Anonymous moderator

[His'nBeatYour'n]

For the record, I have no problem with the FH TOS. As an adult, I can adjust my language, attitude, and tone to whatever limitations FH management deems appropriate for their community. We are all guests here, and if we don't like the rules, we can go somewhere else.

What constitutes a personal attack, or what is truly an off topic response is a subjective thing. There is inconsistency, but the moderators are human, and while it should be their goal, I don't expect them to be perfect. My interpretation of inconsistency is subjective as well.

When member posts are judged as a violation of TOS, the moderators anonymously remove the offending words. While I understand the desire to delete potentially offensive statements so that a specific thread doesn't devolve into a flamefest. I think that deleting the violation removes from view a clear example of what not to do. When I have had a portion of my post deleted, and told it was a violation, I don't have perfect recall to know exactly what I said, or how I worded it to the point that I can clearly see where I went over the line.

My concern is that it isn't always clear what constitutes a true violation of TOS. Jay walking is technically against the law, but most people break it because we know that it is rarely, if ever, enforced. The rules listed are helpful, but real world examples of what is not tolerated would be more helpful.

I would request that minor violations are not deleted from the post, and that major offenses are at least PMd from an anonymous moderator account that cites the offending post.

 

[Fin Fan in Cali]

For the record, I have no problem with the FH TOS. As an adult, I can adjust my language, attitude, and tone to whatever limitations FH management deems appropriate for their community. We are all guests here, and if we don't like the rules, we can go somewhere else.

What constitutes a personal attack, or what is truly an off topic response is a subjective thing. There is inconsistency, but the moderators are human, and while it should be their goal, I don't expect them to be perfect. My interpretation of inconsistency is subjective as well.

When member posts are judged as a violation of TOS, the moderators anonymously remove the offending words. While I understand the desire to delete potentially offensive statements so that a specific thread doesn't devolve into a flamefest. I think that deleting the violation removes from view a clear example of what not to do. When I have had a portion of my post deleted, and told it was a violation, I don't have perfect recall to know exactly what I said, or how I worded it to the point that I can clearly see where I went over the line.

My concern is that it isn't always clear what constitutes a true violation of TOS. Jay walking is technically against the law, but most people break it because we know that it is rarely, if ever, enforced. The rules listed are helpful, but real world examples of what is not tolerated would be more helpful.

I would request that minor violations are not deleted from the post, and that major offenses are at least PMd from an anonymous moderator account that cites the offending post.

The minor offenses as you call are deleted so that the thread doesn't get worse or is taken off topic. Mods will pm members when they are getting a warning to let them know they are crossing the lines as well when they are issued points to let them know they crossed the line, and were issued points as well. If you posted something that you were not supposed to do, you would hear about from a staff member. We the staff try to keep the board friendly, and family oriented as we have young fans viewing what some adults post, that may not be suitable for there viewing. :wink:

 

[CrunchTime]

Usually the offending post is copied before it is edited and is sent along with the warning along with the clause of the TOS it violates.Also we have a record of what was deleted in the intial report which we conserve in the staff forum.

We cant leave it on the post because it will continue to produce reports and replies of other posters who object to it.It can take the thread completely off topic

The reports that are received in the staff room can be originated by a member or staff.

 

[Celtkin]

For the record, I have no problem with the FH TOS. As an adult, I can adjust my language, attitude, and tone to whatever limitations FH management deems appropriate for their community. We are all guests here, and if we don't like the rules, we can go somewhere else.

What constitutes a personal attack, or what is truly an off topic response is a subjective thing. There is inconsistency, but the moderators are human, and while it should be their goal, I don't expect them to be perfect. My interpretation of inconsistency is subjective as well.

When member posts are judged as a violation of TOS, the moderators anonymously remove the offending words. While I understand the desire to delete potentially offensive statements so that a specific thread doesn't devolve into a flamefest. I think that deleting the violation removes from view a clear example of what not to do. When I have had a portion of my post deleted, and told it was a violation, I don't have perfect recall to know exactly what I said, or how I worded it to the point that I can clearly see where I went over the line.

My concern is that it isn't always clear what constitutes a true violation of TOS. Jay walking is technically against the law, but most people break it because we know that it is rarely, if ever, enforced. The rules listed are helpful, but real world examples of what is not tolerated would be more helpful.

I would request that minor violations are not deleted from the post, and that major offenses are at least PMd from an anonymous moderator account that cites the offending post.

There really is really very little gray area when it comes to personal attacks or off topic.

If a post deals with another member rather than the post and that personal comment can be taken as an insult or off-handed remark about that member, it is a unnecessary personal remark and can be preceived as an attack.

Best bet is to comment on the subject of the post and refrain from using the pronoun "you" in any negative sense.

