event to occur?

Who do you think is responsible for the content of your posts?

But no, you surely couldn't ever be at fault, right?

But the content was pre-approved in the cases we're discussing here.  Obviously we hardly have any idea what you all want us to write, but if we've managed to please you once, it isn't really fair to go back and death point things you approved before in a magnanimous mood when you feel a fit of pique or indigestion later.

You miss the reason for putting a poster on moderation.  It is not so that the poster can continue to write whatever they like with the worst thing that happens because of an egregious post is that it never is seen by anyone other than a moderator.  Since we can't infract a post without first approving it, approving a post to be infracted and deleted is perfectly reasonable.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I can't find where he said it, but at one point, Dave did say it was permissible to allow a post through moderation and then to infract it.  He just discouraged that from being done a majority of the time.

[opebo]

You miss the reason for putting a poster on moderation.

No I got the point perfectly clearly, though obviously I'm not allowed to say what it is.  But all the above examples of arbitrariness come as no surprise to me.

[Frodo]

NEVER

[opebo]

NEVER

Be careful about honest answers, Frodo.

[Torie]

If you are on mod review, and "post" for mod vetting that Obama should be assassinated because he is a space alien, and thus ineligible for office, Jews burned at the stake so that they can feel Jesus' pain up close and personal (oh, he wasn't burned at the stake was he?), and gays castrated, and every third word is the F word, and the mod chooses to not let that post see the light of day, does that post nevertheless get infracted? Or is the infraction risk only for posts that are "approved?" Lawyers have this insatiable need to know what is in each theoretically possible little box.

Well I guess DAVE shut off mod review, so the whole issue is moot. One just sails along until one hits 100 points now.

[opebo]

Lawyers have this insatiable need to know what is in each theoretically possible little box.

You're still looking for certainties, here?

Well I guess DAVE shut off mod review, so the whole issue is moot. One just sails along until one hits 100 points now.

What?  Where do you get that bit of news?  I wonder if it has anything to do with my maltreatment.

[Torie]

Lawyers have this insatiable need to know what is in each theoretically possible little box.

You're still looking for certainties, here?

Well I guess DAVE shut off mod review, so the whole issue is moot. One just sails along until one hits 100 points now.

What?  Where do you get that bit of news?  I wonder if it has anything to do with my maltreatment.

No it was a software glitch it seems, where once one was on mod review, there was no way to bring the poster back from limbo. DAVE made some brief mention of it, and that he was turning it off (read the texts more closely buddy, and then you won't have to rely on a certain particular class enemy so much ) . That of course does not mean that it won't be fixed.

[Sibboleth]

Everyone should just get a fycking life.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Posting at nearly 3am. You don't have to point it out, it's done already. And?

[Torie]

Everyone should just get a fycking life.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Posting at nearly 3am. You don't have to point it out, it's done already. And?

Move to strike as non-responsive your Honor. As counsel noted, he's fatigued. Perhaps we should adjourn until the AM.

[Nym90]

If you are on mod review, and "post" for mod vetting that Obama should be assassinated because he is a space alien, and thus ineligible for office, Jews burned at the stake so that they can feel Jesus' pain up close and personal (oh, he wasn't burned at the stake was he?), and gays castrated, and every third word is the F word, and the mod chooses to not let that post see the light of day, does that post nevertheless get infracted? Or is the infraction risk only for posts that are "approved?" Lawyers have this insatiable need to know what is in each theoretically possible little box.

Well I guess DAVE shut off mod review, so the whole issue is moot. One just sails along until one hits 100 points now.

A post can't be infracted unless it's approved.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Considering how often mods disagree and how arbitrary some can be, that opens some huge issues if one mod is perfectly fine with a post but then another freaks out over it. I've received infractions for posts I've been told by other mods that they didn't find offensive at all.

[opebo]

Considering how often mods disagree and how arbitrary some can be, that opens some huge issues if one mod is perfectly fine with a post but then another freaks out over it. I've received infractions for posts I've been told by other mods that they didn't find offensive at all.

Yes.  It would be far better to have just one dictator telling us what to say rather than - how many moderators are there?

[Nym90]

Considering how often mods disagree and how arbitrary some can be, that opens some huge issues if one mod is perfectly fine with a post but then another freaks out over it. I've received infractions for posts I've been told by other mods that they didn't find offensive at all.

In that case, please feel free to appeal to me and/or Dave for a second opinion. I agree that the fact that the mods haven't all been assimilated by the Borg and are still seperate individuals with differing opinions is a cause of confusion at times.

[Nym90]

Considering how often mods disagree and how arbitrary some can be, that opens some huge issues if one mod is perfectly fine with a post but then another freaks out over it. I've received infractions for posts I've been told by other mods that they didn't find offensive at all.

Yes.  It would be far better to have just one dictator telling us what to say rather than - how many moderators are there?

In the beginning it did work that way, with Dave doing all moderation himself. As the Forum grew in size, it became a large enough task as to be delegated to others to act in his stead. I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for how to best improve his site, however, and would encourage you to contact him directly with your opinions.

[ModerateCoward]

Considering how often mods disagree and how arbitrary some can be, that opens some huge issues if one mod is perfectly fine with a post but then another freaks out over it. I've received infractions for posts I've been told by other mods that they didn't find offensive at all.

Yes.  It would be far better to have just one dictator telling us what to say rather than - how many moderators are there?

In the beginning it did work that way, with Dave doing all moderation himself. As the Forum grew in size, it became a large enough task as to be delegated to others to act in his stead. I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for how to best improve his site, however, and would encourage you to contact him directly with your opinions.

The he should give all the powers to the mods  related to moderation and act as a Supreme Mod when he disagrees with a moderator's decision?