SHOUT FOR THE MODERATOR VII

just do the d**mie thing so its not searchable. hell, its the only thing that keep me coming back. the essential narcissist in me is very pleased. the lapsed catholic is not. sigh. duality of the soul. but finally can i say - I AM NOT CALUM. asses.

so hooray!

Ned, you've made it well clear you don't like C all that much purely based on his posts but in all fairness you were gnawing the D***ie chew-toy long
after the fashion had passed, and even at his creepiest we never deleted *him*.

A bit of history, though -- this was back when ILX was on the greenspun machine and the current team of moderators did not exist. I think only DG had the ability to delete anything, if he even had that. So the situations aren't entirely comparable (as for gnawing on the chewtoy -- gee, I wonder why I would think that?).

Maybe Ned's behavior towards Calum and Doomie says more about Calum and Doomie than it does about Ned. Namely, that they are fucking
assholes that can even piss off the nicest, most rational guy in the room.

NA roolz OK.

No no no! That's like saying 'Better than getting rid of apartheid, let's get rid of all the black people!'

Good news about the depression, P. Could say the same if I hadn't felt like I've been snipe-hunting all year re. work or if my feelings were clinical in nature. Other aspects are good but my dancing quota is unmet for this year, argh.

(x-post - that's a straw man, and you know it.)

(honestly, this was an xpost with Suzy)

Dyson, I am dyspleased.

I am not necessarily disagreeing.

nah i was not pissed but felt it odd that o.k. i've got my haterz on this board. my haterz drove me off the board. cool. its their board (ala some badfiftes biker flick) but JESUS why evoke the name? don't get it? anyways i am compulsive and should stop posting NOW!

(ps norman - cheers, as usual, yer a star)

I think Suzy was the one who brought up your name...?

'nuff said.

suzy. i've tried hard to hate you. i've tried hard to envy you. i just ended up loving your words. you are the first female writer that i've met in london and you are - a star.

o.k. being really compulsive here.

see? do you not see?

Compulsive? WALKIES! ;-)

I think Mr. C. could more accurately be called a spammer - I can't tell, though, 'cos his stuff gets deleted before I see it. Or maybe he's a k00k.

..which illustrates that trolling seems to work in satisfying the troll all the time, like in this very instance.

(HINT HINT)

If you don't want trolls, close the list and require registration upon entering ILXOR.

The choice is yours.

But nothing, unless of course you're prepared to say that black people deserved apartheid because of all of the shit they stirred up for the white people who swanned into their territory.

suzy will email you in the next few days. i'm booked until sunday! you, tess and i - need to go out! hooray!

c'ya.

love ya all ya troll hating loved up foo's...!

Of course I'm not, Dan. That would be just STUPID.

http://www.orenews.com/Contests/Newsy/Dream.jpg
(edited by Andrew - no images in 'shout for mod' threads)

Who Has The Worst Taste On ILE? And The Best?

Is that the one?

My feeling is that he is incapable of carrying on a civilised conversation for very long, and it will all come back again, and soon. Nonetheless, I've not jumped in on threads where he is acting within the guidelines, nor deleted posts of his that have had lots of comments from others. I've not caught up on the Saddam thread (partying, plus ILX being down when I was home on Sunday) but from what I read here I certainly wouldn't have deleted them anyway. Nonetheless, the appalling way he has acted so repeatedly, the way he has always turned back into the vicious, stupid little man he is means that I have no objection to mods deleting every post he makes.

Having said that, the problem is that when we take out the hateful stuff everyone else here sees his better side and not the worst. And when it comes down to it I volunteered as a mod not to get power, but to help out on something that has meant a lot to me, and our job is to run this site the way its valued participants want. The prevailing mood here right now is to leave him alone, and I'm ready to go along with that with a couple of exceptions:

1. Personal attacks that cross the line. There is no way of clearly stating where that line is, but I'm very content with where I've drawn it so far, and will more or less keep it there.
2. More dreary misogynist shit. This is not just because it bothers me but because I feel (and conversation with some others confirms this) that it makes the board seem unwelcoming or even hostile to half the population. I can't imagine anyone will much miss another 50 "I hate fat birds, me" threads.

I guess I'm inclined to give Calum less latitude in these areas than I would most people, because of his history. There are other people here who I don't much like, who have offended me one way and another, and I don't regard cumulative behaviour as irrelevant. Still, I'll try not to shift the line too much for Calum.

Another thought: Tom pointed out last night in the pub that mods can burn out, lose perspective, and I think he is right. I think that his feeling that 4 or 5 mods is enough isn't true, as few of us are here more than a few hours a day, and it's good to have a mod around, now and then. Nonetheless, we have about 15, and we could manage with somewhere in between, say 8 or 10, I think. What do people think of our swapping around, taking breaks, three or six months on and the same time off? It seems a decent idea to me, and I'd think we would only need a few more decent volunteers to make this very feasible. I'm ready to stick with it or not, either way. It's no big burden, but there is no great fun in it either.

I propose something Dan originally suggested.

* Blanket deletion policy of C's post, even at the risk of destroying the continuity of the threads he posts in. Because he's had many MANY chances to prove he can be a "normal" poster and just reverts back to the same old shit. I can't even count anymore.

And the tired ol' defenses of "But he didn't say any bad in THAT thread? Why are you deleting his posts?" boo-hoo-ing can hopefully be taken care of via a VERY PUBLIC disclaimer made at the top of www.ilxor.com or something stating why this deletion policy is in place for C-Man.

Again, this board is not a democracy when it comes down to it. It's feels like one, because it's very loose, but it takes extreme assholes to get down to tbe bottom line, and according to many, C-Man has crossed that line many, many times.

