Spoiler from the Web site

[peacock2121]

I object to a post by a regular poster being changed by anyone but the original poster.

I know this is not my bored.

I also know it is not any of the moderators bored except tubadave.

No one is the 'bad form' police, or the 'truth' police or the 'good taste' police.

Having censorship be okay to save someone being spoiled about an upcoming show is weighing things in a way I don't weight them.

Saving people from yelling "Please don't spoil" by having someone censor a post is overkill and unnecessary use of power.

So just curious....

I have on numerous occasions spoilerized game posts for people who have forgotten to do so..... even in games that I am not running....

Other than the fact that Bob apparently had to take informtion that should have been spoilerized out of the subject header, what I have done is really no different....

So, have I been abusing my power as well?

lb13

You are - make a rule that if people don't spoilerize, they don't get points. Make it okay not to spoilerize. I don't care one way or the other. I do care about having posts changed by anyone other than the poster.

It is unnecessary use of power - I avoided using the words 'abuse of power', as that indicates something I do not think is in the mind of the power user.

[secondchance]

the view from here...

i don't see it as censorship- rather more of a patch, prophylactic in nature, of dutiful concern during the commission of significant ontopicosity.

but what do i know.

[kayrharris]

I feel like I've drifted over to the J! board.......

[peacock2121]

I feel like I've drifted over to the J! board.......

They got overactive censors there too?

[Jeemie]

harm: more people wonder if their posts will be edited

I harp about censorship on boards all throughout the Internet.

Let me say in this specific instance, I do not see this as a "likely harm".

I think everybody can see that this was a highly specialized incident- spoilers- which has a long Bored History.

[peacock2121]

harm: more people wonder if their posts will be edited

I harp about censorship on boards all throughout the Internet.

Let me say in this specific instance, I do not see this as a "likely harm".

I think everybody can see that this was a highly specialized incident- spoilers- which has a long Bored History.

Line in the sand.

It is censorship and not be acknowledged as such. It is being defended and people saying it is okay does not change that it is censorship.

I have been asked to spoilerize things and been shown where I had my head up my butt about such things. I have no problem with that - I have a problem with someone changing my words - it just should not happen. Plain and simple. And it should not happen to those around me.

[Jeemie]

Line in the sand.

It is censorship and not be acknowledged as such. It is being defended and people saying it is okay does not change that it is censorship.

I have been asked to spoilerize things and been shown where I had my head up my butt about such things. I have no problem with that - I have a problem with someone changing my words - it just should not happen. Plain and simple. And it should not happen to those around me.

So all the nudity should have been kept on the boards, then.

Removing people's posts is changing them.

Thank you for playing.

Sorry- I'm a realist, not an idealist.

I do not believe in slippery slope arguments unless they're absolutely shown to be warranted.

[peacock2121]

Line in the sand.

It is censorship and not be acknowledged as such. It is being defended and people saying it is okay does not change that it is censorship.

I have been asked to spoilerize things and been shown where I had my head up my butt about such things. I have no problem with that - I have a problem with someone changing my words - it just should not happen. Plain and simple. And it should not happen to those around me.

So all the nudity should have been kept on the boards, then.

Removing people's posts is changing them.

Thank you for playing.

Sorry- I'm a realist, not an idealist.

I do not believe in slippery slope arguments unless they're absolutely shown to be warranted.

Quite being an asshole.

I have said in all of my posts that this is my stance for regular posters.

[gsabc]

A brief hijacking of the censorship thread to discuss the original post subject (I know, how dare I try to stay on topic?):

Spoiler

The players are an interesting trio. All men, at least two of which appear to be MAWGs, or near enough to not make any difference. Kinda gives me hope.

As for the question shown, IMO you'd have to be a fairly frequent movie viewer to have seen those three flicks. Or else an extreme player of "six degrees of separation".

I am curious to find out how that question was listed in the topic tree. Have we seen an "Odd Couple" topic high on the list?

[plasticene]

Line in the sand.

It is censorship and not be acknowledged as such. It is being defended and people saying it is okay does not change that it is censorship.

I have been asked to spoilerize things and been shown where I had my head up my butt about such things. I have no problem with that - I have a problem with someone changing my words - it just should not happen. Plain and simple. And it should not happen to those around me.

So all the nudity should have been kept on the boards, then.

Removing people's posts is changing them.

Thank you for playing.

Sorry- I'm a realist, not an idealist.

