Moderating The Forums: a suggestion

[Cyrus]

Why re-invent the wheel ?

In a blackjack website, where I shared mod duties with other leathernecks, the webmaster was of a pretty enlightened and tolerant attitude -- which, incidentally, proved extremely helpful business-wise : a critical mass of posters was allowed to form itself and provide financial support for the website's maintenance. The webmaster, as I recall, was a Vietnam veteran, who allowed though extremely disparaging comments about the war or veterans, even though he was personally very annoyed by some of the mindlessness.

The 2+2 website is already popular but one can always learn by studying how other people handled things.

Being a successful webmaster is not that different from running a successful company. A skilled CEO must have, among other things, the ability and willingless to consult and to invite opposing, sometimes extreme, viewpoints -- and then, of course, to formulate clear and firm decisions.

Through this process, the following set of Guidelines for Postbusters was established and proved to be very effective for the blackjack website. May I suggest that our esteemed poker webmasters take a look?



Guidelines for Moderating the Forums:

1. Posts advocating illegal activity should be deleted.

2. Chain letters and other get-rich-quick schemes should be deleted.

3. Posts containing pornography or links directly to pornography should be deleted.

4. Posts containing advertisements should be deleted if the posts are made by strangers to the [2+2] community. Do not remove product reviews by known members of the [2+2] community.

5. In the case of multiple identical (or almost identical) posts, all but one should be deleted.

6. Posts whose only purpose is to draw attention to another site may be deleted.

7. Posts attacking a person, or multiple persons, should be deleted. Posts linking to such attacks should be deleted. More leeway should be given to posts about public figures. Less leeway should be given to posts about members of the [2+2] community. Criticisms of products and ideas should not be deleted. Examples: It is okay to say that a book stinks, but not okay to say that the author stinks. It's okay to think that another poster is an idiot, but not okay to say so.

8. Posts identifying a card counter or other advantage player in action in a casino should be deleted.

9. Delete any post that specifically identifies an exploitable dealer or pit critter who could lose his or her job by such an outing.

10. Inflammatory posts should be deleted.

11. Do not delete a post just because the author is mistaken in his knowledge of gambling or casinos.

12. Do not delete a post just because you disagree with it.

13. Do not delete a post from a thread in which you have participated.

14. Do not delete a post at the request of a friend. Instead, relay the request to another post buster who will be able to make a decision without being influenced by the pressure of friendship.

15. Give more leeway to posts from known members of the [2+2] community.

16. Give more leeway to posts containing an email address for the poster.

17. Give less leeway to posts positively identified as coming from people with a history of busts for cause.

18. Give less leeway to anonymous posts and posts with anonymized IP addresses.

19. Posts containing no material having anything to do with gambling or casinos or the page topic do not have to (but may) be deleted.

20. Posts directed to a single person do not have to (but may) be deleted.

21. Posts that were orphaned after someone deleted another post do not have to (but may) be deleted if they are not able to stand alone.

22. Posts in all capital letters do not have to (but may) be deleted. If you delete a post due to its being in all caps, please email (if possible) the poster explaining why the post was deleted.

23. Posts purported to be made by a known member of the [2+2] community but actually written by someone else should be deleted.

24. When in doubt, don't delete the post.

[Mason Malmuth]

I think we need to add one more. It would be this:

Posters who put up posts that are designed to foment hatred by twisting the truth and/or deliberately linking to other Internet sites which have the same purpose will be immediately permanently barred.

MM

edit = spelling correction only

mat

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Posters who put up posts that are designed to foment hatred by twisting the truth

[/ QUOTE ]

And how exactly do you (or any mod) know when the truth has been twisted? I find this extremely difficult, specially in a forum like politics. Seems to me like a blank check to ban people opposed to the moderator points of view. Maybe you should post then, which points of view are acceptable and which ones will be persecuted.

[Mat Sklansky]

We've always had "the blank check". I can't speak for Mason entirely, but I belive that he wants more discussion based on fact and less propoganda encouraging "hate".

Is that really so difficult?

And just because Mason stepped in when the topics were anti-semitic doesn't mean that he encourages hateful posts directed at Arabs or Muslims.He doesn't.

I see Mason everyday. He and I have quite different perspectives on the world, these forums, etc. He not only accepts that I disagree with him sometimes, he encourages it.

That's my take. If I have it wrong, he'll let us know.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
but I belive that he wants more discussion based on fact and less propoganda encouraging "hate".

Is that really so difficult?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is. In a forum like politics it's very hard to determine what's propaganda encouraging hate. For example, I remember many posts encouraging the nuking of Iran with links to what I think to be "propaganda". I don't remember anybody terrible upset about those.

[Mat Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
And just because Mason stepped in when the topics were anti-semitic doesn't mean that he encourages hateful posts directed at Arabs or Muslims.He doesn't.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
That's my take. If I have it wrong, he'll let us know.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, only because you asked, I'll comment.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Mason stepped in when the topics were anti-semitic...

[/ QUOTE ]Can you please point out a recent post that was anti-semitic? Or, something easier, a topic that was anti-semitic? Take the last couple of months.

I am not saying that there are no anti-semites here. (In fact, I'm sure I can spot anti-semites better than most of the easily offended pro-Israel posters!) But I have not seen anything that was anti-semitic. Accusations of anti-semitism are often hurled against those who object to Israeli policies.

[ QUOTE ]
...doesn't mean that he encourages hateful posts directed at Arabs or Muslims. He doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]Hateful posts might not be "encouraged" but it seems obvious that anti-Arab posts are given much more leeway than anti-Israeli.

For instance, imagine if I were to write anything like the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Make it so that Olbert fears to see sunlight. Send emissaries to let him know that until he leaves Lebanon alone he will be a target.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The Arabs should expel 98% of the Jews in the West Bank and dump them back into Israel. Give each Jew $1000 (yes this is inadequate) and tell them "good-bye forever and don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!" This tactic is similar to what Hezbollah calls for!
<font color="white"> . </font>
The Palestinians fill the newly vacated terroritory and keep that land forever-and-ever.

[/ QUOTE ]Yet, this is exactly what was written about the Arabs by a 2+2 poster and did not draw the slightest comment from the mods. (I only changed names.) Link And it wasn't the most bigoted post I've seen here about Arabs. So, let's just say that all sides are equally free to present on 2+2 their opinion abt the Middle East situation -- but one side is more equal. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to add one more. It would be this:

Posters who put up posts that are designed to foment hatred by twisting the truth and/or deliberately linking to other Internet sites which have the same purpose will be immediately permanently barred.


[/ QUOTE ]A few observations on the above:

- Reads like a guideline outside the purpose of the rest, since it allows for a lot of arbitrariness in banning posters.

- Linking to other sites can only be done deliberately and never by accident. I presume you meant "deliberately inciting hatred". Well, I confess I'm not always able to pinpoint intent! But I take comfort in knowing that, very often, humans assign intent and maliciousness to any point of view that negatively affects our emotional state. We get angry at doorknobs.

- Do we need a list of "safe" websites? I suggest starting with the following:

www.amazon.com
www.nytimes.com
www.wikipedia.org
www.un.org
www.amnesty.org
www.hrw.org
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

--Cyrus

[MicroBob]

some of the rules I'm not sure I agree with specifically, but I like the general idea.

I was in favor of a set of "mod guidelines" for either the mod forum or to be seen by all in the public forums but I'm not sure that many others agreed that one was necessary or would be helpful.

And there is also an argument to be made that the mod-ship is better without an established mod-ship sticky (allowing the mods to be more flexible perhaps? and partly because different forums on 2+2 require different rules)

[Chris Alger]

This is certainly a good faith effort but the goal of disseminating factual, often technical information about blackjack doesn't translate well to a forum for politics. Political attitudes and beliefs are subjective and diverge widely. They're laden with emotion. What someone honestly believes to be inflammatory and mean is someone else's heartfelt credo. For example, if someone says "these guys who are killed those guys are ________" (pick anything: blameless, heroes, degenerates), they'd almost always be guilty of "attacking a person, or multiple persons," especially if they named either the killers or the killed individually or by group. Trying to escape this would reduce the politics forum to a politically correct forum.

I like the ban on personal attacks on posters. I'd also like to see the one-line wisecracks and dumb comments removed, to reduce clutter.