Weekly QotM moderation

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by SkyDog 2. I stand behind my decision to make Galt the QOTM Moderator.

Elbert Green Hubbard - An executive: a man who can make quick decisions and is sometimes right.

Karl Kraus - A weak man has doubts before a decision; a strong man has them afterwards.

Philip Crosby - Making a wrong decision is understandable. Refusing to search continually for learning is not.

[Maple Leafs]

So in all seriousness, is the worst thread ever? Most bad threads either a.) die quickly, or b.) provide some sort of inherent entertainment value, even if the participants don't realize it (cough, Horns, cough).

I'll just sit back to wait for someone to tell me that bad threads were worse in the Golden Era.

[Anrhydeddu]

No bad threads were better in the Golden Era.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Elbert Green Hubbard - An executive: a man who can make quick decisions and is sometimes right.

Karl Kraus - A weak man has doubts before a decision; a strong man has them afterwards.

Philip Crosby - Making a wrong decision is understandable. Refusing to search continually for learning is not.

Whatever. If John had done something wrong as moderator, I might listen to your rantings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Whatever. If John had done something wrong as moderator, I might listen to your rantings.

SD,

The closest thing to a rant you've seen or heard from me on this subject was via PM, not on the forum. And even that was extremely mild in comparison with my feelings on the matter.

Trust me on this one, a quick sampling of quotes about decisions hardly qualifies as a rant and I thought you were sharp enough to know that.

Then again, I seem to have misjudged several things about you

[Ben E Lou]

OK...maybe "rant" was the wrong word. I'll acknowledge that. It is just *VERY* frustrating to me that folks are jumping on John, and I perceive it is due in large part to his politics. I hardly agree with anything he says, but I do believe he is a man of sincerity. I guess it is that whole "separate-the-person-from-the-actions" thing coming up again. I dunno.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Then again, I seem to have misjudged several things about you

And what exactly is that supposed to mean?

[WSUCougar]

I'm guessin' here, but maybe he thought you were more of a 3rd down back, instead of the 35-carry-a-game go to stud horse that you are.

But I'm just guessin'...

[Anrhydeddu]

I agree with you, SD but I had never saw any reason or shown any credible proof that we need to moderate QotM. Either we have them or we don't, in my simplistic view. A solution in between will be acceptable to no one, I believe.

[Fritz]

Hello!

I tied to do the pants test, but neither would comply. Using NFL rules, that means they are both guilty.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Fritz
Hello! I tried to do the pants test, but neither would comply.

Somehow I think this is a common phrase in your repertoire. I could be wrong.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
I could be wrong.

you are.

anyone smell something burning?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I agree with you, SD but I had never saw any reason or shown any credible proof that we need to moderate QotM.

That's the other thing I don't get. I've heard that several times. Let me say it out loud one more time, so that everyone gets it: WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A QOTM MODERATOR SINCE IT WENT UP ON THE NEW BOARD!!! That person has been me. I have probably deleted or disallowed 50-100 QOTM's since we put it up. The problem (as John Galt has mentioned as well) is that the interface is VERY clunky, and I'm not able to get to it often enough. I felt the need to have someone else do this job, and John Galt was my number one choice. Anry, I assuere that if you had seen some of the quotes that I deleted, then you would understand why QOTM needs to be moderated. The "we-don't-need-a-QOTM-moderator" argument, if it were valid, should have been made weeks ago when I went through and deleted at least 50 quotes. The fact that people are making that argument NOW, rather than then, leads me strongly to believe that the argument is a smoke-screen--that the problem isn't that QOTM is moderated, but WHO is moderating it, and that is VERY disconcerting to me.

EDIT: big-sized the key phrase...and I also wanted to say this: Anry....I'm not pointing the figure at you alone here. Don't feel singled out. Several people have used that argument.

[Abe Sargent]

As a general rule, I don't post on these things. Too political, too antagonistic, yada yada. I'm a football kinda like, I like my football forums to actually have football threads. Maybe I'm some kinda throwback, i don't know.

However, this has got to be the most fucked up thread that I've read in...well....ever. Kinda funny in a not-intended-to-be-funny way.

Either clean house with the QoTM or don't. Who cares? For months I thought SkyDog had decided to deny my submission to QoTM and I didn't get all out of whack. I just figured that he exercised taste...

-Anxiety

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by SkyDog
And what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Well, since you asked ... it means several things.

1) It means that I figured you'd know that a "Jon rant" would be a little more creative than a few quotes Remember, you hadn't conceded the questionable word choice when I posted

2) It means that I didn't think I'd see you absolutely blow a decision in a big way. I figured you'd miss one here & there, but not by large margins.
3) It means that I thought you'd be a pretty good judge of the "people behind the poster". Clearly, I have serious doubts about that right now.

I guess it is that whole "separate-the-person-from-the-actions" thing coming up again.