I do not believe in slippery slope arguments unless they're absolutely shown to be warranted.

Quite being an asshole.

I have said in all of my posts that this is my stance for regular posters.

But, but... I normally don't get involved in these arguments, and I certainly don't agree with Jeemie all that often, but I think he's completely right in this case. Neither porn spam nor blatant spoilers in thread titles are going to have a major effect on my life, but I'd really rather do without both.

Porn spam should be dispatched with extreme prejudice; if someone puts a spoiler directly into a subject line, I think it's appropriate that a moderator deal with it in precisely the way Bob did. The minimal harm done to the original poster is more than offset by the benefit to the rest of the Bored. Especially since the original poster is free to restore the original subject if he or she felt it was important.

Surely you agree that if I were to, say, post all the answers to today's LS game in the subject line of a new thread, it would be wrong for the moderators to let that stand. If you do agree, then where exactly would you have the line be drawn? For me, the line is somewhere on the other side of Bob's actions.

[MarleysGh0st]

A brief hijacking of the censorship thread to discuss the original post subject (I know, how dare I try to stay on topic?):

Spoiler

The players are an interesting trio. All men, at least two of which appear to be MAWGs, or near enough to not make any difference. Kinda gives me hope.

As for the question shown, IMO you'd have to be a fairly frequent movie viewer to have seen those three flicks. Or else an extreme player of "six degrees of separation".

I am curious to find out how that question was listed in the topic tree. Have we seen an "Odd Couple" topic high on the list?

In response to your ontopicosity:

Spoiler

A search of the BBTranscriptTeam postings does not show "Odd Couple" appearing in the topic trees. That might still be a recycled question with a modified topic descriptor.

[peacock2121]

So all the nudity should have been kept on the boards, then.

Removing people's posts is changing them.

Thank you for playing.

Sorry- I'm a realist, not an idealist.

I do not believe in slippery slope arguments unless they're absolutely shown to be warranted.

Quite being an asshole.

I have said in all of my posts that this is my stance for regular posters.

But, but... I normally don't get involved in these arguments, and I certainly don't agree with Jeemie all that often, but I think he's completely right in this case. Neither porn spam nor blatant spoilers in thread titles are going to have a major effect on my life, but I'd really rather do without both.

Porn spam should be dispatched with extreme prejudice; if someone puts a spoiler directly into a subject line, I think it's appropriate that a moderator deal with it in precisely the way Bob did. The minimal harm done to the original poster is more than offset by the benefit to the rest of the Bored. Especially since the original poster is free to restore the original subject if he or she felt it was important.

Surely you agree that if I were to, say, post all the answers to today's LS game in the subject line of a new thread, it would be wrong for the moderators to let that stand. If you do agree, then where exactly would you have the line be drawn? For me, the line is somewhere on the other side of Bob's actions.

I don't agree. I would rather have a conversation with you about wtf is going on that you would do that - so what that a day's LS got ruined? really.

If whoever had posted the topless border police photos had not spoilerized it - I would have wanted someone to request that the poster do it - not have one of the moderators use their power to do so.

We are adults here - we are not children who need our mommys or daddys to fix whatever mess we made. We have the ability to fix it ourselves.

I know this is not my bored. I know I can leave at any time. I also know that I will not stay and be silent about things that really are not okay with me.

This is the third time I know this has happened when it was not needed. It is not okay with me.

[Jeemie]

Quite being an asshole.

I have said in all of my posts that this is my stance for regular posters.

Not being an asshole- I skimmed- I missed the word "regular".

However, my objection to your objection stands.

I don't believe in absolute lines in the sand- especially when it can be clearly shown that no harm was intended by this action.

It's also not censorship.

Nobody's ideas were suppressed.

Nobody's thoughts were changed.

There's no slippery slope.

And lastly, no mod is acting like a "mommy" or "daddy", cleaning up the "kids'" messes.

[Bob78164]

If whoever had posted the topless border police photos had not spoilerized it - I would have wanted someone to request that the poster do it - not have one of the moderators use their power to do so.

Actually, this is an instance where I would almost certainly intervene to add Spoiler tags. I see this hypothetical as more clear cut than the action I actually took. People can get into honest-to-goodness real-world workplace trouble if they get surprised by such stuff. Our community's comfort level with the free flow of discussion is important. But so are people's jobs. And any harm done to that flow of ideas by a moderator's intervention to add Spoiler tags is almost certainly outweighed by the benefit to the flow of ideas generated by people knowing that they can, with relative safety, access the Bored from work as well as at home.