I'll probably sign up after I get the home-cable issue sorted out.

in other newz, marting probably = otm. marting? martin. I think i shd go to bed, i'm totally fucked.

* Don't pussy around. Just delete his posts when they come

* Write up something beforehand explaining why this deleting is happening in the convenient form of a page or link, and just post it.

OR

* leave his posts alone and let him be

The choice is yours.

X-POST!!!

Seriously, people. The angst here isnt C*lum, its you lot bashing each other over what the right thing to do is. Block him however you did before and for one thing you save mods the work of deleting posts all the live long day.

Oh and I second the Johnny Fitz thing - he's posting reams of garbage (ie UUENCODED gif text garble) to threads. IN my books thats way more irritating than anything Ive ever seen C-man do.

UUencoded garbage will be deleted when spotted.

I'm a professional moderator and the whole thing is descending into an unworkable vortex. I'd be happy to become a moderator but only if the whole thing was formalised.

Logging in sounds fine to me.

Plus it actually occurs to me that p0rn is, for the most part shit that does actually objectify wimmin (that little neologism is especially for you cal_um) presenting them as meat/fuck objeckts and as such, is perhaps not that great a thing, really. Looking back @ thee 1980's, one of the things I liked and am quite nostalgick abt is that people would actually go out & protest abt stuff like this. Now of course, one can walk past rows & rows of k-l@m3 "Lad mags" w/their photoshopped pics of BURDZ on the covers and hey! it's allright!! Who but a PC phun hater would find it objectionable!!!??? Except for tha fact that actually - - - - ->>>>>> it's shit! Me, I don't like shit! How about that!?!?

-- Pashmina (pashmin...), March 12th, 2003.

Something about kids and most peoples urge to shield them.

'Hey look everybody, I'm being Politically Incorrect! Aren't I brave? Aren't I daring? Aren't I Edgy? Aren't I just so Out There! When do I get my medal?'

My favorite Daily Mail quote (I don't have a second favorite), Lynda L-P to Madonna about 15 years ago: 'You did not shock us, love. You lost your ability to shock many fake outrages ago. You merely bored us.'

; )

crosspost

(I also think cities need more bored, alienated security guards sitting in little huts, just waiting to tell people they can't cut through here because it's private property.)

The intolerable thing, of course, would be a system in which everyone was on the same level.

ANY OF YOU WHINEY ASSHOLES WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF MODERATION ON THIS BOARD SHOULD FEEL TO TAKE MY SPOT.

fuck typos in the ass

xpost

What is the proverb? You argue on internet, like specisal olympics: you still retarded. Its ture, what can you do? dleetel my thread? oh, I hurt :-).

Really, you pick fight with me, I say stupid stuff. whaterver. Deal with your own problems. This bvoard leats of my problems.

In real life we meat, you try and bash my face in. For real, i [pul gun and shoot you. Its not even a big gun, just 22 berreta, eurofag shit. But damn, it almost killed a guy. So be warned. I am physically weak, but I don;t play around :-)/

#1 a bot would type in pefect english always.
#2 if i were a bot, I would be quite a feet of AI.

BTW Andrew did you figure out yet that you just proved Ally EXACTLY RIGHT in what she said?

Let's just rename this board "I Love Ned And Kate" and be done with it. That's about as clear a moderation policy as necessary.

Squeaky wheel etcetera

Because Oshima's point is that where the state kills killers, it is really no better than they are. And I would say that this is just as true of 'trolls' and 'moderators' when trigger-happy deletion renders a thread like the Saddam Captured one incoherent. It's a serious point, relevant and, in its way, adult enough.

:-) Wow! "Disturbing"! A garden variety troll could only dream of being described as such. I wasn't even trying to be disturbing. Anywho, tonight has been more of an indication of your own deap-seated problems, and not mine, for I am just a stupid drunk blabbering some shit. Obviously I touched a nerve somewhere. Eh.

But I feel the sleep swirling about me. Goodnight ilx0r!

P.S. Calum never amounted to shit as a troll. He utterly failed me. Calum: this is why you are no longer part of the clan.

The "deap-seated problem" is me.

I am not one for a heavy moderation policy, as I've said many times. However, apparently quite a lot of moderators here ARE, or so I can assume by them going nutzoid over certain posts that offend a subset of ILXors (or, you know, deleting their own ill-thought-out threads).

There appears to be about twenty sets of rules going on here. There are several ILXors who have admitted to childhood abuse etc issues in the past. I think the thread was totally offensive and insensitive.

Normally, I'd just say GET OVER IT and I was saying this to the people talking to me about it on AIM chat, my personal problems should not affect a whole fucking board.

BUT HEY IT SEEMS TO AFFECT THE WHOLE FUCKING BOARD WHEN ITS CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE so I really can't blame Tom for crusading at all. Why are my feelings less significant than XYZ person's feelings?

Maybe it's time to write up a strict set of rules. And if you go against the rules, you get sacked as a fucking moderator. Simple as that.

I personally think that only personal attacks should be deleted. None of this "Change my HTML error" bullshit or moderators tweeking their own posts. But that's not my decision really.

I volunteer to help if necessary though I can't really devote that much time to it.

Metaphorically, yes. There are too many double standards in place, and no log of moderations to speak of. At present nobody is held accountable. I will fix this very soon.

I'll give you ten bucks to do it, and you don't even have to leave

Start chronologically if possible. You know which threads need to go first.

Make it forty.

xpost $750 DELETE WHILE YOU CAN

xpost dave m has a point.

This was the ruling:
ADMIN: personal vendettas, vigilante action, etc

He completely ignored it, so the full sanction came into force.

