Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    27,278

    Let's Talk About Moderation

    Let's talk about moderation and whether or not it is working as intended. I received an infraction that was unjustified. How anyone came to the conclusion it was "baiting" and inappropriate is beyond me. I'd really like to understand the logic behind the infraction. Someone in the Mets' forum asked why I was infracted, FanofClendennon responded with the claim he was "attacked":

    i was talking about how i thought it was illogical it was to bring up Ty Kelly instead of McNeil and concluded my post with "What am I missing?" He proceeded to attack me without making an argument. That was baiting 101. Good job Mods. -- FanofClendenon
    Here's my response to FoC's question, "What am I missing?" for which I was infracted. Ironically, it's still live. I thought offensive posts were routinely removed?

    “Logic. Knowledge. Experience. But mostly perspective.” -- Dugmet
    My response to FoC's question was an outline -- a short but to the point summary of "what he was missing". Disagreements about logic, knowledge, experience, and perspective form the basis of pretty much every debate on PSD.

    • Logic: All of us have disagreed with each other's logic from time to time..
    • Knowledge: Many arguments are based on knowledge - knowledge of statistics, knowledge of information, knowledge of history, etc.
    • Experience: Opinions are often based on experience. None of us that I know of have front office experience running or managing a MLB team..
    • Perspective: Perspective is a matter of vantage point, philosophical or physical. Fans have one perspective. A front office may have another.


    Here is a post that uses logic, knowledge, experience, and perspective to contradict the original post. The difference between this post and mine is detail. Nothing else. Just detail.

    It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong here. First he wasnt a top 100 prospect, then he sucks (you don't know that), then he wasn't a good return (multiple baseball publication guys disagree), etc. You're going a long way in a backtracking loop. – Metswon69
    In the past FoC has claimed brevity is passive-aggressiveness - that disagreements require longer explanations. Sorry, I did not know a Wikipedia article was needed to avoid an infraction. I've explained to ToC that sometimes time and circumstance does not permit longer explanations. Here's a recent response by Rush:

    What a ridiculous statement.-- Rush
    Infractible?

    For the sake of argument, let's agree that my post was a "micro-aggression". First, I thought PSD was moving away from over-modding. Second, there have been dozens of posts during the past month that seem more aggressive than my "micro-indiscretion" and yet there is no evidence that any action was taken:

    Here's a string of posts all by the same poster in one forum and within the past 4-6 weeks. I'm not reporting him. I am substantiating my claim that the moderation is still inconsistent, biased, and petty:

    • Plz seek help -- Spliff(Tone)
    • Please exit this thread and never come back, okay?
    • Oh the sad little things you pathetically hang on to and attempt to twist in to something that doesn't make you look like a buffoon.
    • Good to see you clowns flocking together.
    • Yeah....no. I'd prefer to have zero association with you and your little support group. Clown gang seems fairly appropriate for y'all though. Good choice.
    • Seems like you’re the one making the biggest deal out of this. I hope he keeps doing dumb ****. Makes me laugh at how ridiculous people can be, including you defending him.
    • STFU already. Like skipping record of an album that wasn't even good in the first place.
    Worse, Spliff appears to have a personal moderator - someone to sanitize his posts -- even though what remains could still constitute a personal attack. That is a sweet deal!

    • Holy ****....the gibberish you spew out is ****ing mind numbing. I think it's high time someone tells mommy to put you on an internet timeout.
      Last edited by Rush; 08-16-2018 at 05:12 PM. Reason: Edited out last sentence
    • Dude: take a good look at yourself in the mirror
      Last edited by Rush; Yesterday at 01:33 PM. Reason: Not needed
    Yet somehow, the League of Moderators voted and decided this post was baiting:

    “Logic. Knowledge. Experience. But mostly perspective.” -- Dugmet
    What logic supported your decision? Can you please explain? It's also discouraging when any member of the League of Moderators doesn't seem to follow the same rules they apply to others. How are these statements not "micro-aggressions"?

