Proposed Forum Rule

Make requests and get help.

Moderator: Manveer

lehman906
Registered User
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 8:31 am
Age: 49

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#21

Post by lehman906 » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:56 pm

Man, I’m not anybody around here, but something doesn’t feel right about this. It feels kinda Texas. I hope I’m wrong, because I really like the idea and the culture of this forum.

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#22

Post by iamsmu » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:06 pm

Like Egypt? I'd be really surprised. I have no idea what happened, but I doubt anyone got suspended for questioning the Montana Method or defending the superiority of the low bar back squat . . . . That's the kind of thing that would get you kicked out of Egypt.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8747
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#23

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:37 pm

quark wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:24 am Given the small number of bans and that the moderators are, IMO, doing a fine job, I'd leave well enough alone.
Yeah. The stress to thanks/reward ratio being a mod here is pretty fucking sucky I'm guessing. And I think they've done an extremely good job dealing with the general psychopathy that the internet encourages. And they've also patiently endured the disrespect of petty antagonism (in a way that non-mods don't have too).

User avatar
KyleSchuant
Take It Easy
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 52
Contact:

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#24

Post by KyleSchuant » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pm

On Starting Strength, Rip abused members regularly, and particularly Nikipedia. Seeing that abuse was being tossed around, she abused back. She was then banned, and the moderators cleaned up the threads where Rip had abused people.

Now on Exodus, Cody has abused members regularly, including Nikpedia. Seeing that abuse was being tossed around, she abused back. She was then banned, and the moderators cleaned up the threads where Cody had abused people.

I am not in favour of banning people for ordinary old abuse. Just let there be the normal social sanctions that so-and-so is known as abusive knobjockey, and so people ignore that person and dismiss their opinions on just about everything. But if you are going to exile people based on abuse, then the rules must be for everyone.

But a boxer can't referee his own fight. Which is why I said: on bodybuilding.com, I do not moderate threads in which I am a participant. And I would add that when someone is banned for abusing me, I reverse the ban; the other bb.com mods are less tolerant of abuse towards mods than abuse towards members, but I think it should be reversed. I'd note that bb.com is one of the largest discussion forums on the internet, by the way, it gets pretty hectic. None of us are paid to moderate on bb.com, and we certainly get a lot of "disrespect of petty antagonism (in a way that non-mods don't have to)." Recently on bb.com I negged a guy for misogynistic comments, and he replied with his own neg, and the comment,

"Stupid ****, what would you gain by negging me considering i'm already in the dumps. It's like kicking someone who's already on the floor. Piece of ****, I've been dealing with you priviledged Chad ****s my entire life, predictable and boring - ****"

Aside from the amusing novelty of my being called a "Chad", technically this is abuse warranting a ban. I protected the guy from a ban. People who are quick-tempered and sensitive to slights are not well-suited to positions of authority, even as lowly an authority as a moderator on a discussion forum.

User avatar
Shane
Great Old One
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:04 pm
Age: 55

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#25

Post by Shane » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:06 pm

KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pm On Starting Strength, Rip abused members regularly, and particularly Nikipedia. Seeing that abuse was being tossed around, she abused back. She was then banned, and the moderators cleaned up the threads where Rip had abused people.

Now on Exodus, Cody has abused members regularly, including Nikpedia. Seeing that abuse was being tossed around, she abused back. She was then banned, and the moderators cleaned up the threads where Cody had abused people.

I am not in favour of banning people for ordinary old abuse. Just let there be the normal social sanctions that so-and-so is known as abusive knobjockey, and so people ignore that person and dismiss their opinions on just about everything. But if you are going to exile people based on abuse, then the rules must be for everyone.

But a boxer can't referee his own fight. Which is why I said: on bodybuilding.com, I do not moderate threads in which I am a participant. And I would add that when someone is banned for abusing me, I reverse the ban; the other bb.com mods are less tolerant of abuse towards mods than abuse towards members, but I think it should be reversed. I'd note that bb.com is one of the largest discussion forums on the internet, by the way, it gets pretty hectic. None of us are paid to moderate on bb.com, and we certainly get a lot of "disrespect of petty antagonism (in a way that non-mods don't have to)." Recently on bb.com I negged a guy for misogynistic comments, and he replied with his own neg, and the comment,

"Stupid ****, what would you gain by negging me considering i'm already in the dumps. It's like kicking someone who's already on the floor. Piece of ****, I've been dealing with you priviledged Chad ****s my entire life, predictable and boring - ****"

Aside from the amusing novelty of my being called a "Chad", technically this is abuse warranting a ban. I protected the guy from a ban. People who are quick-tempered and sensitive to slights are not well-suited to positions of authority, even as lowly an authority as a moderator on a discussion forum.
+1 Bro. I applaud you saying this, particularly as you fairly often cop shit here*.