I am not a moderator any more, but I am well aware what a frustrating and thankless task it is. I have never taken Momus particularly seriously on this or any other political topic.

I'm sure there are several current moderators who would speak up for me. I think I feel I have a little more balanced view than I see often here. (like all other prospective ones I'm sure.)

Is there a LIST anywhere, of all of the people that are moderators at any one given time?

Because people seem to be made moderators with only discussion on private(ish) lists, and it is quite mysterious as to who they are sometimes, until they pop up.

How is it decided, who will be a moderator and who will not? Because there are some posters who I would have a *serious* problem with them becoming moderators. (Not Momus, BTW, but people who have used and abused Moderator priviliges on lists I've known in the past.)

As to moderator activity, I've learned to click the "Show All Details" link at the bottom - hence why I knew it was Noodles who deleted the C**** posts on the Saddam thread. Maybe it would help if moderators had to provide a *reason* that would also appear? Even if it's just a multiple choice box of "personally offensive" or "someone requested change" or "I am throwing a tantrum"?

rulings which, as i recall, most of the regulars who now don't like mod behavior, were around for in the 1st place.

MAKE SAM A MODERATOR! SHE TEACHES SMALL CHILDREN AND WOULD BE PERFECT

Only have a teacher be a moderator if you want to be treated like children.

since it's so easy for decisions and changes of policy etc to get lost in the general noise of ile, might it be an idea to actually start a new BOARD (in the Other Boards section), for these threads and all admin and announcement threads. When changeds are made you could start a thread here which linked to threads there - here for the discussion, there the announcement thread that only mods could post to? (they could be locked and unlocked each time a mod needed to post?) Plus request/suggestion threads and and and

there'd be a lot less traffic and it'd be possible for newbies and anyone else to trawl through it and find what the situation was: shuffling everything in with the general trivial chat here means lots gets buried

I just mailed you.

I think things are different now. I think people who have known me in this context (of ilx) have known me longer and deeper than in the previous circumstances you reference.

(and, irreleveant really, didn't my moderation always lean in yr favor?)

Can we please have a public list of moderators? I would really like that. It would provide some kind of accountability.

[Sam], I am just not going to address your revisionist history. I would like to leave the past, in the past. But I'm sorry, I do not think that you would be a responsible moderator on ILX.

Would a current moderator please alter the above post?

Exactly, which is why I've never put myself forward for moderator status.

If Sam has been made a moderator, I'm sorry, but I am going to have to leave. I'm sorry that it had to be this way.

farmer brown makes a frown when he see kate and sam not get along :(

Again, could a current moderator alter my name above? I'm Samantha for a reason. I reveal many things about my current job that could cause immediate termination (and which anonymous people have threatened me with). But I speak openly with the comfort that Samantha cannot be directly connected with me.

Then we have more accountability, more transparency, and if people don't want (say) Momus or d00mie to moderate, then they can vote for others.

Andrew, if you want a professional opinion on any guidelines you might be putting together, drop me a line.

(NB I know this means people taking one aspect of ILX seriously just for once, but even the most contemptuous ILXor must realise that this needs to be sorted out)

Thank you.

This is all just incredibly tiresome - isn't this all supposed to be, like fun or something?

Sam -- from yr first name how cd yr employers (I don't know who they are -- it's sometimes a good idea not to be too specific online?) know who you are?

If an employer wished to google my legal name and came up with a link to this board and then all things I've posted here (like to the "This is the Thread Where I Say. . " I could face a world of hassle and trouble. This mess would never be neccesary if everyone would just call me Samantha.

The (not so funny) thing is if you call out "Samantha" in real life, I will respond. :)

tico, i know I've been recommended for mod privleges before. But I don't know how to access them.

OK this huge long post is the text of a document I wrote as a set of moderator guidelines, back in March 2003. I'm posting it here because i) I read it and thought it was pretty sensible, ii) I think any such set of guidelines needs to have a clear idea of what ILX is 'for' behind it.

THE POINT OF ILX

There are two basic ideas behind ILX, and the area in which they clash is the reason we have moderators.

The first idea is that ILX is a public discussion space where people can have a polite, hopefully intelligent discussion about anything they want to. They can have stupid or nonsensical or angry discussions too, or just post pictures of kittens, or do pretty much anything, but if the ability of the board to offer this polite and intelligent space is compromised by it then the point of ILX is lost.

The second idea is that posters to ILX take responsibility for their own posts. This means that if you post something you regret, it’s up to you to sort out the consequences. It also means that if at all possible the moderators should leave you alone and do as little as possible.

In practise, this means that there are situations where leaving people alone compromises the ‘public space’ aspect of the boards. This is where moderators come in.

MODERATORS’ POWERS

There are five basic things a moderator can do: categorise, edit, delete and lock posts/threads, and updating the FAQ. Any of these can be done proactively or reactively, and all except categorizing need further explanation. (Categorising is a saintly activity though and hats off to anyone who bothers with it.)

EDITING

Editing posts – changing minor elements of the content of a post – should in general be only done reactively, i.e. when requested. Valid reasons for requesting a post to be edited include:

- the post gives away unedited personal details (email address, phone number, full name, etc.) of the poster or anyone else.
- The post gives away specific personal information about a third party that they haven’t given permission to be posted (i.e. “How can you say that when I know your brother is gay”)

Requests that posts be edited because a poster regrets posting them should generally be ignored. It’s a better idea for the poster to apologise or correct themselves. A minor exception to this is spoilers, where details of current film or book plots are given away – this should be mentioned in the thread title. Requests that posts be edited for typos can be ignored or not at the moderator’s discretion.