    What the hell are you talking about? Bautista is making the league minimum and the prospect the Mets got back in the deal for Cabrera a Baseball Prospectus top 100 prospect the last 3 years. – Metswon69
    So? Baseball Prospectus is a respected publication. Its not Bleacher Report. Ok, Nostradamus. Way to throw **** around when you were completely wrong about the Mets not getting anything legitimate for Cabrera. – Metswon69
    "Ok, Nostradamus"? We all know this sounds sardonic. Not to mention, there’s plenty of antagonistic posts in the Mets forum that appear to be mod-approved because mods are engaged in the same discussions.

    • Look who's back to ******** on posters again. So fragile. – JoeGamer81
    • Bull. ****. Revisionist history garbage. – JoeGamer81
    • Those quips must be hitting home. Anyway, enjoy the mediocrity of your arguments. I know I have. – JoeGamer81
    Here’s one directed at Claymation. Clearly antagonistic but no penalty?

    Another one right over your head. Go back to sleep. — JoeGamer81
    Here are two directed at Mettswon69. Again antagonistic, but no penalty again?

    • Of course you'd say that. It's not a full day until metswon says something ridiculous. -- JoeGamer81
    • Utter nonsense, as usual. First of all, I already said that Wheeler quit. If you could pull your head out from wherever you're currently sticking it, you'd see that.... - JoeGamer81
    Finally, we have the piecé de résistance!

    Maybe the single most ignorant comment I've seen here in the 10 or so years I've been on PSD -- FanofClendenon, September 13.
    I'm confused. Didn't FoC justify the infraction by claiming, "He proceeded to attack me without making an argument." ? But it doesn't really matter what FoC thinks. He is free to report whatever he wants. More concerning is why the moderators decided an infraction was appropriate? I've been trying to point out the grossly inconsistent moderation on PSD for years. It may be time to implement and practice a policy that is consistent and fair.

    Suggestions for improving moderation:

    • Use a analytic rubric to help you avoid subjectivity.
    • Do not allow moderators to vote on infractions in their forum. They bring history and bias to the vote.
    • Allow the "accused" the opportunity to review the moderator discussion about whether or not to infract.
    • Allow the "accused" the opportunity to explain the response under investigation.
    • Provide better explanations for infractions than, " You have been infracted for baiting". That doesn't explain Jack Sprat.


    I think I may be done with PSD as I am not comfortable with people for whom I have no respect to have power over my participation. How people respond to this post will help me make up my mind to stay or go.

    Dug
    Last edited by Dugmet; 09-19-2018 at 01:06 PM.

    The Greatest.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    60ft 6in away
    Posts
    11,015
    The difference is that all of your interactions with other posters are condescending. Most of your posts could be considered baiting or trolling. The rest of us might get heated with each other from time to time, but it mostly blows over and we get back to talking. You're disagreeable or rude 100% of the time.

    You've built no capital with the moderators. I've never seen you talk to one about moderation without impugning their integrity or intelligence. Now you're here trying to throw other posters under the bus with the mods you hate, and you still have the audacity to claim a double-standard.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    27,278
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeGamer81 View Post
    You're disagreeable or rude 100% of the time.
    Joe - how can you make that statement when you claim to filter all of my posts? Anyway, not everyone agrees with you:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    The guy was a chronic bore but I never read anything he said that would get him banned. He was always polite.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmaster52 View Post
    I actually like Dug. His weird middle ground perspectives and his dislike to criticize is refreshing at least. Nice guy to say the least.
    Last edited by Dugmet; 09-19-2018 at 09:57 AM.

    The Greatest.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    60ft 6in away
    Posts
    11,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    Joe - how can you make that statement when you claim to filter all of my posts? Anyway, not everyone agrees with you:
    I do filter all of your posts. But I can't filter the people who quote them, so I see them from time to time. And you're always bad. And wow, you found two people who don't think you're awful 99% of the time. Good for you. As it stands, they're wrong.

