Poll on moderators actions

[Beebs52]

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?

And all right. Not alright.
Except I find I'm wrong about that. Alright is perfectly acceptable. I axed Google web definitions.

[clem21]

So silvercamaro, D'you want to join me in using our AP Stylebooks to demolish every post here by pointing out all the spelling, grammar and style errors?

It would give me some good practice...

[silvercamaro]

So silvercamaro, D'you want to join me in using our AP Stylebooks to demolish every post here by pointing out all the spelling, grammar and style errors?

It would give me some good practice...

I thought about it, but everytime I correct someone using the AP Stylebook as an authoritative source, someone else finds a newer, revised version of the AP Stylebook.

I would fight to the death to avoid ever using "alright," though.

[clem21]

So silvercamaro, D'you want to join me in using our AP Stylebooks to demolish every post here by pointing out all the spelling, grammar and style errors?

It would give me some good practice...

I thought about it, but everytime I correct someone using the AP Stylebook as an authoritative source, someone else finds a newer, revised version of the AP Stylebook.

I would fight to the death to avoid ever using "alright," though.

I have the 2007 version which I got for my first ever journalism class so we can use that. Also, any of my professors would probably fail me straight away if I used "alright."

[Beebs52]

So silvercamaro, D'you want to join me in using our AP Stylebooks to demolish every post here by pointing out all the spelling, grammar and style errors?

It would give me some good practice...

I thought about it, but everytime I correct someone using the AP Stylebook as an authoritative source, someone else finds a newer, revised version of the AP Stylebook.

I would fight to the death to avoid ever using "alright," though.

Thank you! Thank you! It drives me CRAZY!

[Bob Juch]

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

Whoever did that went way over the line. We don't need OCDers tidying up the place - except with transcripts.

[Beebs52]

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

Okay. Bob. I will grant you and others a pass on correcting inaccuracies in actual statements made or answers that are supposed to be right (not that they always are, of course, witness return contestants) in transcript threads. Be that as it may it still irks me that anyone would feel the need to "spiff up" anything else. It's just very Barney Fifeish and annoying and reminiscent of picking hangnails, something that I'm REALLY good at. It's called a bad habit. Not that it matters, because, as I said earlier, I can be bumped regardless since this isn't my website.

Do you "fixers" ever, ever just acknowledge that maybe it's possible you might be over the top at times in nitpickiness? Just like I acknowledge that I am over the top at times at being (insert word here). I really do acknowledge that.

[clem21]

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

Okay. Bob. I will grant you and others a pass on correcting inaccuracies in actual statements made or answers that are supposed to be right (not that they always are, of course, witness return contestants) in transcript threads. Be that as it may it still irks me that anyone would feel the need to "spiff up" anything else. It's just very Barney Fifeish and annoying and reminiscent of picking hangnails, something that I'm REALLY good at. It's called a bad habit. Not that it matters, because, as I said earlier, I can be bumped regardless since this isn't my website.

Do you "fixers" ever, ever just acknowledge that maybe it's possible you might be over the top at times in nitpickiness? Just like I acknowledge that I am over the top at times at being (insert word here). I really do acknowledge that.

Also I believe the correct term is "patootie" though I'll have to check my Stylebook....

[Beebs52]

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

Okay. Bob. I will grant you and others a pass on correcting inaccuracies in actual statements made or answers that are supposed to be right (not that they always are, of course, witness return contestants) in transcript threads. Be that as it may it still irks me that anyone would feel the need to "spiff up" anything else. It's just very Barney Fifeish and annoying and reminiscent of picking hangnails, something that I'm REALLY good at. It's called a bad habit. Not that it matters, because, as I said earlier, I can be bumped regardless since this isn't my website.

Do you "fixers" ever, ever just acknowledge that maybe it's possible you might be over the top at times in nitpickiness? Just like I acknowledge that I am over the top at times at being (insert word here). I really do acknowledge that.

Also I believe the correct term is "patootie" though I'll have to check my Stylebook....

I gotchur PATOOTIE! Depending on the gender of the patoot one is referring to, I believe the general term is patoot if it is in re "anybody's" patoot/tie. I didn't want to ascribe a particular patoot/tie within the statement and wanted to keep it gender neutral. Or region neutral, which brings in a whole other discussion about patoots/ties that could turn ugly if loosed upon this population.

So there.

[clem21]

Okay. Bob. I will grant you and others a pass on correcting inaccuracies in actual statements made or answers that are supposed to be right (not that they always are, of course, witness return contestants) in transcript threads. Be that as it may it still irks me that anyone would feel the need to "spiff up" anything else. It's just very Barney Fifeish and annoying and reminiscent of picking hangnails, something that I'm REALLY good at. It's called a bad habit. Not that it matters, because, as I said earlier, I can be bumped regardless since this isn't my website.

Do you "fixers" ever, ever just acknowledge that maybe it's possible you might be over the top at times in nitpickiness? Just like I acknowledge that I am over the top at times at being (insert word here). I really do acknowledge that.