Proactive editing of posts should be a lot rarer – in fact the only times it should happen as a rule is when non-picture threads become picture threads, or when picture threads include not-safe-for-work content. There are other, rarer, circumstances where it might be necessary, too – direct links to sites which we wouldn’t want to know about ILX (far-right organizations, for instance) could be edited to become indirect. The basic guideline is that post and thread edits should where possible preserve the information in the post/thread and simply change the format.

DELETION

Guidelines for reactively deleting posts follow the same principles as editing posts. Regret is not a good reason, information leak is. If a post is personally abusive to another poster, then that poster can request its deletion, too.

Proactive deletion of posts should again be very rare. The main times when non-requested deletion might be necessary are duplicate posts and obscene images or browser-disruptive code. Duplicate posts need only be deleted if they are very very long and really disrupt the flow of a thread. Explicit sexual images – anything beyond ‘soft porn’ basically – should be included as links not automatically-loading pictures, but if they can’t be edited into a link they should be deleted. Browser-disruptive code – which fucks up threads for some or all users – should always be deleted.

Deletion of entire threads is a little more complicated. In general threads should not be deleted, as it can’t be reversed. There are a couple of exceptions to this, though.

A thread can be deleted if it is about a specific poster and that poster requests its deletion. This applies even if the thread appears to be complimentary. If the thread has got going you might want to ask the requester if locking would be acceptable instead, though.

A thread can be deleted if it’s a duplicate of a current thread started by the same poster and hasn’t got any new answers. Otherwise duplicate threads should be ignored or locked with a redirection.

A thread can be deleted at a moderator’s discretion if it’s spam – advertising for a specific product or service placed by someone who isn’t an ILX subscriber.

LOCKING

Locking threads is a fairly new moderator ability and a bit of a grey area. Because locking is reversible, it should be used where possible instead of deletion. Because locking is very visible, it tends to cause even more fuss than a deletion, though. There are two reasons for locking threads.

The first is if it’s a duplicate thread, and there’s a thread on the exact same topic currently on new answers. This happens sometimes on ILE with exciting new links or big news stories, for instance. In that case you should always provide a post redirecting to the other thread. If a duplicate thread has more than 10 new answers already it’s best not to lock it, and just to put up with it.
The second if is a flamewar has started in the thread, characterized by abusive posts, either between two posters or generally from one poster to everyone else. This seems to be probably the single most divisive thing a moderator can do so be very careful. The idea of locking here is to calm a thread down and encourage single abusive posters to bugger off and fighting posters to take it off-board, so that the thread can then go back to whatever it was originally about.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Being an ILX moderator involves accepting two things – accountability, and a duty to consult. If you do anything big and proactive – locking, deletion, etc. – you should say somewhere else on the boards what you’ve done and if possible why. If you aren’t sure what to do, consult another moderator if possible – or if it’s something non-urgent ask the board. This particularly applies if you are personally angered by something on the boards, as the chances of you making a bad decision are much higher.

TROLLS, FLAMERS, ETC.

The more public ILX gets the more likely it is to attract trolls. These come in two kinds – non-abusive and abusive. Both of them are looking for responses. It is not your responsibility to do anything about non-abusive trolls – they might be really annoying but they will usually go away if ignored, and you can’t make people ignore them. Abusive trolls are a different case – and by abusive I particularly mean trolls trying to get a response using racist, homophobic, sexual epithets. It’s up to you to use your judgement but locking or thread deletion are acceptable actions here if the abuse is sustained.

As a general guideline, if a troll is trying to get a response by making an argument they should be left alone, even if that argument is itself stupid, inflammatory, racist, whatever. If they’re trying to get a response by using specifically inflammatory words then it is up to you if you want to moderate them. Bear in mind though that getting a response from a moderator is probably what the troll wants.

POSTER PRIVACY

As a moderator you can look up posters’ IP numbers. This is a useful ability in determining how harmful an anonymous poster might be. However this ability is easily abused too. If you encounter what you think might be a troll it is usually a good idea to find out who they are. You should respect other posters’ privacy, though – don’t look up IP addresses of people who are using anonymity to ask for advice or confess a personal problem.

BANNING

As a moderator you can’t ban anyone. Nor can I. So far ILX has not permanently banned any posters except one who asked himself to be banned. If you seriously think that banning might be required there are two places you can talk about it – the board itself, or the 12 Foot Lizards mailing list. Basically you should treat banning like you would any other idea or change that affects the whole board, and talk to as many people about it as possible.

AND FINALLY

This is a very long document to sum up a fairly basic idea, which is that you should do as little moderation as possible that isn’t just boring tidying, and that you should use your common sense. The idea of moderating is to make sure ILX can be a place where anyone can discuss anything, politely. The final point to make is that as a moderator you will get flack for anything you do. A lot of this will be unfair – consensus isn’t censorship and criticism isn’t censorship but some people behave as if they are, and also the FAQ makes it clear that ILX is not a total free speech environment. But if moderating is taking up too much time or pissing you off, drop one of the site administrators a note and get your privileges removed.

Read what Norman wrote again re obsessively seeks some kind of validation.

1) Is there anywhere/can there be a list of who the actual moderators are?

2) Can we review/formalise the procedures for moderator selection? i.e. contest moderators who are suffering from burnout, and let valid concerns about potential moderators be discussed?

I think these two things are very necessary, and would go along way towards moderator accountability.

there's an old mods list on the FAQ: it's a bit out of date but not very

Loads of stuff is being deleted compared to usual and it does disrupt the board in itself, at least to the point where several times in the last week I have logged in and had absolutely no fucking idea what is going on on a thread cos it's all gone. Is there not some sort of bin stuff can be put in where it's locked and away from the board. Does this defeat the purpose?

