Poll on moderators actions

[plasticene]

What's the point of having moderators if they can't moderate? Besides cluttering up the top of the page with a thousand stickies, that is.

Speaking of which, why is SSS's solved puzzle still a sticky eight days after the last post? Moderators, do your jobs!

[Bob78164]

None of this matters anyway because, as he has made clear in the past, Bob is going to do whatever Bob wants to do.

This isn't accurate (assuming you're referring to me, and not the other Moderator Bob). I do pay attention to feedback. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother going public on those very rare occasions when I have used the Moderator functions (other than to clean up a typo or error in a Transcript post, which I will admit that I do without flagging the change). --Bob

[tubadave]

I originally saw the thread where Bob made the changes to the header and added the spoiler tags not long after he did so....I think there were only three posts in the thread at the time. To be honest, I didn't think twice about it. No changes of substance were made to the actual post; Bob put the body of the post inside spoiler tags, and removed spoiler information from the Subject line. These actions are in keeping with the long standing Bored traditions of not posting spoiler information, especially spoiler information about the show whose name is represented in the URL of this site. Furthermore, the fact that he announced that he was making changes that were (in my mind) already legitimate makes this a non-issue.

Those with major objections to any actions taken by the admins or moderators should always take those issues up directly with the person in question, but if that doesn't bring you satisfaction, feel free to PM me about it.

This is probably my fault, to some extent....I really need to put a lot of stuff like this in writing...."Administrators and Moderators may alter posts for the following reasons:" or something like that. If I ever manage to get done implementing a new Chat system, I might have to look into that.

What's the point of having moderators if they can't moderate?

There is some truth to that statement. I wonder how many of you spend a lot of time on other internet forums...believe me when I tell you that this is one of the least-moderated forums out there. However, be that as it may, the issue of what should and should not be moderated can still be debated, which goes back to my previous statement about how I should have put all this in writing to begin with.

Speaking of which, why is SSS's solved puzzle still a sticky eight days after the last post? Moderators, do your jobs!

Done.

[MarleysGh0st]

Those with major objections to any actions taken by the admins or moderators should always take those issues up directly with the person in question, but if that doesn't bring you satisfaction, feel free to PM me about it.

PM you?

And deny the rest of the Bored the pleasure of a lengthy debate?

[tubadave]

Those with major objections to any actions taken by the admins or moderators should always take those issues up directly with the person in question, but if that doesn't bring you satisfaction, feel free to PM me about it.

PM you?

And deny the rest of the Bored the pleasure of a lengthy debate?

As if the Bored would ever pass up a lengthy debate. I meant afterwards.

[TheCalvinator24]

I don't watch the show any more. I tried when I first got my DVR, but it has become unwatchable for me. Although I'm sure ne1410s would have loved for Marcus Schick to have been on a time clock, to me, the clock has ruined the game.

That said, removing spoilers in a subject heading and placing spoiler text in a spoiler tag are absolutely legitimate Moderator functions. Although the "No Spoilers" rule may be unwritten at the moment, it is well-established. Just for comparison purposes, if one posts Spoilers in subject headings on the J! Boards, it may result in a ban.

[MarleysGh0st]

Those with major objections to any actions taken by the admins or moderators should always take those issues up directly with the person in question, but if that doesn't bring you satisfaction, feel free to PM me about it.

PM you?

And deny the rest of the Bored the pleasure of a lengthy debate?

As if the Bored would ever pass up a lengthy debate. I meant afterwards.

Oh. But why would we need to get your attention with a PM if we've already filled a couple of lengthy threads with the topic?

I do understand taking the PM route, if it's more of a private complaint than a philosophical issue regarding Bored culture.

[Ritterskoop]

OK. Here's what I meant to say in the original thread but did not know it was what I wanted to say.

Deep down, I do not care that Millionaire Fan's post was altered. It was probably a service to do so. I do not care about spoilers anymore because I rarely watch the show anymore.

What troubled me was that it raised the possibility that one of MY posts might be altered. It was about my liberty.

Now that I see that is unlikely, since Bob said or implied he would have been less likely (or unlikely) to alter Pea's post if she made a mistake, and I must presume, mine and also other long-standing posters. Probably we wold intend whatever we said to be in the open or not, rather than do something wrong by not knowing the etiquette.