Also I believe the correct term is "patootie" though I'll have to check my Stylebook....

I gotchur PATOOTIE! Depending on the gender of the patoot one is referring to, I believe the general term is patoot if it is in re "anybody's" patoot/tie. I didn't want to ascribe a particular patoot/tie within the statement and wanted to keep it gender neutral. Or region neutral, which brings in a whole other discussion about patoots/ties that could turn ugly if loosed upon this population.

So there.

Good lord.

That is all.

[Beebs52]

Also I believe the correct term is "patootie" though I'll have to check my Stylebook....

I gotchur PATOOTIE! Depending on the gender of the patoot one is referring to, I believe the general term is patoot if it is in re "anybody's" patoot/tie. I didn't want to ascribe a particular patoot/tie within the statement and wanted to keep it gender neutral. Or region neutral, which brings in a whole other discussion about patoots/ties that could turn ugly if loosed upon this population.

So there.

Good lord.

That is all.

Well. I rest my case. res ipsa loquitur and et al and amici curiae and stuff

Edited to correct loquitur because, just like sequitur, one must spell it correclty or else WE'RE ALL DOOMED

[littlebeast13]

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

Whoever did that went way over the line. We don't need OCDers tidying up the place - except with transcripts.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11145&p=121174#p121174

lb13

[Sisyphean Fan]

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

Whoever did that went way over the line. We don't need OCDers tidying up the place - except with transcripts.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11145&p=121174#p121174

lb13

Ha! You know, I was going to mention that I thought the Other Bob had changed somebody's post once and, even as a joke, it was made known that it was Not Cool and there hadn't really been any text changing problems since then.

But I didn't want to be wrong and then start a whole megillah or anything.....

[peacock2121]

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?

Okay - I do agree that transcripts are okay to alter to keep the integrity of the transcript. I think waiting for a member of the team to do it is stoopid.

[Bob Juch]

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

Whoever did that went way over the line. We don't need OCDers tidying up the place - except with transcripts.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11145&p=121174#p121174

lb13

IIRC, that was because the color tags were mismatched and showing in the post. I'd never remove valid ones.

[peacock2121]

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.

I find that I came down to this conclusion. At first, I was pissed off that members of this bored got their posts changed without permission - I was one of those people - and after I raised holy hell, it happened again to someone else. It still pisses me off that that happens.

Then I got that it will not be stopping.

Then I weighed how much it pisses me off against how much this place contributes to me. I am free to leave and I wondered if this was worth leaving over.

Then Bob##s said he would not edit my posts.

I asked myself could I stand having other's posts changed (especially when it doesn't seem to bother them).

I will still raise holy hell if I find out mine have been changed and I will raise triple holy hell if another's is changed and he/she are pissed about it.

I am still creeped out that IP addresses are checked 'for fun'. They can check mine all they want and it still creeps me out.

I like that the Booch thing will not be happening again, give we know that all that can be checked.

Just because it can be done, doesn't make it okay to do it.

I think all of my thoughts are out of my head now.

[peacock2121]

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?

I am really glad I did not know about this when it happened.

WTF!!!!!!

I wouldn't have cared that you didn't raise the roof. I would have.

WTF!!!!!

This totally pisses me off.

[peacock2121]

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?

Now, I see where this suggestion came from.

Point of view won't make a difference. It's not like the moderators get together and decide on code of conduct.

It is interesting that the female folks seem to be the most vocal in their outrage.

Although fishie and tko were the only ones to just agree with my intial objection.

[peacock2121]

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. )

That is what is happening.

It is creepy.

[peacock2121]

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 do care who did it - WTF!!!

I need to go take a pill or something.

[peacock2121]

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?

I defininetly agree.

People who cannot spell bother me alot.

[peacock2121]

Brouhaha is a funny word.

Ostentatious is a funny word.

Craps is not a bad word but Crap is.

That is all.

Holy Crappola Batman.

crap is a great word.

[peacock2121]

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

Whoever did that went way over the line. We don't need OCDers tidying up the place - except with transcripts.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11145&p=121174#p121174

lb13

If I wasn't still pissed off about this, it would be funny.

Maybe later it will be funny.

How can one remember the restaurants in places one lived 20 years ago and not remember having done something "way over the line" (quote from the doer).

Nope, not funny yet.

[peacock2121]

Whoever did that went way over the line. We don't need OCDers tidying up the place - except with transcripts.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11145&p=121174#p121174

lb13

IIRC, that was because the color tags were mismatched and showing in the post. I'd never remove valid ones.

There we go again - reasons and justifications for altering a regular poster's posts.

You gotta be kidding me.

[SloppyDrunkGuy]

Let me jusht shtate for the... (hic!) uh, record that I... uh.... (hic, hic!) am completely oppppozhed to (hic!) moderaszzzhun of any kind. (HIC!) I am a big boy and I can (hic, burp!) uh, drink all I want to.... (hic!)

Thank (hic!) uh... you....