Maybe it's just watching car crashes on my part.

So, you know, whatever.

However, I do think that former moderation experience can and SHOULD be used as an indicator of suitability.

Yes, I have a personal history with "Sam" but up until now that history has not affected our on-board dealings. I hope that would not affect my decision with regards to who should moderate, as there are other moderators with whom I've had personal scrapes with, and I don't object to their moderation.

I object to "Sam" because I have experienced her moderation style, witnessed her abuse of moderation privileges on other lists, and do not think that it is suitable for ILX.

She has admitted herself upthread that she is swayed by personal feelings towards posters - and even though this may have previously benefited me in the past (I quote (and, irreleveant really, didn't my moderation always lean in yr favor?) ) - this lends itself to moderation abuse.

Because if you admit that you are willing and able to be swayed in favour of people because of personal reasons, you can just as willingly be swayed *against* people and engage in personal vendettas, and I and the other list members experienced this, too.

(oh bollocks, nasty xpost - this has nothing to do with your feud with kate)

an ad hominem argument runs "you're a fucknut therefore your position is wrong." on (other list) it's "you're a fucknut and your position is wrong." subtle difference but there it is.

???

i dont know if this is a good thing or a bad thing

haha singling sam out as the only (potential) moderator with (potential) mental "problems" seems a bit rich to me

given the current climate around here.

Everywhere else I post as well it seems.

What does bipolar mean? I know the word, but how does it apply to humans?

bipolar = manic depressive

Jody, it was a crosspost, but I was agreeing with you.

"Bringing up mental illness" is a red herring with regards to moderation abilities is what I was trying to say. I respect the way that you don't let it affect your impartiality.

?!

ok if new mods are required in future then I'm offering.

Sorry, couldn't tell if you were.

*still am, really, but I limit my interference to pomposity on these threads now.

v interesting, cos Tombot, who I actually respect, often calls me a 'fucking numbskull' etc, and though he often also argues against me, sometimes the insult seems just that. but it's all gravy, i've come round to his style.

OMG!! SCORCHED EARTH TIME!!! EVERYBODY BACK TO GREENSPUN!!!

I think I take Tom more seriously because pretty much everything he's said on this thread has been OTM. I generally feel that this place should be moderation-light, with only porn, personal details (ie phone numbers, full names etc) and outright racism/homophobia.

I'm not sure that other abuse directed at other posters should be deleted unless the person it has been directed at has requested that, and even then only in extreme circumstances. Trolls should be left where they are to burn themselves out unless they are clearly not going to do any such thing (C*l*m) or are being extremely abusive or just flooding the board and making it unusable.

It's not really fair to bring the mental state of posters into play when deciding whether or not they would make suitable moderators. I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but someone like Martin has been very frank about his depression and I have yet to see any evidence that he isn't a fair or capable moderator.

But I think that if there is a poster who is not trusted by a number of posters to use their moderating powers fairly (cf Graham) then that automatically makes them unsuitable as far as I'm concerned. Possibly anyone with a huge festering feud towards one or more fellow posters as well.

Matt OTM about pretty much everything.

But, as a side note, if you HAVE to delete something, is best to edit the post to say [comment deleted due to reason X] as some mod's do, which seems quite reasonable, rather than having the post just disappear.

Momus is on the money - if you don't like threads entitled (I dunno) "Gang bangs - c or d" or whatever then ignore them. You don't have to click on them and read them. This guy who posted the thread about "how young is too young"... I have never heard of him and don't know him. I have no idea why he thinks I "failed him" or whatever nonsense.

I also don't recall hassling people by email. In fact, the only person I sent more than one email to was Martin whom I still think is a pretty nice guy. I also don't see how I've misquoted Norman as I simply cut and paste a post he actually made and his beef with me does seem to be that he cannot handle anyone speaking about sex/ porn/ hot girls on a forum. Again, apologies if I'm wrong about this (P.S. I've seen your posts on other message forums turn up in The Guardians "Internet hell" column, or whatever they call it, by the way Pashmina - dunno if you knew this).

I'd say make Ally a moderator too. Despite bickering with her on vivisection I'd trust her as a moderator here over anyone else. Ta.

I fear you are the least funny person I've ever encountered if you think your frequently offensive schtick is funny in any sense.

More "If that's what you think, that's your tragedy not mine"

P.S. How about making me a moderator so I can remove Pashmina's posts? At times they seem a bit whiny to me and I think Norman would benefit from someone stomping out his voice for a short while.

You don't see a problem with homophobic abuse, which C*** has directed at, well, most posters?

since we didn't want anyone to be being bullied online, it seemed sensible to clamp down on the person repeatedly starting it

the fact that he does "not recall" the endless pestering and (bogus) legal threats by email doesn't much impress me: he is remarkably good at not taking responsibility for the consequences of his own behaviour, and one of his strategies is an extremely selective memory, in which he is invariably the victim-hero

if only i knew what 'laissez faire' was. I knew somebody would laugh.

btw I am sorta sad if jess isn't a moderator anymore. he was the one person who would have the guts to delete the place, which is something to admire.

a) delete calums posts=

1. a barrage of calum threads
2. huge meta-discussion about whether to delete them
3. calum mails the moderators to complain

or) dont delete calums posts=

1. a barrage of calum threads
2. huge meta-discussion about whether to delete them
3. calum mails the moderators to complain.

he isnt going away people, so i suggest you just deal with it. whether the mods take any action or not is irrelevant, it will make no difference.

also, what is the policy on posting pictures of dismembered children, animal experiments, rape fantasies etc? i do hope that if i am to post such things that i wont get them deleted, or called a troll, er, i mean black person under apartheid.

i shall try this out later when i am bored at work.

you sound as if you're bored now gareth.

and no i would not be lazy (really).