Since I have less interest in protesting a possible slight to someone I don't know who may not have taken offense (Millionaire Fan), my concern for injustice is lessened. Partly because it is not about me (though I would always fight for a clear injustice toward someone else), and partly because Millionaire Fan has said nothing to indicate s/he cares one way or the other.

I agree this is a lightly-moderated board compared to most, but that has been what we treasure about it. Balancing the wish for that environment to stay as is against the realities of spoilers and porn and all that will now and then result in a little ruffling of feathers.

My feathers are back where they started, thank you.

[Beebs52]

I was a "no" voter--except for porn/spam.

I realize that this isn't my board and one could kick me out at one's leisure, sort of like an hire at-will state with workers.

While I realize that the spoiler correction is no big thing in the grand scheme of things, I don't like the fact that someone is "correcting" punctuation or spelling or something, even if it is in a transcript. Do I now have to go back to old posts to see if I've been rotorootered grammatically or parenthetically?
I don't believe the moderators have any desire to do that, but the fact that it has been done in even small ways rather irritates me.

You'll recall there were grotesqueries of the first order on past boreds that never got "moderated" unless the poster deleted them themselves. There is always the PM to the poster before performing the surgery.

wot if i wont tu spel stuf wrong.

[Bob78164]

I don't like the fact that someone is "correcting" punctuation or spelling or something, even if it is in a transcript.

I have not and would not correct apparent textual errors in other posts.

I consider the Transcript threads a special case, not merely for their functionality (people do use them to study for the test), but also because I'm using the Moderator functions as a matter of convenience, not necessity. I have the password for the Transcript ID, so I could make the corrections even if I were not a moderator.

And sometimes what I correct is an incorrect answer or an incorrect report of the contestant's choice, not a mere typo in the question or answer. I don't think I've made similar corrections in the transcriber's commentary (unless it was one of the few episodes I've transcribed). --Bob

[gotribego26]

What troubled me was that it raised the possibility that one of MY posts might be altered. It was about my liberty.

I've only met one of our moderators in person - but I trust the judgement of any of them if they feel I've posted outside the "norms" of this community. This idea is even stronger if they put my words behind spolier tags, eliminate header spoilers and explain their actions. If I disagree I can wrok with them through PMs and I ultimately retain the right to re-edit MY post. If we had a troll come and post transcripts as headers would you tell the moderators not to deal with that poster. If skoop or I (or any other regular poster) made an honest mistake, I expect they will "moderate" that post.

I agree this is a lightly-moderated board compared to most, but that has been what we treasure about it. Balancing the wish for that environment to stay as is against the realities of spoilers and porn and all that will now and then result in a little ruffling of feathers.

I don't give crap about the level of moderation - what I value is that we are a community - with norms & values that are generally observed. Having moderators that care enough about those without a heavy hand is what I treasure.

Spoiler

Do I get any points for avoiding the "Bored Pub" metaphor for this post?

[BigDrawMan]

tptb can edit all non-bdm posts at their pleasure.

[DevilKitty100]

I was a "no" voter--except for porn/spam.

I realize that this isn't my board and one could kick me out at one's leisure, sort of like an hire at-will state with workers.

While I realize that the spoiler correction is no big thing in the grand scheme of things, I don't like the fact that someone is "correcting" punctuation or spelling or something, even if it is in a transcript. Do I now have to go back to old posts to see if I've been rotorootered grammatically or parenthetically?
I don't believe the moderators have any desire to do that, but the fact that it has been done in even small ways rather irritates me.

You'll recall there were grotesqueries of the first order on past boreds that never got "moderated" unless the poster deleted them themselves. There is always the PM to the poster before performing the surgery.

wot if i wont tu spel stuf wrong.

I expressed early on that I didn't give a rat's patootie if BobIGottaDoItOrIllDie spoilerized a post, but I am a lot more bothered by other issues as Beebs stated above about someone nitpicking my grammar or content. Sometimes I'm clear on what I want to say, other times I probably GW my intent. Whichever way it comes out, that's the way I want it left.......cast in stone unless I change it.

An example of this is months and months ago Kay and I were going back and forth about colorizing text and I threw out some stupid, incoherent crap just as a joke and to demonstrate my own ineptitude. Well, guess what? Next morning all my mistakes were fixed, the color of the text was as probably as someone had "thought" I wanted them to be, but THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. Thereby, my meaning and intent were completely altered. PISSED ME OFF! I decided in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't worth getting ruffled about and starting a brouhaha, but maybe it was.

My position is leave my crap alone, don't check on my IP address and don't worry about whether I'll be employed tomorrow. The checking IP addresses really, really, really irks me and frosts my toenails. Ain't nobody's business what I'm doin' unless I'm doin' it to them or causing harm to someone else. I enjoy this place. As I've said before, I usually keep it open in a window all day and peek in when I can although I rarely log in unless I want to post. And if I do that, I want to have enough time to hang around and respond. And strangely enough I seem to have enough sense to know the difference. I don't need someone else monitoring my activities.

My question would be, if there really is an OCD need to correct stuff like that, couldn't it be added in a quoted response with full disclosure of "how things should be" and leave the original post in tact?

[plasticene]

I don't like the fact that someone is "correcting" punctuation or spelling or something, even if it is in a transcript.

That just seems nonsensical. What is the value of preserving an error in a transcript for posterity? I often wish that I had the ability to edit them; egregious errors that get pointed out in subsequent posts often never get corrected in the original, so I'm certainly not going to point out a minor error that I could (and would) just silently fix if I had the authority. I think it's valuable to have transcripts that are as error-free as possible, but I don't want to harangue the team members for every little typo.

Changing the subject: Why is it that all the most vocal opponents of this style of moderating are female? Do we need to add some female moderators to make sure this point of view is represented?

[Bob78164]

An example of this is months and months ago Kay and I were going back and forth about colorizing text and I threw out some stupid, incoherent crap just as a joke and to demonstrate my own ineptitude. Well, guess what? Next morning all my mistakes were fixed, the color of the text was as probably as someone had "thought" I wanted them to be, but THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. Thereby, my meaning and intent were completely altered. PISSED ME OFF! I decided in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't worth getting ruffled about and starting a brouhaha, but maybe it was.

I don't know who did this, and if it occurred before Dave remodeled we probably can't find out. I can tell you, though, that it wasn't me. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

I don't like the fact that someone is "correcting" punctuation or spelling or something, even if it is in a transcript.

That just seems nonsensical. What is the value of preserving an error in a transcript for posterity? I often wish that I had the ability to edit them; egregious errors that get pointed out in subsequent posts often never get corrected in the original, so I'm certainly not going to point out a minor error that I could (and would) just silently fix if I had the authority. I think it's valuable to have transcripts that are as error-free as possible, but I don't want to harangue the team members for every little typo.

Changing the subject: Why is it that all the most vocal opponents of this style of moderating are female? Do we need to add some female moderators to make sure this point of view is represented?

That came up right away, Plasticene, and nothing ever came of it. To show that I'm willing to put my foot in my mouth . . . er, my money where my mouth is, or something, I'll volunteer to be the token femme on the moderator list.

I can nominate other suitable folkses too, since they're already on the list over at the FNGD section.

[plasticene]

My question would be, if there really is an OCD need to correct stuff like that, couldn't it be added in a quoted response with full disclosure of "how things should be" and leave the original post intact?

Now that I completely agree with. "Fixing" an individual's post that way is creepy and out of bounds. (By the way, I fixed the last word in the quoted section. You're welcome. )

[DevilKitty100]

An example of this is months and months ago Kay and I were going back and forth about colorizing text and I threw out some stupid, incoherent crap just as a joke and to demonstrate my own ineptitude. Well, guess what? Next morning all my mistakes were fixed, the color of the text was as probably as someone had "thought" I wanted them to be, but THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. Thereby, my meaning and intent were completely altered. PISSED ME OFF! I decided in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't worth getting ruffled about and starting a brouhaha, but maybe it was.

I don't know who did this, and if it occurred before Dave remodeled we probably can't find out. I can tell you, though, that it wasn't me. --Bob

I suspect it was well before the remodel. I threw that out there as an example of good intentions gone awry........at least I think it was good intentions. That was why I decided to let it drop.

Admittedly, you were at the top of the suspect list. So since it wasn't you, somebody better 'fess up! Just kidding, don't really care who did it, but I'd not like to see it happen again.

[DevilKitty100]

My question would be, if there really is an OCD need to correct stuff like that, couldn't it be added in a quoted response with full disclosure of "how things should be" and leave the original post intact?

Now that I completely agree with. "Fixing" an individual's post that way is creepy and out of bounds. (By the way, I fixed the last word in the quoted section. You're welcome. )

I like that in a man........one who gets it.

[DevilKitty100]

And since we're all in such a fix it mode, in the name of all that's holy, couldn't we have a reference section on how to spell a few simple words. My first nomination is:

DEFINITELY. It's not definately, not definetly, not defntly......not anything but definitely.

And while it's open to other useage, "cannot" is most usually one word. Is it not, grammarians?

Others?

[clem21]

Brouhaha is a funny word.

Ostentatious is a funny word.

Craps is not a bad word but Crap is.

That is all.

[Beebs52]

I don't like the fact that someone is "correcting" punctuation or spelling or something, even if it is in a transcript.

That just seems nonsensical. What is the value of preserving an error in a transcript for posterity? I often wish that I had the ability to edit them; egregious errors that get pointed out in subsequent posts often never get corrected in the original, so I'm certainly not going to point out a minor error that I could (and would) just silently fix if I had the authority. I think it's valuable to have transcripts that are as error-free as possible, but I don't want to harangue the team members for every little typo.

Changing the subject: Why is it that all the most vocal opponents of this style of moderating are female? Do we need to add some female moderators to make sure this point of view is represented?

I'll call your nonsensical and raise you an OCD. Having OCD'ers in the family and all. I find it nonsensical that one feels compelled to correct PUNCTUATION or similar items in someone else's post regardless. That is obsession and compulsion. It also adds nothing substantive to a post made by someone else. If the transcripts are not pristine as the driven snow, who gives a rat's patoot? Incorrect information will be fleshed out eventually anyway.

And I find your question about the vocal opponents odd. Perhaps it's an erroneous statistical sampling of the bored population. Those who really don't give a shit aren't even responding.

Egregious errors? Oh dear. Egregious errors in a transcript! What IS this world coming to. I would assume if it's that egregious most of us know the answer is wrong or misrepresented anyway. I personally am not relying on transcripts to guide my life path, Bamwise or otherwise.

[kayrharris]

An example of this is months and months ago Kay and I were going back and forth about colorizing text and I threw out some stupid, incoherent crap just as a joke and to demonstrate my own ineptitude. Well, guess what? Next morning all my mistakes were fixed, the color of the text was as probably as someone had "thought" I wanted them to be, but THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. Thereby, my meaning and intent were completely altered. PISSED ME OFF! I decided in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't worth getting ruffled about and starting a brouhaha, but maybe it was.

I don't know who did this, and if it occurred before Dave remodeled we probably can't find out. I can tell you, though, that it wasn't me. --Bob

I suspect it was well before the remodel. I threw that out there as an example of good intentions gone awry........at least I think it was good intentions. That was why I decided to let it drop.

Admittedly, you were at the top of the suspect list. So since it wasn't you, somebody better 'fess up! Just kidding, don't really care who did it, but I'd not like to see it happen again.

I wasn't going to post in this thread....I've been very good. I had forgotten about that incident and I'm not sure I even remember how to post in color now - oh yeah, it's a lot easier now - however, if it pissed off DK, then it did me too. Just sayin'.....

[littlebeast13]

I don't know who did this, and if it occurred before Dave remodeled we probably can't find out. I can tell you, though, that it wasn't me. --Bob

I suspect it was well before the remodel. I threw that out there as an example of good intentions gone awry........at least I think it was good intentions. That was why I decided to let it drop.

Admittedly, you were at the top of the suspect list. So since it wasn't you, somebody better 'fess up! Just kidding, don't really care who did it, but I'd not like to see it happen again.

I wasn't going to post in this thread....I've been very good. I had forgotten about that incident and I'm not sure I even remember how to post in color now - oh yeah, it's a lot easier now - however, if it pissed off DK, then it did me too. Just sayin'.....

Thank goodness! At least something's gone right......

lb13

[Bob78164]

If the transcripts are not pristine as the driven snow, who gives a rat's patoot? Incorrect information will be fleshed out eventually anyway.

But the point of the BBTranscriptTeam handle and the Transcript Forum is to collect it all in one place. So if people (including those, like me, who take the test once a year or more -- remember the test largely consists of questions that have appeared on the show) have to go scrolling through threads to confirm that the answers given are correct, that defeats the purpose.

So to answer your question, I know that I give a rat's patoot if the transcripts are inaccurate, and I'm pretty sure that quite a few other would-be contestants care as well. I make no apologies for correcting transcript posts under the BBTranscriptTeam handle. --Bob