Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
You can't argue balls and strikes
 
i love democracy. but there are some endeavors - such as parenting and forum moderation - where democracy isn't efficient.

i made some moderating decisions over the past few weeks, and some folks have just become aware of them and, yesterday, in 2 threads that don't remain here, questioned my methodology. let me answer a couple of questions you asked in these pulled threads here:

"Are you now holding a vote to determine if someone is ban?"

no. if i actually took a vote, the overwhelming outcome would in all cases be in favor of a more restrictive environment. (i know what the outcomes of these votes would be, because i get the private emails you don't see from folks who read only.) my choice is to moderate with a much lighter touch than our readers choose, because our readers (in my opinion) need to overcome some of the speech they don't like. not that such speech is valuable, but that letting in more speech rather than less is, in general, valuable.

in my experience, those who've fallen afoul of my moderation are more animated by how they said it than what they said. if making your point isn't enough; if making your point as a provocateur is what's important; if your point doesn't get enough of a rise, so you need to be even more caustic or strident; then your "point" isn't really your point, is it?

"If you did want peoples feed back why pull it so fast?"

i'm not looking for your feedback before i make a moderating decision. however, if you want to talk about it i'll give you the space (before i close that discussion down). in most cases i'm not looking for wisdom. i've made my decision.

we've had these discussions a number of times over the past 20 years. our forum traffic was up 32 percent year over year during ironman week. so, something seems to be working out here. however, if the moderation doesn't suit you, i understand.

this is the third thread on this, the first two started by others. and, i understand why new threads pop up, because not everyone logs in every day. i'll leave this one up for a bit before i lock it. here's the rule for this thread: i really don't want you to discuss someone who's not here, and who can't defend him or herself. if you want to talk about the tone or moderation in general, fine.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: Oct 28, 18 7:24
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
Put me down in the column of having no issues with the level of moderation. Keep up the good work.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
Every one in some way adds value.....ok 99% of the time.

People already have the ability to block the people they want to avoid. Living in a bubble and avoiding things that might offend you is IMOP sad. Social media safe spaces are just a symptom of a larger problem that I'm not getting into hear today. But come on people RELAX... Learn to laugh a little.

Don't take life so seriously you never make it out alive...... Elbert Hubbard.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
You wear a bunch of hats. Your sandbox, your rules. I get it. Do you think the lines between content creator, editor and forum moderator are blurring?

As content creator. Your message, your style, etc...

As an editor, yeah - be the tone police.

There are rules for the forum. I think the moderator should enforce the rules and ensure engagement of forum members.

Not arguing balls and strikes. But even umpires are subject to league review after the game is over.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
 
SBRinSD wrote:
You wear a bunch of hats. Your sandbox, your rules. I get it. Do you think the lines between content creator, editor and forum moderator are blurring?

As content creator. Your message, your style, etc...

As an editor, yeah - be the tone police.

There are rules for the forum. I think the moderator should enforce the rules and ensure engagement of forum members.

Not arguing balls and strikes. But even umpires are subject to league review after the game is over.


do i think my roles blur? sure. you want to see them really blur go to the lavender room.

in this forum? not as much. but sure. what's your remedy? league review? fine. the owners own the league. will that be cash or charge?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: Oct 28, 18 9:39
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
 
Fishbum wrote:
Every one in some way adds value.....ok 99% of the time.

People already have the ability to block the people they want to avoid. Living in a bubble and avoiding things that might offend you is IMOP sad. Social media safe spaces are just a symptom of a larger problem that I'm not getting into hear today. But come on people RELAX... Learn to laugh a little.

Don't take life so seriously you never make it out alive...... Elbert Hubbard.

let's talk about this ability to block. no. we're not going to use that as a way to enable boorish behavior. you said it yourself. living in a bubble is sad. we're a community, all in this together, so...

your ideas? bring it! bring 'em! but if you are forced out of forum after forum, and only reddit will have you, that is also sad. and, i'm not talking about any particular person here. not long ago i banned a person - not the guy you think i banned - who i know has been kicked out of just about every forum in this space (and please no public guessing who!). and this person was here for a long time. i point this out because at a certain point no, when your broken wing compels you to cause pain more than to state a thesis, most triathletes don't come here for yet more of that.

if we err here, we err on the side of too much speech, not too little. if you need more speech than you get at slowtwitch, i'm sorry, i don't know where to send you (except perhaps letsrun).

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
I guess what Iā€™m saying if you are tone policing and not enforcing a rule, then consider updating the rule or acknowledge that you have crossed over into editor mode.

The forums should be different than the front page articles. There is room for crossover. I like how the forum comments are referenced in articles and at times help create the web content.

I come to ST forums for both training and gear advice, news and entertainment. I just donā€™t want to lose the convenience of a one stop shop.

If you think we need a safer place to post. Set it up. See who frequents that forum.

Anyway I enjoy ST and hope to continue to do so - thanks for engaging!
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
 
SBRinSD wrote:
I guess what Iā€™m saying if you are tone policing and not enforcing a rule, then consider updating the rule or acknowledge that you have crossed over into editor mode.

The forums should be different than the front page articles. There is room for crossover. I like how the forum comments are referenced in articles and at times help create the web content.

I come to ST forums for both training and gear advice, news and entertainment. I just donā€™t want to lose the convenience of a one stop shop.

If you think we need a safer place to post. Set it up. See who frequents that forum.

Anyway I enjoy ST and hope to continue to do so - thanks for engaging!

the overwhelming rule is be civil. civility, like potter stewart's "i know it when i see it" definition of obscenity, is highly tone-dependent. i don't know how to get around that. potter stewart didn't either, hence his definition. i agree with you that we need to review and update our rules and policies and we're finishing up just such a review now.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying here and even if I did it wouldn't matter I stated many times your house your rules and I'm fine with that.

And I get that when people get overly malicious on here they need a timeout but when it comes to the people blocking you those same people who get their feelings hurt also are very quick to tell you that they are going to block you because they don't want to hear content and this is because they want you to feel some kind of way about it.


Well to all of you people who have messaged me on multiple occasions telling me how you're going to block what I'm saying
Don't bother telling me what you're going to do just do it. I lose no sleep and don't care one iota who blocks me and who's feelings are hurt. You reaching out and saying you're going to block me for XYZ is your attempt to somehow make me feel bad that my voice isn't being heard. It's a little backhanded way of trying to make someone feel the way you apparently Feel For No Good Reason.

I find it very unlikely that anyone comes on here with the intent to specifically hurt someone's feelings now does it happen when someone comes on here and calls b******* for legitimate reasons I'm sure it does but again this is a triathlon forum nothing life-changing or earth-shattering is happening here.
Come on here try to learn something and laugh at the stuff that doesn't really matter.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
I appreciate what, and how, you do it

Thank you
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
 
Is it really about people being offended or more about certain posters just trying to provoke or be generally annoying? Thereā€™s a difference. Iā€™m not easily offended and if I am I just tend to ignore and walk away. But on a forum when most people are just trying to have a adult discussion if youā€™ve got some posters who just want to be an irritant Iā€™m okay with banning them.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [mickison] [ In reply to ]
 
mickison wrote:
Is it really about people being offended or more about certain posters just trying to provoke or be generally annoying? Thereā€™s a difference. Iā€™m not easily offended and if I am I just tend to ignore and walk away. But on a forum when most people are just trying to have a adult discussion if youā€™ve got some posters who just want to be an irritant Iā€™m okay with banning them.


Banning should be a last resort... Sparingly applied
Last edited by: Slowman: Oct 28, 18 11:21
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
 
I agree. Iā€™m assuming thatā€™s not slowmanā€™s first resort
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
what's more efficient a democracy or a dictatorship???

In my 3 face-to-face times connecting w/you (I love that wetsuit I got at WF, BTW), I've made a judgement that you know what you're doing. Nobody's perfect, but this is a good site. Having people get so worked up about a rather selfish hobby mystifies me - it's like... "get a life."

Mom taught me that if you can't say something nice/decent. Don't say anything at all. Sitting behind a keyboard shouldn't change that way of thinking and behaving - life's too short as it is...

You're a good dictator, better than I'd be.

Peace on

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [manofthewoods] [ In reply to ]
 
I frequent a separate bike only forum and a generic Volkswagen forum.

Lot more leeway here than there, IMO.

Forums are a dictatorship when not owned by paying members. Has to be, itā€™s not my money here, so I have no say.

I almost say a few discussions here would surely be locked on the other forums. Primarily circumstancial and scuttlebutt style crap about individual people (the Horner topic would have been locked on page 2 on the VW forum).