4) It means that I thought you'd be sharp enough to know that, while it might be an appealing ideal, this is an approach that doesn't work out very well in the real world and smacks of denial of the reality in front of you.

If I may, I'd like to borrow a couple of fairly familiar (IMO) religious phrases because I believe they'll illustrate the difference in our approaches.

Please understand that I _do not_ mean to imply this is in any way a religious matter. I just think the comparison will make my 4th point clearer-

It seems to me that you're applying "love the sinner, hate the sin" while I work from the notion that we are "known by our works".

{sorry for the last point becoming overly wordy, but I wanted to make it clear as possible}

That's a pretty good explanation of what my comment was supposed to mean.

Jon

[John Galt]

Jon, I know this part of the discussion is between you and Skydog, but you have several times over the last day implied some not-so-nice things about me. I asked about it in the first QotM thread and you never replied. I'm not sure what I've done to create such feelings on your part, so maybe you could fill me in (either here or by PM). I've never had any negative feelings toward you, but your increasingly negative subtext about me is distressing.

[superbama]

Do we really need a quote of the moment? The best quotes I've heard are repeated often by those who find meaning in them. Most of the stuff at the top of the page is useless garbage.


I say do away with the silly quote of the moment and if there is a qoute you like repeat it until every dork on this board repeats it at every turn on every thread.

Squid this

[Ben E Lou]

1. I've acknowledged that I missed that one. I was frustrated. It is VERY rare that Ol' SkyDog gets truly frustrated. That post may have been the first time I've ever posted when feeling truly frustrated, upset or ticked off. I'm asking for a pass on that one. We all mess up.

2 & 3. Frankly those really remain to be seen. I know YOU think I've blown the decision, but so far I don't see any bad decisions Galt has made (other than maybe to engage couriers as long as he did.... )

4. I hear what you're saying, and your analogy makes sense. However, that's not quite exactly what I meant there. You're right, I wouldn't apply that concept in every aspect of the real world. Let me clarify what I mean.

I think that some who lean conservatively on this board view John Galt as "the enemy." If you recall, I made a comment about anti-war protestors at one point, saying that for many, their "true agenda" is that they were anti-Bush and/or anti-American. This is something of which they may not even be cognitively aware. I don't think that very many go through the thought process:"I don't like Bush, so I'm going to protest against the war, against the post-war actions, and against anything he does." I think it is a subtle thing that happens beneath the surface. I think that conservatives can often be guilty of the exact same thing, when it comes to a liberal, and I truly believe that is what is going on here for some people. In their minds there are "the good guys" and "the bad guys". Because of John's politics, he's considered one of "the bad guys" by some (for those who think this way, he'd probably be the chief "bad guy"). The result is that anything he says or does gets called into question by some.

My thinking, on the other hand, is that while I pretty much disagree 100% with everything he says, I truly believe that his motives are sincere and his political ideas come from a place of human decency (even though I believe the vast majority of them to be un-workable in the real world...)

--Ben

[Franklinnoble]

This thread is gay. I'm going to find a willing sheep and reclaim my manhood.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by SkyDog 4. I hear what you're saying, and your analogy makes sense.

I'm glad it read the way I intended.

Even as thoroughly ... ticked ... as I am with you right now, I was very concerned that it wouldn't come across right. That's, for the lack of a better phrase, "hallowed ground" for both of us and wasn't a place I wanted any misunderstanding.

One other bit of food for thought, and it truly isn't specific to any one person here, is this area where I think we're differ on phrasing & possibly definition.

Because of John's politics, ... the result is that anything he says or does gets called into question by some.

I certainly can't speak for everyone who feels that way, but for me the distrust/contempt doesn't actually stem from "the politics".

It's a layer or more deeper than that, at the judgemental capabilities that produced "the politics". And in the actions that "the politics" produce (back to the whole "works" thing).

And then, relating back to the situation at hand -- It's obviously on a dramatically less important scale, but I see the role of moderator as that of a judge -- interpreting and applying "the rules".

And I have seen precious little evidence that those who subscribe to the tenets of the far left possess the judgemental ability to perform those duties capably and fairly on a consistent basis. The sincerity with which they hold to those tenets really doesn't come into play.

{quickly edited to add missing sentence}

[Daimyo]

Man I love it when conservatives argue among themselves!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Man I love it when conservatives argue among themselves!

Conservatives are free to argue among ourselves, because for the most part we're individual thinkers, not sheep.

As Boortz would say, it is very easy to organize liberals into a protest group, because they are used to thinking as a group, but conservatives think as individuals, and it is therefore much harder to get them all together for any kind of organized rally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is about as far off the subject as anything could be but SD's last bit about the problems in organizing conservatives made me wonder ... has anyone ever seen a statistic that revealed the political orientation of cigarette smokers?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I'm glad it read the way I intended.

Even as thoroughly ... ticked ... as I am with you right now, I was very concerned that it wouldn't come across right. That's, for the lack of a better phrase, "hallowed ground" for both of us and wasn't a place I wanted any misunderstanding.

One other bit of food for thought, and it truly isn't specific to any one person here, is this area where I think we're differ on phrasing & possibly definition.



I certainly can't speak for everyone who feels that way, but for me the distrust/contempt doesn't actually stem from "the politics".

It's a layer or more deeper than that, at the judgemental capabilities that produced "the politics". And in the actions that "the politics" produce (back to the whole "works" thing).

And then, relating back to the situation at hand -- It's obviously on a dramatically less important scale, but I see the role of moderator as that of a judge -- interpreting and applying "the rules".

And I have seen precious little evidence that those who subscribe to the tenets of the far left possess the judgemental ability to perform those duties capably and fairly on a consistent basis. The sincerity with which they hold to those tenets really doesn't come into play.

{quickly edited to add missing sentence}

Fair enough. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am curious though. Exactly what are you ticked at me about?

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I certainly can't speak for everyone who feels that way, but for me the distrust/contempt doesn't actually stem from "the politics".

It's a layer or more deeper than that, at the judgemental capabilities that produced "the politics". And in the actions that "the politics" produce (back to the whole "works" thing).

And then, relating back to the situation at hand -- It's obviously on a dramatically less important scale, but I see the role of moderator as that of a judge -- interpreting and applying "the rules".

And I have seen precious little evidence that those who subscribe to the tenets of the far left possess the judgemental ability to perform those duties capably and fairly on a consistent basis. The sincerity with which they hold to those tenets really doesn't come into play.

{quickly edited to add missing sentence}

I'm sure I'm going to regret entering this discussion, but I find this post from you extremely ironic.

Given your past stated positions on issues such as the death penalty and the hypothetical example of Saddam in a hospital full of innocents, wherein you've demonstrated a decided lack of compassion for innocent lives in pursuit of certain objectives to be extremely disturbing. These positions seem to stem from a fundamentally distorted philosophy that leads me to question any and all judgements you care to render on virtually any subject.

I'd like to be able to look past your politics but I have to admit that that has become impossible for me to do - your viewpoints are simply too disturbing to me to ignore.

I state this not to get into a political debate with you Jon, but to point out to you that from a perspective outside your own, you fit the same extremist category you describe of John Galt.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by SkyDog
That's the other thing I don't get. I've heard that several times. Let me say it out loud one more time, so that everyone gets it: WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A QOTM MODERATOR SINCE IT WENT UP ON THE NEW BOARD!!! That person has been me. I have probably deleted or disallowed 50-100 QOTM's since we put it up. The problem (as John Galt has mentioned as well) is that the interface is VERY clunky, and I'm not able to get to it often enough. I felt the need to have someone else do this job, and John Galt was my number one choice. Anry, I assuere that if you had seen some of the quotes that I deleted, then you would understand why QOTM needs to be moderated. The "we-don't-need-a-QOTM-moderator" argument, if it were valid, should have been made weeks ago when I went through and deleted at least 50 quotes. The fact that people are making that argument NOW, rather than then, leads me strongly to believe that the argument is a smoke-screen--that the problem isn't that QOTM is moderated, but WHO is moderating it, and that is VERY disconcerting to me.

EDIT: big-sized the key phrase...and I also wanted to say this: Anry....I'm not pointing the figure at you alone here. Don't feel singled out. Several people have used that argument.

Thank you for the clarification. I think what it comes down to me is that while I have always ignored QotM, I perceive that there is no difference between that and what shows up in posts. I think the difference is you, John and others see the QotM as something more than that. A lot of posts offends me and much of what John's views are offends me - but I have never asked to be shielded from that (at least not this year ). I fully believe that on a forum like, pretty much anything goes except for blantant personal attacks. Why should anything else be different? If a submitted QotM is deemed too offensive, shouldn't the original post by deleted as well? If not, then that is why I felt hiding the QotM is the best solution. That's all.

Ol' SkyDog - Do you remember some of the old heated conversations with the wigs and perhaps even myself. You know, those times where you explained your feelings/decisions for a while, but eventually you felt like you were just repeating yourself and wasting your time in a never ending debate? Finally, you just walked away from it and left your decision to stand without further discussion/debate. Sometimes as a leader you have to just make decisions without owing anyone an explanation. I feel strongly that this has gotten to that point. May I suggest you let your decision stand on its own merit and you just walk away without further explanation or defense? This board doesn't really want to deal with Ol' SkyDog if he has a new problem with high blood pressure - at least I don't.

That is what I would do if I were you and/or John. You guys have defended this long enough. Now, just do what you want to do and the rest of the board can either like it, adapt to it, or leave if they choose.

HornsManiac

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Thank you for the clarification. I think what it comes down to me is that while I have always ignored QotM, I perceive that there is no difference between that and what shows up in posts. I think the difference is you, John and others see the QotM as something more than that. A lot of posts offends me and much of what John's views are offends me - but I have never asked to be shielded from that (at least not this year ). I fully believe that on a forum like, pretty much anything goes except for blantant personal attacks. Why should anything else be different? If a submitted QotM is deemed too offensive, shouldn't the original post by deleted as well? If not, then that is why I felt hiding the QotM is the best solution. That's all.

And I have no idea why I'm going to post this once again. The QOTM is NOT just like any other post. A regular post does not show up on the top of every screen your on. A regular post is given in the context of the discussion, not completely ripped out (at least for the most part.)

If I went to another site, and that had something that showed up at the top of every page, I would think, "that must be what this site is all about or what they value." If it were on a messageboard, I would think, "this must be what the posters of this board values."

I think some of the post in the QOTM, ripped out of context, do not represent well this messageboard. Post whatever you want on the board, but something that is going to be on the top of every page you open should be special, or it shouldn't be there at all.

[Anrhydeddu]

GD, I know I haven't been clear and it seems I'm stuck on my opinion but I agree with you 100%. That is why I believe that the default skins should not have QotM. This feature should only be user-chosen and available for 'insiders' who know what to expect of this mess. I have always made it clear that, for I, do not want to see any of them and I don't think our visitors should either. I just believe that no amount of moderation will make it 'clean' enough. Therefore, might as well as not piss off the locals too much and let them have their vulgar fun (within reason, of course, as SD and now Galt have been doing).

[Subby]

All of this flaming is giving me a huge fucking erection...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I'm sure I'm going to regret entering this discussion ...

Actually, I don't think you will.

That's because, while we seem to be set 180 degrees apart on what constitutes "good judgement", at least we seem to agree that it's a pretty vital component of assessing the value of a person's opinion.

And we seem to be in basic agreement that it's not wholly realistic to try to separate someone's beliefs/actions from the person themselves.

And I'd even wager a small amount that we agree on something along the lines of valuing the courage of one's convictions.

We may think the other is sadly and/or sickeningly misguided on any number of things, but it seems we can at least understand the approach we take when dealing with the conflicts that arise from the disagreement.

And, for me at least, that's a heckuva lot better than not even being able to fathom how on earth some approaches are conceived. (Yeah, it's a faint positive, but at least its something)

[dawgfan]

Jon, I appreciate that you are able to find positives. I agree that courage of convictions is something to celebrate. One question though - to what extent have you determined the convictions that rule your philosophies; in other words, what is there in your opinions that is still open to debate, where you have an opinion but you acknowledge that your opinion could change based on more information?

My point being, another trait I value in people is an open mind and the flexibility to acknowledge errors in judgement and the courage to change a previously firmly-held belief in the wake of new evidence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

dawgfan - Fair enough question, with an answer that is probably going to sound very unsatisfactory unless I'm able to type it the way I'm actually thinking of it.

Virtually anything is subject to review & revision upon receipt of new evidence. That review/revise process particularly shows up in cases where new factors are introduced. The best I can come up with would is a fantasy-type scenario, but maybe it'll illustrate the point -- I'm about a fervent supporter of capital punishment as you'll find. Let's suppose someone invents a magic pill that produces the same 0% recidivsm rate in offenders. While that might not eliminate my support of the method (as it still produces the same desired effect), it would be very likely to reduce my resistance to its limitation since there's an alternative means to acheive the same result.

Sheesh, that turned out to be a long-winded hypothetical, but maybe it worked out okay.

Anyhow, my point is that anything is theoretically possible, so anything is subject to revision.

[astralhaze]

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any worse...

[Butter]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
And I have seen precious little evidence that those who subscribe to the tenets of the far left possess the judgemental ability to perform those duties capably and fairly on a consistent basis. The sincerity with which they hold to those tenets really doesn't come into play.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all year.

And I read the Cocky & Funny thread.

Hope that your feelings of moral superiority comfort you at night.

[Mountain]

You can say all you want to about John Galt. Many of the things he beleives in are disturbing to me personally but I'll say this about him, he is always polite, he argues his points intelligently, and is always willing to enteretain the other side's viewpoint in a debate. To me those are qualities that you want in a moderator. John Galt is not going to dismiss someone's concerns out of hand. He is going to deliberate and investigate the issue. What is the problem with that?

And despite what everyone here says, it is obvious that some of the QOTM material has caused distress to the members of this board, thereofer it either needs elimination or moderation. Since elimination is a pretty extreme step, what's wrong with trying moderation for a while. If it still doesn't work for people, then eliminate.

And for all you conservative thinkers out their patting yourselves on the back for having such independent ideas, what exactly does a "dittohead" mean?