A much weaker version of the same principle applies here, by the way. If people start worrying that by visiting the Bored, they will be involuntarily exposed to information that they would rather not have, that's a disincentive to visit. And if people (not just regular posters, but lurkers) have a reason to stay away, that effect hurts the free flow of ideas.

More generally, it's clear that this is a thing for Pea and she's not going to change her mind about it nor will she suffer the community's contrary consensus (in this instance) in silence. There's nothing wrong with that. I know that as a moderator, I find such reminders valuable even where, as here, I remain comfortable with my actions.

So even though I disagree with Pea in this instance, I'm glad that she and others spoke up and hope they continue to do so when they don't like how the moderators act. I know that I pay attention, even when I don't agree. For example, I'm fairly sure that if the original spoiler post had come from Pea, rather than a relative newbie who probably simply didn't know any better, I would have let it go with a simple suggestion that she spoilerize appropriately. --Bob

[Estonut]

For example, I'm fairly sure that if the original spoiler post had come from Pea, rather than a relative newbie who probably simply didn't know any better, I would have let it go with a simple suggestion that she spoilerize appropriately. --Bob

Wasn't the crux of your original defense related to the fact that the poster wouldn't receive such a suggestion in time to possibly correct the post before the rest of us were spoiled? Why go back on that now?

[Bob78164]

For example, I'm fairly sure that if the original spoiler post had come from Pea, rather than a relative newbie who probably simply didn't know any better, I would have let it go with a simple suggestion that she spoilerize appropriately. --Bob

Wasn't the crux of your original defense related to the fact that the poster wouldn't receive such a suggestion in time to possibly correct the post before the rest of us were spoiled? Why go back on that now?

Because (a) Pea's been around long enough that if she did such a thing, it probably wasn't inadvertent, and (b) my guess was that Millionaire Fan would not/did not mind my intervention, whereas there's no doubt in my mind that Pea would mind a lot. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

I see this hypothetical as more clear cut than the action I actually took. --Bob

I disagree that the action you took was clear cut. Four (five now, counting me) have entered objections.

[SportsFan68]

People can get into honest-to-goodness real-world workplace trouble if they get surprised by such stuff.

People, including me, can get into honest-to-goodness real-world workplace trouble just for posting on this Bored during work time. I think most recognize that and take precautions which would obtain in the case of "such stuff."

[a1mamacat]

One thing I would know.


Of the listed moderators, how many have actually utilized the mod powers to edit others posts, and how often. It would appear that only a select group seem to feel the need to edit.

Please note I do not refer to the deletion of obvious spam.

[SportsFan68]

Our community's comfort level with the free flow of discussion is important. But so are people's jobs.

That's not up to you, Bob. We do not put that in your hands.

[SportsFan68]

And any harm done to that flow of ideas by a moderator's intervention to add Spoiler tags is almost certainly outweighed by the benefit to the flow of ideas generated by people knowing that they can, with relative safety, access the Bored from work as well as at home.

I couldn't disagree more, and I've heard many times about personal responsibility on this Bored. It is not up to you to protect our jobs. It's up to us.

[SportsFan68]

A much weaker version of the same principle applies here, by the way. If people start worrying that by visiting the Bored, they will be involuntarily exposed to information that they would rather not have, that's a disincentive to visit. And if people (not just regular posters, but lurkers) have a reason to stay away, that effect hurts the free flow of ideas.

If there was ever a disincentive to visit, it was the proliferation of political posts last October. None of it hurt the free flow of ideas -- they flowed and flowed and flowed . . . from my pen too. OK, my electrons.

I submit that people were involuntarily exposed to information that they would rather not have. And several of them said so. And they're still here.

[SportsFan68]

More generally, it's clear that this is a thing for Pea and she's not going to change her mind about it nor will she suffer the community's contrary consensus (in this instance) in silence.

What consensus contrary to Pea's? There isn't one. Majority opinion supports her position, not yours.

As far as I can tell, consensus is for you to quit moderating posts unless you get permission first.

[SportsFan68]

. . . I would have let it go with a simple suggestion that she spoilerize appropriately. --Bob

An excellent plan.

[christie1111]

Our community's comfort level with the free flow of discussion is important. But so are people's jobs.

That's not up to you, Bob. We do not put that in your hands.

Very true.

We are all adults here. I prefer to be treated like one.