On the off-topic remark issue, if the post is about Daunte and his completion percentage on the field and someone remarks about him completing passes with hookers on gambling boats, it is pretty clear that the intent was to take the thread off topic.

I assure you that every report is reviewed by at least one other staff member before some action is taken.

We don't always get it right but we are quick to reverse the damage when we collectively decide that one of us made mistake.

 

[His'nBeatYour'n]

Thanks for the response guys.

I understood how and why you would want to delete content that could continue to offend or threaten to take the thread off topic. That makes perfect sense, and I agree with it.

And in situations in which members receive points for violations I understand that a mod will send a PM as well.

What I am focusing on are the edited posts that aren't such gross violations that they earn points, but are deleted nonetheless. When this has happened to me, I have nothing to reference as an example of when I went over the line. If it needs to be deleted, I would like the offending statement to be sent to me via PM. I don't ever post with the intent of violating the TOS, so when something I've posted is deleted, I'd like a reference so I won't continue to make the same mistake.

There is often gray area, because I often see others use "you" in a negative sense and it isn't deleted. Negative can and will be subjective. I am not offended by it so that I would complain, but I do see it and it makes it hard to simply rely on the TOS as listed as the absolute reference point. Being able to see (at least my own if not other minor) violations and to compare it to others so that I know where that line is and isn't enforced would make it clearer.

Not knowing how I violated the TOS by being able to read my own words makes it difficult to prevent future mistakes. Especially when something I've posted didn't warrant any points but was deleted.

 

[Celtkin]

Thanks for the response guys.

I understood how and why you would want to delete content that could continue to offend or threaten to take the thread off topic. That makes perfect sense, and I agree with it.

And in situations in which members receive points for violations I understand that a mod will send a PM as well.

What I am focusing on are the edited posts that aren't such gross violations that they earn points, but are deleted nonetheless. When this has happened to me, I have nothing to reference as an example of when I went over the line. If it needs to be deleted, I would like the offending statement to be sent to me via PM. I don't ever post with the intent of violating the TOS, so when something I've posted is deleted, I'd like a reference so I won't continue to make the same mistake.

There is often gray area, because I often see others use "you" in a negative sense and it isn't deleted. Negative can and will be subjective. I am not offended by it so that I would complain, but I do see it and it makes it hard to simply rely on the TOS as listed as the absolute reference point. Being able to see (at least my own if not other minor) violations and to compare it to others so that I know where that line is and isn't enforced would make it clearer.

Not knowing how I violated the TOS by being able to read my own words makes it difficult to prevent future mistakes. Especially when something I've posted didn't warrant any points but was deleted.

We can't possibly read all the content that is posted on FH in a day's time so we depend on members to report infractions.

Only a few of us venture into POFO (where I assume you are mostly referring to...) I am one of those few but I have been busy working on other FH projects and I am getting ready to uproot and move across country so I have not had as much time to read POFO threads as I normally do.

As for what we delete in a thread...an archive of the thread is made before it is altered so, if you have a question about what was deleted, click the report icon on the post you have a question about and, if you were the poster, we will be happy to PM you our reasoning.

 

[His'nBeatYour'n]

We can't possibly read all the content that is posted on FH in a day's time so we depend on members to report infractions.

Only a few of us venture into POFO (where I assume you are mostly referring to...) I am one of those few but I have been busy working on other FH projects and I am getting ready to uproot and move across country so I have not had as much time to read POFO threads as I normally do.

I was certainly not complaining that more policing needed to be done in the PoFo, which is where I have received my deleted content. For better or worse. I had made the assumption that the majority of moderator warnings came from moderators reading the threads. But if you are relying primarily on member complaints, then that would explain the inconsistency. You don't go after every violation, simply the ones that receive member complaints. That makes sense.

As for what we delete in a thread...an archive of the thread is made before it is altered so, if you have a question about what was deleted, click the report icon on the post you have a question about and, if you were the poster, we will be happy to PM you our reasoning.

I will always have a question about what is deleted, unless I remember exactly how I worded my response. This is because I want to understand the mistake I made so that I don't make it again. Not because I want to complain about how I am being censored. :wink:

Thanks guys, I appreciate the response.

 

[Celtkin]

I was certainly not complaining that more policing needed to be done in the PoFo, which is where I have received my deleted content. For better or worse. I had made the assumption that the majority of moderator warnings came from moderators reading the threads. But if you are relying primarily on member complaints, then that would explain the inconsistency. You don't go after every violation, simply the ones that receive member complaints. That makes sense.



I will always have a question about what is deleted, unless I remember exactly how I worded my response. This is because I want to understand the mistake I made so that I don't make it again. Not because I want to complain about how I am being censored. :wink:

Thanks guys, I appreciate the response.

Thanks brother :)