I think it is, and M/D isn't, a medical term. I was to be honest just interested in Sam's perspective vis-a-vis the interface between that and moderating. Bringing right here right now was perhaps not the wisest move :(

have you tried cold feet? cold feet to the lower back usually works.

I would, C****, but they've been deleted with good reason. You definitely gave me homophobic abuse on the thread about Chris Martin and Gwynyth Paltrow.

anyway, removal of my post isnt going to change whether people think you are a homophobe or not, they will judge you on your own posts, not my one there .

i wouldnt have posted that, but you asked whether people thought you were, and i do think you are, but its ok, it is only a personal opinion, i dont think censorship should be applied here, and if it is, i think that just shows the facism of ilx at work

You are completely full of shit. You must be deluding yourself. There's no where or when cos the posts were rightly deleted, but, seriously, wake up to yourself.

OTM

Jesus fucking Christ, what's WRONG with you people???????

A bare faced lie. plenty of posts are archived where he did just that.

Momus is on the money

momus was on the money when he claimed that I and Ned had deleted Calum's posts on the Saddam Captured thread.

momus was on the money when he inferred that mail lists banning nuisance posters is equivalent to the treatment of black people in apartheit south africa.

momus was on the money when he says that I think it's amazing that the internet in general somehow gets by without moderators when just about every goddamn mail list I'm on is moderated, sometimes quite heavily.

I also don't recall hassling people by email. In fact, the only person I sent more than one email to was Martin....

A straight up lie. Calum has emailed me at least twice (I wrote a message rule after the second one) demanding that I delete several of doom-e's posts (I didn't).

I also don't see how I've misquoted Norman as I simply cut and paste a post he actually made and his beef with me does seem to be that he cannot handle anyone speaking about sex/ porn/ hot girls on a forum. Again, apologies if I'm wrong about this

Dishonest to the core, but at least indicative of what I think is his problem:
1/the paragraph itself - similar to many he's posted - "I'm going to get my snidey little dig in, and then apologise for it, so that makes it ok and acceptable"
2/the basic statement made within is a lie - I have no problem whatsoever w/people discussing porn, sex hot men or women on this or any other forum. I like sex, and think about it lots. I like hot men and I like hot women even. I have no problem in theory with porn either, though I don't much care for it in practice in my experience, but what the fukc, based on this, I am mary whitehouse, apparently there are tons of hot girls out there having sex, which I am obviously very not in favour of etc etc etc. I want everything censored, I am pinochet and so on. If he'd only pulled that one on me, wtf, but I've seen him pull it again and again and again - lie about what people think about stuff, and then respond to that, rather than what people actually think - he was even at it on the saddam thread:

c: no president has ever apologised
x: actually lbj and clinton did
c: only one? that doesn't count

That's my beef with Calum - if anyone disagrees with him, he argues, abusively - with a different set of views to those the person actually holds. NB that "for the most part" is not the same as "all".

(P.S. I've seen your posts on other message forums turn up in The Guardians "Internet hell" column, or whatever they call it, by the way Pashmina - dunno if you knew this).

I can't figure this bit out. Is that supposed to be a joke, or is it actually serious? Jeez....

That makes as much sense as calling me a homophobe. And fuck you Enrique, you come on here and label me as something I'm not and when I ask for proof you say, "ah the posts were deleted". All my fucking old threads are still up there - go and find something homophobic. You're causing bother and being full of monkey spunk.

By the way, could the Momus Momus Momus category now be retitled Fiddo Fiddo Fiddo?

Gareth, you are my hero.

Really (and check on my music taste as well).

P.S. Smelly pumps was one of mine. But how is that homophobic?

No, you don't, but you nonetheless opted to use homophobic language, on that and, according to mark s, who I trust a leetle bit more than you, many other occasions. Also: you music taste? Oh, proven, then.

cf Gareth in the office: '... George Michael, Pet Shop Boys... all bummers...'

Whatever, but if you are assuming that people get naked for the cameras because they "enjoy it", then good luck, and you may be interested in this London Bridge that I've got for sale, cheap.

Here's a more radical thought than yours. I have a right not to like porn. I have a right to find the values presented in porn personally objectionable. I have a right to think that the producers of porn are objectionable assholes for the most part. I have a right to reject the values of porn. They do not represent me or my libido I do not have the right to ban or censor it, but I DO have the right to wish there was a bit less of it (IE it was a bit less in yer face as it were), and to wish that that porn that is out there was/is of much better quality, & more couple orientated, rather than LAMER ORIENTATED.

Right?

-- Pashmina (pashmin...), March 12th, 2003.

Could a moderator please delete my moderate posts about him above? He's had his rope and he's hung himself.

1) Stop using homophobic hate language

Smelly pumps was something I aimed at Kate and as I don't want to offend Kate, whom I apologised to a few days ago, I'm not going there. OK?

Yes, if the issue is Calum, but I was actually referring to the "who cares how fucking young they are" thread fiasco fletwhatsit and tom got into last night.

'How's this' -- because it was homophobic duh. Why do you think so many of your posts get deleted? Anyway, can I get a witness (and frankly I'm bored with this now -- please wake up to yourself) that Calum has used homophobic language in the past? Of course, if I'm worng then it's a terrible mistake and all my above posts shd be deleted.

Homophobic language? Can't remember using any unless "u r gay" means homophobic?

Also, let the record show that if I hadn't rather publicly given up my moderator privileges, the "who cares" thread wouldn't be here and johnny twatface's little posting frenzies wouldn't be here.

We the moderators as a group have made several bad decisions, largely due to being reactive to loud protests rather than being proactive to our own internal guidelines as well as not doing a good job of communicating moderator decisions to the posting public at large (the second problem of course is exacerbated by the fact that NO ONE FUCKING CARES what the moderators do until something happens that people disagree with). Right now, the entire situation is being reworked, hopefully into something more structured and easier to understand from both a moderator's and a poster's perspective. Until such time that these issues are worked out, the discussion going on in this thread really is little more than frustrated posters taking potshots at each other. If you're all cool with that, then fine, but if not I'd suggest not clicking on this thread for a few days.

I was going to ask... My first memories of fletrejet was of Millar calling him out, but I didn't remember him being quite so incoherent.

Should we maybe make _another_ SHOUT thread for actual shouting at moderators, and erase anything on it related to this whole shit-heap?

I can't figure this bit out. Is that supposed to be a joke, or is it actually serious? Jeez....
- Pashmina

There was a regular column in the Guardian, which contained transcripts from an internet chatroom. One of the users was called 'Pashmina'. Everyone acted dumb, got the wrong end of the stick, became abusive, and, as the hapless moderator tried to restore serious discussion, responded with woefully unfunny porno non sequiturs.

The column was a joke. Its 'Pashmina' was not a real person. The chat was made up. It was the kind of wanton parody that might be misinterpreted by dimmer readers as containing real chat, real people. There was a danger that some people might think that it represented the correct way to behave on internet forums. Perhaps owing to this danger, the column has not been appearing recently.

Did it cross your mind that I was trying to joke *with* you, no malice intended?

Should I just never talk to you again, would that make you happier?

I am SO FOR tabula rasasizing this joint it ain't even funny

Hahaha Andrew SET THE DRIVE ON FIRE YOU WANT TO YOU KNOW IT

Some threads have some very interesting stuff -- educational. Think of the children.

MY POINT sort of

xpost

Love you all, bye!

xost

Just in case you thought it couldn't get any worse than this, here's another board on saddam's capture:

http://www.the-gas-station.com/messages.cfm?type=normal&thread_id=55928&lastdays=5񰇋

x-post: haha jess its the second you've said that.

And sea otters.

did calum remember that he has referred to more than one person as an arse bandit yet? ("oh that's just a joke term, it doesn't mean i am homophobic, or even a repressed homophobe...oh wait, maybe the latter")

http://www.base58.com/ilx/young06.jpg
(for ally)

i love it here and i would definitely miss it, but something about burning the whole thing down feels very right, especially when it mostly brings out the worst in people anyway.

fellows. I open the flower of my pants to you.

-- Mike Hanle y (pennyson...), December 15th, 2001. (link)

it would be the most pro-pop gesture ilx could possibly make.

If ILXOR.com is upsetting to the point where you want it to disappear, this is indicative that you should stop posting to it. IMO, natch.

We actually have some interesting projects currently in development on ILM right now, believe it or not.

this is only an idea. it is not a conviction

actually, i can suggest it all i want! it doesn't mean it's going to happen, but...

If ILXOR.com is upsetting to the point where you want it to disappear, this is indicative that you should stop posting to it. IMO, natch.

who said they were upset?

; )

Tombot, but that's not even really the point. The point is that the easiest way for you to "delete ILE" is to STOP READING IT.

See, Gareth will miss me at least. And Kate has emailed me several times to say that she simply cannot live without my humouress and witty posts.

C.F. One or both of the above may not be true.

None found

(FYI)

(x-post - probably they'd just call you a 'minge')

Misanthropy: The Great Equalizer

I think Tombot has a point - it might be a laugh to start a new board on January 1 and lock ILE for a bit, just to see what happens, how anything changes? We could unlock ILE after a month or so. Or not.

on this thread: Arnold Schwarzenegger's Total Body Workout

I foolishly hotlinked an arnie image that for all I know is from an official site, and would rather not tip them off that I'm sharing Arnie's excellence with the world. Damage is already done if they look at their logs carefully, and it's my mistake and I'm willing to live with it if need be, but I'm trying a shout.

(this isn't a personal attack, I love almost every one of you)

I'd only mind if I were being used as an example of just how bad moderators can be, Matt!

I am rather appalled by Kate's attitude to Sam, someone I like a lot (but I'm friends with Kate too - I'm sure she knows this isn't about picking a friend against someone I don't know). Obviously I don't know the details of the past troubles, nor how long ago they are, but threatening to leave before someone has actually done anything remotely wrong in the current circumstances seems very short of fair. I accept that knowing the past history might make me change this view, but it would have to be pretty spectacular, and pretty recent, to do that, at least.

Calum, I have kept your emails to me (and those of others to do with moderating issues), so it's no good claiming you haven't requested a number of deletions of other people's posts when they have contained no private info - you were asking for (and lamely threatening about) this last Friday! Oh, and I think you're a homophobe too - you've used suggestions that someone is gay as an insult repeatedly, which is just the sort of thing that directly creates a homophobic atmosphere. No, I'm not wasting my time trying to find things, since this sort of stuff is always top deletion fodder.

Anyway, this is miserable and tedious stuff. I see no benefit in deleting ILE and starting again, as I don't see how this would change anything at all, and it would lose loads of good stuff (as well as lots of rubbish, of course).

I think a good set of policy guidelines, not unlike those Tom posted, would be a good thing. I think whoever is a mod then should have to stick closely to it (as I've said, I don't mind if this includes me or not). It can't be rigid rules because words aren't that simple, but it can give lots of firm guidance. I've said that I'm also in favour of fixed terms for mods.

I'm not convinced that voting mods in would work terribly well, as the popularity contest aspect would take over, but I have no great objection, except we would have to restrict voting somehow so that some troll couldn't vote for themselves a hundred times. Or maybe just give our best leaders (board administrators Tom and Mark S, plus Andrew as our host, say) a veto.

xxpost

nope. & my mod request last friday hasn't been noticed (i guess). not that it matters that much anyways. ilx is my distraction from work, not my bloodstone

why does everyone assume that "delete ilx" = "i hate ilx"?!

Then again, Marty thinks I'm Satan himself. As well as being a homophobe I'm also a misogynist and all sorts of other things according to the Skidmaster. Anyhoo - I'm bored with this. Argue about it among yourselves.

P.S. I saw in another thread Marty claimed he's had group sex. I find this sleazy as fuck and call Marty and old perv with no hankering for romance, love or partnership. Of course, this might not be true - I don't know him - but judging from his decision to label me all and sundry I call the old depressed misor a pervy bugger who probably gets off on chatting up ILX girls off-line and making himself out to be a proper gent when in fact he's beating his meat to the idea of pouncing on them whenever a FAP comes up the old sly dog.

(Teeny, that pic has been changed to a link.)

exactly!

*Anyone who does not respect carefully set out PC rules. Therefore, anyone who - for instance - might suggest a Navy officer is in fact a repressed homosexual is labelled a homophobe and deleted instantly, because humour does not exist on ILX outside of carefully thought out, jovial remarks carefully edited and re-written to offend no one.

*Any male who expresses any sort of enjoyment of the opposite sex (note: in this weird PC landscape, guys who like guys are given overt sympathy and females are given free reign to talk about naked because that's what all feminism was about, right?)

*Everyone is homophobic and every guy must copulate with another male before going on ILX to prove otherwise. Homophobia is everywhere, in all our postees - liberal or otherwise. This is the most important rule.

*Pornography and all forms of nudity are evil. Women who pose without clothing are forced into it and hate it and want out.

*Sex in groups is only okay if the ever considerate Martin Skidmore is part of it, as he will make everyone feel good and even serve some freshly squeezed wine at token intervals.

*Trolls must be deleted instantly, as threads which are funny/ bizarre/ outright stupid are not part of place of any public forum.

Be interested in your comments people! As for me, I'm gonna head off for a bit - I got bored of this a long time ago now. I tried to stay on topic during the Saddam thread and before long I'm being branded a homophobe for saying something i never even fucking said ("arse bandit"?). I might pop in with some opinions later - but please, ILX, sort yourselves out. You're all boring me to tears tonight and seem obsessed with little old me which, usually, I would encourage and laugh about - but shouldn't you guys like - have a life or something to get on with? I'm really not all that exciting.

Actually, momus: http://ilx.wh3rd.net/adminlog.php

I have implemented some features whereby moderators are required to supply a Reason upon deleting or editing any posts. Copies of the original messages that are deleted/edited are kept in an archive for later review.

I'm wondering what the best method for picking new moderators will be. Personally I would like to have Dan and Mark S as 'chief' moderators (if they are willing to accept the position). I would then like to post a thread soliciting moderator nominations, and from those nominated we three could pick some balanced candidates. What do you think?

(Has the give-a-reason functionality been added to ILM? It seems like a good idea.)

Can I suggest separate mods / mod groups for ILE/ILM as these are more and more separate worlds?

This is already the case.

Has the give-a-reason functionality been added to ILM?

Yes, and every other board on ILX.

as a quick aside, Martin can ferment grapes into wine AS HE SQUEEZES THEM? I have heard that Martin has skills, but damn...

This is the thread where you SING FOR THE MODERATOR!

So please post any ILM queries there, since the two boards are likely to have different mods from now on.

Dude, did you miss the multiple orgasm thread? The guy's a magician.

I would still think it fun to scrub the whole mess and start anew but then again I did nearly pass a referendum to dissolve the student government at my college my junior year. 48% of the vote! Fratboy motherfuckers. Anyway. Yeah.

Ironically, although it successfully avoids a caste system in which moderators are distingished from average posters, it replaces it with a different caste system in which every single post is assigned a class, and some of them are made invisible to most readers.

I wonder how many hits a link at the top of a popular ILX thread generates.

User-defined linkbars, as in: the bit in the top right which has ilm or ile depending on where you are. Could you make it so registered users could alter it to link to any other chosen board on ilxor.com? Or would that slow things up hugely/be too difficult/be a bad idea?

(I know I used to be the #1 opponent of spinoff boards, this is something else ive changed my mind on totally lately)

Momus:

It makes me really anxious that people think they can know a post is 'funny', 'interesting' or 'flamebait', and duck the 'weak' posts out of sight, like species on their way to extinction

I posted to Slashdot intensively for a few years, and witnessed it turn itself into a pile of garbage as a direct result of their moderation system. Anything actually funny (read: challenging) is modded into oblivion and out of sight, while those repeating what people like to hear are modded up to +5 Interesting/Funny/Insightful. If you like, I can demonstrate the stupidity of the system by making a post to any recent article and having it moderated to +5 within minutes. All it takes is a bit of calcuated social engineering.

A much more interesting community akin to Slashdot is Kuro5hin. The front page articles are all user-submitted and user-moderated. You also might be interested in Everything2 which is somewhat related to this discussion.

2)i think I have quite sensibly been removed from the list of super moderators. hurrah, but in a spare minute could someone with the power restore me as mod/creator of the HTML playground board (like it actually needs one)
That reminds me. META tags are now banned.