    Anyway, enjoy your crusade. I'm sure you'll get far.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    32,762
    The Mets forum is a cess pool
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    32,762
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeGamer81 View Post
    I do filter all of your posts. But I can't filter the people who quote them, so I see them from time to time. And you're always bad. And wow, you found two people who don't think you're awful 99% of the time. Good for you. As it stands, they're wrong.

    Anyway, enjoy your crusade. I'm sure you'll get far.
    This post is worse then the one Dug got banned for.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    41,146
    I dig dugmet.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    27,278
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeGamer81 View Post
    I do filter all of your posts. But I can't filter the people who quote them, so I see them from time to time. And you're always bad. And wow, you found two people who don't think you're awful 99% of the time. Good for you. As it stands, they're wrong.

    Anyway, enjoy your crusade. I'm sure you'll get far.
    Interesting. No one quoted this post or the post on the Mets board. Where did you see it quoted? You were the first. No matter. You're welcome to read and respond as you wish. I was just curious. But what I really want to know is why this...

    “Logic. Knowledge. Experience. But mostly perspective.” -- Dugmet
    ...is baiting. It doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you? Even if we look at it in context:

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...3#post32453903

    Last edited by Dugmet; 09-19-2018 at 04:01 PM.

    The Greatest.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    14,378
    When we discuss infractions, we take into account the poster's extended history, recent history and interactions with the other user(s) that could be involved in the problem. We do not use examples of other posts from other posters, so I will be ignoring just about all of your post.

    The post in question was reported by multiple users and moderators, and was decided, using the parameters above and a group vote as we always do, to hand out the infraction. That's it. Multiple people found it to be baiting for a response.

    The offending post should've been deleted- the mods are not perfect, and with a lot of people moving over to mobile devices/platforms, those moderator tools aren't the best, so someone may have thought they deleted it when they didn't.

    As to your specific requests for moderation:

    Use a analytic rubric to help you avoid subjectivity.

    I have already let you know what we use to decide how to hand out infractions, or decide when to take other actions.

    Do not allow moderators to vote on infractions in their forum. They bring history and bias to the vote.

    This is a hard 'NO'. The Mets forum is one of the largest and most active forums on PSD. You have three moderators assigned there for a reason. If something is happening on the forum and quick action needs to be taken, I will not take that power away from the moderators of that forum.

    On a "normal" situation, there are anywhere from 5-10 admins/super moderators/moderators who weigh in on items before we decide on the course of action. Not all of them are going to be from the forum in question.

    Allow the "accused" the opportunity to review the moderator discussion about whether or not to infract.

    Again, another hard 'NO.' Moderators' jobs are thankless enough, they don't need to be put up for review each time an infraction is handed out for breaking the rules. Even if we were to make them anonymous, people will surely be aware based on wording/sentence structure who it is.

    Allow the "accused" the opportunity to explain the response under investigation.

    This opportunity exists. I believe you reported a post while banned and gave some reasoning. So this can be done by a banned account, as well as when someone returns from a ban. We have, at times, overturned infractions, but that has to be done by an administrator, so only Rush or myself.

    Provide better explanations for infractions than, " You have been infracted for baiting". That doesn't explain Jack Sprat.

    Normally, this is supposed to happen, as well as a thread being started in the VOTB forum with the length and reason of the ban.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    14,378
    Also Dugmet, I apologize for viewing this thread, and not providing a response sooner. I was called into work this morning, and was out at a baseball game and just got home. I did not want you to think I was ignoring this thread.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    27,278
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    When we discuss infractions, we take into account the poster's extended history, recent history and interactions with the other user(s) that could be involved in the problem. We do not use examples of other posts from other posters, so I will be ignoring just about all of your post.
    I asked why the post was baiting and you offer no straight-forward explanation of the semantics - of the language - of the interpretation of intent, etc, as to how the post constituted "baiting" except that it was "baiting for a response".

    Baiting for a response? Every discussion is an exchange of opinions and knowledge. Each post within the discussion is a response to a prior post and an open invitation for a new response. The man asked me a question. I answered it. The logic and language of my response was too the point, not personal, and based on the same standards we all use in to make arguments: logic, knowledge, experience, and perspective.