* - Not as a pejorative: I think it's a tone thing - and your ongoing acceptance/use of some of "the old ways".

lehman906
Registered User
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 8:31 am
Age: 49

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#26

Post by lehman906 » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:11 pm

Very well said, Kyle. And I think your approach is a great way to do it. I don’t know what happened with Nikipedia, so I’m not commenting on that, just what I’ve seen in this thread. This is the first forum I’ve ever actually wanted to be a part of, and it’s largely because of the culture of support and positivity.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8747
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#27

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:32 pm

KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pmCody has abused members regularly
Really?

But also, why even give unsolicited advice on the moderating policies of bb.com (sorry it's been a trainwreck of increasing size over the years)?
Last edited by Hanley on Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Manveer
M3N4C3
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: CA
Age: 39

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#28

Post by Manveer » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:35 pm

KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pm On Starting Strength, Rip abused members regularly, and particularly Nikipedia. Seeing that abuse was being tossed around, she abused back. She was then banned, and the moderators cleaned up the threads where Rip had abused people.

Now on Exodus, Cody has abused members regularly, including Nikpedia. Seeing that abuse was being tossed around, she abused back. She was then banned, and the moderators cleaned up the threads where Cody had abused people.
Cody has abused members regularly? I skimmed through his old posts and I don't see it. I don't read every thread on this forum (not possible) - I probably read less than 5% of posts and rely on reporting to alert me to an issue. Even then, sometimes I don't have time for Exodus because frankly it isn't a high priority relative to family, work, training, etc. I consider Cody a friend - surely I am biased, but I don't see this as the same at all.

As far as moderators "cleaning up the threads", as far as I know the only posts that were edited were the ones that were reported by other members.

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#29

Post by iamsmu » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:41 pm

Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:32 pm
KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pmCody has abused members regularly
Really?
He said that he didn't like my Titan rack and that he preferred some awful Powerline rack that I used to have. And he simply wouldn't recant this view. There should be a rule against that.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8747
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#30

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:43 pm

Manveer wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:35 pmI consider Cody a friend - surely I am biased, but I don't see this as the same at all.
The most obvious difference being that the probable millions Rip has grossed mitigates the general hassle of dealing with internet people. Cody doesn't get shit. Oh - and of course the scale and intensity of the "abuse" (and here I'm thinking of his organization meta-tagging my startingstrength.com account as "cunt" so that a google search for "John Hanley + barbells" yielded a top search result of "John Hanley is a cunt at Starting Strength". That's like tort-level "abuse"...not just name calling. World of difference.

We have our own Godwin's law...every comment sequence on mod action will necessarily devolve into comparisons to Mark Rippetoe.

User avatar
KyleSchuant
Take It Easy
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 52
Contact:

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#31

Post by KyleSchuant » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:54 pm

Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:32 pm But also, why even give unsolicited advice on the moderating policies of bb.com (sorry it's been a trainwreck of increasing size over the years)?
Yes, it is a trainwreck. That is an inevitable consequence of its size. There's just too much going on at any moment to keep track of it all. We're sweeping on a windy day.

If an approach works for an enormous clusterfuck of a place, it should work for somewhere smaller. It's also to deal with possible rejections of my advice: "yeah but you don't know the struggle of being a mod, man! It's tough!"

Bodybuilding.com Forums Statistics
Threads 7,153,705
Posts 139,639,246
Members 17,055,402

I do have some idea.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8747
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#32

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:57 pm

KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:54 pmIt's also to deal with possible rejections of my advice
oh. okay [ and here I reflect on my years as a mid-level manager in the US Government...and how that might qualify me to give management advice ('cause organizational scale)]

crunchyKnees
Registered User
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#33

Post by crunchyKnees » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:04 pm

I'm pretty quiet here, but I read a fair chunk of what gets posted. I just wanted to concur with the general vibe put out by Kyle, Shane, lehman906 and others (I can't vouch for all the particulars).

I think it's very fair to point out the shitty effort:payback ratio for a mod, and I'm very grateful for the tolerant and fair atmosphere here. But, just because that's true in general doesn't make this specific treatment fair. I thought this would have been obvious given the origins of this board. Kyle's suggestion seems like a no-brainier to me.

I'll be naive and ask, can we just put things back and move on and not do this again?

User avatar
Manveer
M3N4C3
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: CA
Age: 39

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#34

Post by Manveer » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:11 pm

KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pmCody has abused members regularly
Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:32 pm
KyleSchuant wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:46 pmCody has abused members regularly
Really?
Manveer wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:35 pm Cody has abused members regularly?
Soooo...?

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8747
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#35

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:27 pm

crunchyKnees wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:04 pmBut, just because that's true in general doesn't make this specific treatment fair.
That wasn't my claim. I think it's unfair to challenge moderators and propose new rules any time they make a rules enforcement action.

I wasn't fond of the bans on Shug, Big Steve or this most recent banning of Mr. Niki.

###

Sidenote curiosity, though: did you read the thread them motivated the ban?

User avatar
tersh
Registered User
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:42 am
Location: Centrally Located Salt
Age: 43

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#36

Post by tersh » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:29 pm

I'm going to assume that the ban on Niki--which no other mods has reported being aware of, and which was not justified--has been reversed and she has been apologized to?

Also, are we just gonna skim over the fact that Cody flat out lied at the beginning of this thread?
Like openly and baldly claimed not to have a done a thing that he had in fact done, and then attempted to stop it from being discussed by locking the thread? Abusing your authority and owning up to it is one thing, but doing so and then denying it when someone brings it up is BS.

Sorry dudes, that is not appropriate mod behavior.
Like I get that dude is well-liked by many, and is often a valuable member of the community, but that doesn't make it acceptable behavior.

User avatar
EricK
Marine Mammal
Posts: 2641
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:02 pm

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#37

Post by EricK » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:31 pm

I know @Cody and @Nikipedia have butt heads at least a couple times, but I haven't seen anything that could reasonably qualify as "abuse." I manage to get along pretty well with both of them, and have no reason to assign blame to one side over the other. I generally prefer transparency about bans and stuff from a community standpoint, but we do have this forum and thread to discuss this specific issue, so I don't know how much more is worth asking for (from unpaid staff).

@KyleSchuant I think it's great that you unban people who were banned for attacking you, but does bb.com take the time to make community announcements every time a post or thread is moved or a member is banned? I understand that you recuse yourself from issues you're involved in, but how many other moderators are available to deal with things when you decide not to? I don't get the impression that this site has a lot of bandwidth to offload effort to other staff members. I don't think your analogy is quite apt considering I don't think there's been any abuse and I don't think that there is a distinct, insular cult of personality around here.

User avatar
tersh
Registered User
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:42 am
Location: Centrally Located Salt
Age: 43

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#38

Post by tersh » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:34 pm

EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:31 pm I know @Cody and @Nikipedia have butt heads at least a couple times, but I haven't seen anything that could reasonably qualify as "abuse." I manage to get along pretty well with both of them, and have no reason to assign blame to one side over the other. I generally prefer transparency about bans and stuff from a community standpoint, but we do have this forum and thread to discuss this specific issue, so I don't know how much more is worth asking for (from unpaid staff).

@KyleSchuant I think it's great that you unban people who were banned for attacking you, but does bb.com take the time to make community announcements every time a post or thread is moved or a member is banned? I understand that you recuse yourself from issues you're involved in, but how many other moderators are available to deal with things when you decide not to? I don't get the impression that this site has a lot of bandwidth to offload effort to other staff members. I don't think your analogy is quite apt considering I don't think there's been any abuse and I don't think that there is a distinct, insular cult of personality around here.
Again, this is not what is being asked for. Just post in the thread. That takes less time than it does to take administrative action. @mgil demonstrates routinely that this isn't a difficult task, and I don't recall seeing people get upset him or question his actions when it does happen. Transparency breeds respect, or at the very least "yeah, okay" shrugs.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8747
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#39

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:36 pm

tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:29 pmLike openly and baldly claimed not to have a done a thing that he had in fact done
Seems reasonable to distinguish between "month-suspension" and "ban"...we might not get the nuance of the difference, but I assumed he was distinguishing the former from the latter.

User avatar
tersh
Registered User
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:42 am
Location: Centrally Located Salt
Age: 43

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

#40

Post by tersh » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:40 pm

Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:36 pm
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:29 pmLike openly and baldly claimed not to have a done a thing that he had in fact done
Seems reasonable to distinguish between "month-suspension" and "ban"...we might not get the nuance of the difference, but I assumed he was distinguishing the former from the latter.
One can make that distinction, yes. The larger point remains.

And honestly, there's a ton of behavior that is let slide, which I am fine with. As long as that applies to everyone.
If DirtyRed gets to be crass and vulgar and insulting to people (including mods), and doesn't get "suspended" for it (which I agree is the right course of action) then that applies to everyone. If I can be a giant ass on occasion and the response is being told to be nice, then everyone else should get that privilege.
Last edited by tersh on Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Locked