Itā€™s also hard to ban trolls that often post at a 10 to 1 meaningful to crap ratio. Moderators have lives too, so not needing to nanny us would be nice.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [mvenneta] [ In reply to ]
 
mvenneta wrote:
I appreciate what, and how, you do it

Thank you

+1. I spend far too much time here.. :)
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
I suppose the fine line is some variation of malicious/negative/personal ā€œintentā€ vs just some variation of being one of the most annoying people on the planet.

Case in point being the crank arm thread that went 1500 posts. People were calling for it to be locked, shut down etc, but if you read between the lines and take a look at the ā€œgoodā€ posts it was probably the best education/thread on the subject weā€™ve had here.

Basically the heavy hitters, or people with knowledge on the subject were responding in paragraphs and pages as opposed to one liners.

At the end of the day the OP was banned for a pretty simple and clinical rules violation

Regarding other great threads that have unfolded where the starting point is in the grey area in terms of behaviour, I really donā€™t care to comment. From what I am seeing itā€™s never one post or infraction, typically the ban is usually for aggregate behaviour.

Maurice
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
 
+1

Thank you for taking the time to keep this forum a wonderful place :)

Seeing guys like Jim, DC, Canadian, Talbot and others having to defend themselves from blatant trolling and insults was really disheartening. Itā€™s great to see some moderation and I applaud you! Chapeau.


SBRcanuck wrote:
mvenneta wrote:
I appreciate what, and how, you do it

Thank you

+1. I spend far too much time here.. :)
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
 
I was just about to start a thread titled "What happened to the 'What happened' thread?" when I saw this topic.

Bans happen and I (we) fully trust (and frequently applaud) your reasons for doing so. However, I think your moderation of the meta-discussion after bans happen is too heavy-handed. The quashing of the meta-discussion, and not the bans themselves, is what makes me uneasy. It's what pushes it from banning to "so-and-so got disappeared" in my mind.

I'd even be alright if you kept a "ban thread" wherein you announced bans, by username, and prohibited replies, and kept with your heavy moderation of the meta-discussion. Then there's at least a tiny bit of visibility into why there are empty seats at the dinner table all of a sudden.

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [renorider] [ In reply to ]
 
renorider wrote:
I was just about to start a thread titled "What happened to the 'What happened' thread?" when I saw this topic.

Bans happen and I (we) fully trust (and frequently applaud) your reasons for doing so. However, I think your moderation of the meta-discussion after bans happen is too heavy-handed. The quashing of the meta-discussion, and not the bans themselves, is what makes me uneasy. It's what pushes it from banning to "so-and-so got disappeared" in my mind.

I'd even be alright if you kept a "ban thread" wherein you announced bans, by username, and prohibited replies, and kept with your heavy moderation of the meta-discussion. Then there's at least a tiny bit of visibility into why there are empty seats at the dinner table all of a sudden.


Actually a really good idea.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [renorider] [ In reply to ]
 
I politely disagree. I donā€™t think slowman is quickly to ban. A ban thread just drags it out.
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [renorider] [ In reply to ]
 
renorider wrote:
Then there's at least a tiny bit of visibility into why there are empty seats at the dinner table all of a sudden.

They were selected to go to the Island and live in a blissful paradise forever!

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram ā€¢ Facebook
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
 
RowToTri wrote:
renorider wrote:
Then there's at least a tiny bit of visibility into why there are empty seats at the dinner table all of a sudden.

They were selected to go to the Island and live in a blissful paradise forever!


Like when Mom and Dad took Fido to that great farm šŸ˜„
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [renorider] [ In reply to ]
 
The other thing to with this idea is that others would be able to learn from the ban too. I know itā€™s not really needed but it could be helpful. I really agree with this though
 
Re: You can't argue balls and strikes [mickison] [ In reply to ]
 
I never said he was quick to ban, and I agree with you that he is not. My beef is with the moderation around discussion of said bans.

Think of the "ban thread" I'm suggesting as a no-discussion record of which users have been uninvited from the site and when. Each user doesn't get their own thread, just a post in that thread.

I'll go a step further and say that SOME indication of user status is required. If I look at the profiles of any of the members I know to have been banned, there's zero indication that they're unwelcome. The only clue is that their last logon date is sometime in the past, but that could be for any reason.

I just don't like the Los Desaparecidos approach.

edit: formatting

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing
Last edited by: renorider: Oct 28, 18 15:23
 

Prev Next