    Without a proper explanation and without helping me to understand how a very straight-forward and non-confrontational response could be regarded as "baiting" I will never be able to post without wondering if two or more people will report it for whatever fabricated reason they share. There was nothing infractible about the post. If I cannot post reasonable responses without looking over my shoulder and if you are not willing to look at yourself in the mirror then this is no place for me.

    You should look at all posts as a matter of consistency since each post sets an example for all of the community. You don't understand that? I have never posted such direct insults such as the examples I posted. The "worst" may have been calling a poster, "My choochie face" -- which was an attempt to interject humor (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang song) into a tense discussion -- but interpreted otherwise.

    No need for me to continue. I will not let people for whom I have no respect to have any authority over me. I'm going to the Canadian inter-Webs!
    Last edited by Dugmet; 09-20-2018 at 06:38 AM.

    The Greatest.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    41,146
    I don't ever go into the Mets forum, so I have no idea what Dugmet is like in there. In the forums that I post in, I find Dugmet to be a quality poster. Just for the sake of discussion, and I personally don't know if this would even be a good idea, but is there a way to ban posters from the forums that they are a risk in and to continue to let them post in forums that they are productive in? Perhaps it would start more trouble, but it's disappointing to me when I see someone banned who I think is a good poster where I post because they stir up trouble in forums that I do not post in.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    32,762
    Seems Dug isn’t in the cool kids group in the Mets forum but Joe is. I think we should have a full on revolution. Let Dugmet be in charge of the Mets forum


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    14,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Driven View Post
    I don't ever go into the Mets forum, so I have no idea what Dugmet is like in there. In the forums that I post in, I find Dugmet to be a quality poster. Just for the sake of discussion, and I personally don't know if this would even be a good idea, but is there a way to ban posters from the forums that they are a risk in and to continue to let them post in forums that they are productive in? Perhaps it would start more trouble, but it's disappointing to me when I see someone banned who I think is a good poster where I post because they stir up trouble in forums that I do not post in.
    Yes, we've done that on occasion, and the bans have either been temporary or permanent depending on the issues at hand. I agree with you on Dugmet- I've debated with him in multiple forums, and have rarely seen any issues in those interactions......but it's a different story with a handful of forums.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    14,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    I asked why the post was baiting and you offer no straight-forward explanation of the semantics - of the language - of the interpretation of intent, etc, as to how the post constituted "baiting" except that it was "baiting for a response".

    Baiting for a response? Every discussion is an exchange of opinions and knowledge. Each post within the discussion is a response to a prior post and an open invitation for a new response. The man asked me a question. I answered it. The logic and language of my response was too the point, not personal, and based on the same standards we all use in to make arguments: logic, knowledge, experience, and perspective.

    Without a proper explanation and without helping me to understand how a very straight-forward and non-confrontational response could be regarded as "baiting" I will never be able to post without wondering if two or more people will report it for whatever fabricated reason they share. There was nothing infractible about the post. If I cannot post reasonable responses without looking over my shoulder and if you are not willing to look at yourself in the mirror then this is no place for me.

    You should look at all posts as a matter of consistency since each post sets an example for all of the community. You don't understand that? I have never posted such direct insults such as the examples I posted. The "worst" may have been calling a poster, "My choochie face" -- which was an attempt to interject humor (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang song) into a tense discussion -- but interpreted otherwise.

    No need for me to continue. I will not let people for whom I have no respect to have any authority over me. I'm going to the Canadian inter-Webs!
    I honestly took your response as flippant and definitely trolling in the context that you said it. In another context in a different conversation, things might certainly be different.

    If you have issues with certain posters, or know their tendencies to take posts like that the wrong way, i advise not to make them in the future. Any poster who would do that would likely be on my ignore list anyway.

    If you choose to stay or go, that's your choice. I hope you stay, but ultimately you are the one who is going to make that choice.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •