Moderator Action Sticky #3
Hello. The previous mod action sticky was cumbrously long so this is a new one. What this thread is for:
This thread is an ad-hoc way of tracking what threads and comments get removed. Mods that remove a thread should post the title here with a brief reason as to why the thread is gone.
NOTE: if you leave an irrelevant comment in this thread it will be deleted.
Update: There's now a Mod Action Sticky IV.
February 19th, 2014 at 8:22 AM ^
I appreciate your outline on the MGoNoPolitics policy and I gladly accept whatever rules the site has. My main issue with how these discussions have gone down (from what I've read) is that people with religious moral standards have been ridiculed. I know that some MGoUsers can't represent their standards without being opinionated blowhards. That does not excuse blanket comments about people of faith being homophobes, ignorant, a-holes, etc. etc. People of faith can be intelligent and thoughtful individuals who have used evidence and their personal experience to arive at their faith. Faith and reason are not always mutually exclusive.
February 9th, 2014 at 9:54 PM ^
I'm not going to criticize a judgement call, but I prefer that these threads perpetuate themselves. It's sports related of course (college sports even) and is a bit of a landmark moment for the sport. It's too bad that in 2014, some people are still where they are. Let the exchange of ideas suppress the ignorant.
"Next time somebody tells you something that they believe, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably believe because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
February 9th, 2014 at 10:10 PM ^
I won't make a value judgment here, but I'll admit this is a sports-related fansite for UM sports; it just isn't the realm for discussions about hot-topic issues like sexuality and the intricacies of religion.
February 9th, 2014 at 10:26 PM ^
On stuff like this, it all depends on how people react. If people can have a calm, reasoned discussion, it stays. If not, it doesn't. Here, a few people (cough cough IPFW_Wolverines) screwed it up for everyone.
February 10th, 2014 at 2:50 AM ^
I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm annoyed that these threads were taken down or the comments disabled.
In my opinion, this is no longer a "political issue" in the sense that each side deserves a voice. If someone wants to speak out against homosexuals participating equally in the NFL or any other part of American life, then we should delete their comments and ban the users. Those types of comments should be treated like overt racism, not like stances on actual political issues like abortion or capital punishment.
This is a hugely important, great moment in American sports. It's not a debatable political issue, and we should be able to celebrate and appreciate the moment. If people expose themselves as intolerant assholes, then I think you should deal with them as such, but removing/locking the threads altogether feels inappropriate.
February 10th, 2014 at 8:06 AM ^
In my opinion, this is no longer a "political issue" in the sense that each side deserves a voice.
I agree with everything you said, but you're always going to ge the faith-based baloney and the anti-PC contrarians. One of those groups are jsut assholes, the other makes it really hard for the mods to do what you'd like them to do.
February 10th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
Would you be less annoyed if the reason centered on a combination of seeing a lot of hate and thinking that the combination of Sam getting bashed on the site, policing both hateful people and the replys they generate plus trying to parse out who might be trolling the issue for e-ttention just not being worth the upside of a bunch of anonymous "this is huge" and "good for him" comments and a discussion on how his future locker room will behave?
I didn't take down the thread but I strongly suspect that's a possibility.
February 10th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
I'm not sure (and again, I think the mods do a really nice job around here).
I guess I don't know what the goal is. If the goal is to prevent any content from offending/hurting visitors to the site, then I'd personally be more offended by not being allowed to talk about this than I would by seeing one or two assholes post hurtful things among dozens saying "this is huge" or "good for him."
I should say, however, that I didn't see the original thread, so I don't really know how the conversation was going. I also understand that you guys have jobs and lives, so constantly refreshing the site to see if someone said something awful isn't how you should be spending your days.
February 10th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
The goal definitely isn't to prevent anything that might be offensive, but the tide is going to trend one way or the other on the "worth it" scale, and my (educated) guess is that LSA didn't think it was worth it to have certain comments on the site and didn't think it was something fixable with anything else in his toolbox, which going on a tangent, are some pretty blunt objects when you think about it.
Since this post is all personal anyway you should know that it's guys like you that keep us up and at it. Really enjoy your posting and I appreciate your kind words.
February 10th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^
As JGB said, the tools we have in this role are pretty blunt - I was for a time actually removing entire sections of the thread which were going downhill, just as we've done with other threads in the past, but the problem that sometimes occurs is that the thread becomes so fragmented and unreadable that the risk of accidental disagreements, if you will, becomes high. The context of a lot of replies is also lost through this method, and it is the only one we really have to use. It got to a point where between how some people were reacting and how the splice job on the thread went, it was unfortunately too much.
Essentially, the options we have at that point are not many - we can delete it altogether, we can lock it with or without the comments displayed or leave it. As BisB notes, a lot of this depends on how people are reacting, but also the volume that reaction comes into play. In the case of this thread, you had a couple people being very vocal about their displeasure, if you will, and it simply got to a point where it was not salvagable. Granted, that's a subjective call and I would have enjoyed as much as anyone to leave it if there had been better behavior from a very vociferous minority of posters.
February 10th, 2014 at 2:49 AM ^
Also, just so I get this in along with my critique on this particular call, I think you guys (the mods) perform a thankless job excellently. Thank you for keeping the board readable.
February 19th, 2014 at 12:16 AM ^
Here's how that thread was always going to go:
Guy 1: Woohoo!
Guy 2: Amazing his teammates were behind him!
Guy 3: What a landmark! I'm officially a Mizzou fan
Guy 4: I don't know what you are all so happy about. I have sex with [animal, vegetable or mineral]. Throw me a parade!
Guy 2: What an asshole Guy 4 is.
[Thread devolves]
You know what was the least likely thing to happen in that thread? Guy 4 confronting the overwhelming objection to his comments, realizing the error of his thiking, and changing his viewpoint to the consensus. You know what was the second-least likely thing to happen in that thread? A reasonable discussion that provides a framework for further discussion on the topic.
Is it possible we missed out on a great back and forth about how a college locker functions, or some insight from someone closer to the situation that would help us to see it in a clearer light, etc. etc. etc.? Yeah sure. I'm willing to sacrifice that chance just to avoid the inevitable discussion on what the first amendment really means.
February 10th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
FWIW I think it's kinda of a sad reflection on the board that we cant have a civil discourse on what agrueably might be the biggest sports story in recent memory. As Turd says - why would homophobes or other idiots be treated any differently by Mods than outright racists? We don't restrict discussion on issues of race (yesterday's discussion on Smart's shoving of the "super fan" being a great example) - why we do we shut down conversation on sports story involving sexual orientation?
I would suggest having a moderated open thread and deal with idiots no differently than you'd deal with a racist spewing hate. To me they are one and the same guy.
February 10th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
I can only speak for myself. But I could have a perfectly civil discourse on this subject. I'd wonder why anybody thought this was the biggest sports story in recent memory. A fourth round pick on the third day of the NFL draft. It is "big" only because one side in the culture wars wants to use it.
I never even saw -- much less participated -- in the thread that gave rise to this. On my own, I wouldn't have taken it down. But I certainly would have observed that it was political, much like the comments in this moderation thread are political statements; demonizing the cultural opposition.
This is my last word on the subject. I won't debate any of you here, because the mods have already laid down the law which is that they have unilateral subjective authority over how discussions are conducted. It would never be a fair fight, even if I wanted to contest it. The mods do a pretty good job of adhering to some general rules. But I realize, as they do, that the prime direcrive here is not the Oxford Debating Society but rather the creation of a certain kind of sportsfan website. Which is for the entertainment of the audience, and not to resolve social issues.
February 10th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
Can we ban this guy already? I'm pretty sure "being incredibly annoying all the time" has already been established as banhammer worthy.
February 10th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
Co-signed.
March 27th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^
Being annoying in the mod thread isn't the same as being annoying on front-end threads. I'm not saying this thread is Nam (it's not Nam; there are rules!) but I have considerably more patience with someone of a different/stupid opinion trying to plead his case in the mod thread than arguing with general readers.
Everyone knows Section 1 is a political dude. There's still a place here for people with political views so strong that they tend to infiltrate and color their views of other things, so long as they keep their shit in check.If he didn't also add positive things to the discussion on a rather regular basis in threads where readers go he'd have been long gone. I rather prefer to have Section 1 on here since his difference of opinion is useful and he therefore represents the edge of what we will tolerate.
February 10th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
It's not a war. The fight is lost. Your side is like Jackson and his troops fighting in New Orleans after the war was over.
February 10th, 2014 at 7:03 PM ^
agreed, the culture wars are over. Section1's team lost.
February 10th, 2014 at 7:39 PM ^
This whole culture war thing was political when it was brought up and it's still political now, on top of still being unnecessary.
February 10th, 2014 at 11:46 AM ^
I agree completely, mGrowOld. If a major racial barrier were broken in American sports, we wouldn't prevent discussion because of the potential that someone might say something racist. We'd just deal with racist talk by deleting it and banning the users.
The existence of homophobes shouldn't prevent the celebration of major sports milestones in the same way that the existence of racists shouldn't prevent the celebration of major sports milestones.
February 10th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
why would homophobes or other idiots be treated any differently by Mods than outright racists?
B/c they can interject their faith into the discussion and thus, here we are
February 13th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
I think the inclusion of all these threads about Michael Sam are inherently unfair to MGoUsers of faith. It is very difficult for any person to discuss a moral issue like homosexuality without seeing it through the lense of his moral code of acceptability. Why is it ok for people to support or agree with a homosexual football player "coming out", while those who disagree with the lifestyle are labeled as homophobes, etc. Aren't both sides of the discussion just sharing their moral opinion of the story? Couldn't it be argued that comments supporting the homosexual lifestyle are discussing a type of moral code and could therefore be categorized as "religion" and also be banworthy?
February 13th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^
People support Mike Sam b/c they think he has the right to persue is own happiness, play in the NFL without discrimination, etc. It's barely a moral issue at all. The homosexual lifestyle people are "supporting" is the same lifestyle everyone has been entitled to: a lifestyle at all.
The only reason one wouldn't support him is b/c of some faith based reason, for which there is no actual evidence of wrong doing. Finally, your categorization of any opinion being a religion is fairly ridiculous. Some religions say men should never shave, would it be "religion" is I thought it was OK to shave?
February 13th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 8:25 PM ^
lol choice. /end of commentary
lol it is possible to look at things without injecting religion, just as it is possible to look at things without interjecting politics. unless you're section 1
February 13th, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 8:17 PM ^
This comment is why we couldn't discuss this the first time around.
February 13th, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 8:47 PM ^
...why some people consider this a moral issue and by default interject their religious beliefs.
I think we all know why that is, we just don't give a shit and don't want to hear about it.
...all comments that aren't strictly sports related should be deleted.
the rule is no politics, no religion. other OT issues could be discussed in the off season. the mods can correct me if i'm wrong.
February 13th, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 9:41 PM ^
The board, like the blog, is not opinion-neutral. There are certain positions that are, frankly, less acceptable. If someone says racist stuff, and someone else says anti-racist stuff, only the racist stuff will get nuked. Same with sexism. Same with personal attacks on players. Same with opinions on whether quinoa is real food. Some views aren't as welcome, regardless of how genuine the belief or how deeply-rooted the source of those beliefs.
I understand that your faith may condemn homoexuality. I draw no judgments about you as a person as a result of those beliefs. But in 2014, the position that homosexuality is a choice, or that homosexuals may reasonably or justifiably be discriminated against, is far enough outside the mainstream that it just doesn't get equal footing. And if a conflict arises between such comments and the orderly maintainance of a thread, the comments go.
If other mods disagree with this stance, I'm all ears.
February 13th, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
As a mod, I would like to go on record as in agreement here.
I admit that the Sam thread from the other day was removed because people were starting to stray into the worlds of religion and politics, but quite frankly, the people who were portraying this as Sam's mere choice were also quoting a lot of pseudoscience in addition to other things. There is no justification - scientific or social - for dismissing this as a choice.
February 13th, 2014 at 10:09 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^
Unless someone is defending Staee or Ohio of course.
Such people have no place in civilized society.
And I should clarify, I didn't mean that your personal religion may have a problem with homosexuality. I meant "your religion" as in "some peoples' religions" . I got the sense you were largely representing the arguments of such people, whether or not you were one of them.
Now, again, if your faith condones the existence of Ohio, I can't help you.
February 13th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
Well, geez, guys. This is literally an internet message board discussing issues of religion, politics, gay rights, and the intersection thereof, and it has been conducted with respect for each other and an overall sense of diginity. Not only that, but it seems to have reached some kind of reasonable, mutually agreed upon conclusion.
I feel like checking the moderator thread is like stumbling upon a unicorn farm or something.
February 13th, 2014 at 11:19 PM ^
You know who else liked unicorn farms?
HITLER
/internet balance restored
February 14th, 2014 at 12:00 AM ^
I'm with you on everything you wrote, 100%. The only thing I'll add is that from my perspective this shouldn't open the door to an inappropriate reply. See the culture war thing I wrote below; taking that position isn't okay on the site but that's not a free pass for replying however you want.
February 11th, 2014 at 9:45 AM ^
Hey guys,
First of all, wanted to say that I think you do tremendously well with what I can only imagine is a harrowing task of keeping the MGoBoard and comments in check. Kudos.
Just wanted to raise an issue that's been bothering me for a couple days. The Michael Sam post on the board lasted about ten minutes before being locked as "political," which is a judgment that I can understand (if not wholly agree with). But 11W (with a similar fatwa against politics and religion) and tRCMB (of all places) were able to entertain lengthy, mature, and collegial discussions about what was, at least for a few days, the biggest story in sports. It's really disappointing to me that MGoBlog posters aren't capable of the same niveau of adult conversation as our lesser rivals (or, at the very least, that our moderators don't think we are).
I suspect that the primary purpose of locking the thread was to avoid the incidence of a few isolated homophobic comments that have made their way into previous threads (thinking specifically about the Jason Collins discussion). While that kind of solicitude for our LGBT readers is admirable, I think there's another implicit message being sent by locking down the thread: basically, telling LGBT people that their very existence is "political" and thus inappropriate for normal conversation. I don't want to speak for the whole community, but I'd have to believe that, given a choice between dealing with a few stray homophobic comments and having any issue involving a gay person declared verboten on the blog, most LGBT readers would eagerly choose the former.
Again, I hope none of this comes across as an attack. I don't mean to second-guess you guys, and I think you do a very very good job under difficult circumstances. But I hope that, going forward, we can at least allow a discussion like the Michael Sam one to percolate a little bit before imposing a gag order.
Thanks for reading and for your work on the blog.
I feel bad about that too. I can only plead laziness--I didn't want to babysit the thread deleting every ugly tangent, and didn't want to ask one of the mods to do so.
I can't speak for RCMB or 11W's staffs, but ours all share a very strong view on this issue, so it's particularly hard for any of us to do a fair job of moderating it for politics. Personally I felt this was a good example of a thread that should be locked, since any discussion would be inherently political and the news was, if still a turning point, inevitable.
This is a pretty chickenshit response and you should feel like it isn't enough, just as I always am like "wait why did the judge overrule that objection in My Cousin Vinny--I mean except to get the joke in?" I know Ace, myself and BiSB were tweeting pretty strongly about it. Why is it okay for us to put our views all over social media and restrict them on the MGoBlog forum? I don't know. I feel bad about it. So let's go with answer B: I'm too politically biased to handle this well.
February 12th, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^
Something similar had been taken down before, and I'm in agreement about not having threads devoted to the hottness of a given players girlfriend.
Another thing to keep in mind, it's one thing to have the Gisele or Upton posts but as far as I've seen these are personal* pictures shared through social media and I think that makes a difference when considering what goes up on MGoBoard.
*In the sense that they're not part of a professional photo shoot.
February 12th, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
Beilien Succession Plan
My typical threshhold before I consider removal is in the -15 to -20 range, but the nature of the comments piling up made me rethink it this time. I don't know that this would produce a lot of good discussion when he is on contract for another 5 years and there are likely far too many variables to consider this far out.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
OT: Columnist discusses media coverage re: Michael Sam.
Topic being discussed two posts below. Obviously political website. No analysis provided by OP. Flamebait. Take your pick.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^
Serious question. Is there a reason he hasn't been banned yet? I've seen all of the Mods tell him 3 or 4 times now to knock it off, and that he's on his last straw, but then he's still allowed to post threads like that, or just has his comments deleted instead of anything else.
I'm not trying to tell you guys what to do, just curious where the line is drawn with regards to leniency?
February 13th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
Topic being discussed two posts below. Obviously political website. No analysis provided by OP. Flamebait. Take your pick.
The post was crafted as an exact corollary to the "DFW sports anchor" thread. Quoting it, in fact. It was a kind of copy, with a competing link.
Serious question: Are you suggesting that I should simply have made my post as a "reply" in that other thread?
The post contained no more and no less "analysis" by the OP than the "DFW sports anchor" thread. I plead guilty in that regard. I didn't try to do any analysis. Is "analysis" a requirement of posts containing links to self-explanatory, and sometimes contentious, issues? I did not know that; if so it would seem to be a rule observed quite often in the breach thereof.
"Flamebait"? I supplied no substantive commentary. (No "analysis" in your parlance.) My post, and the linked column, contained not one word of objectionable material. My post said little other than introducing the link and quoting the DFW sports anchor thread; "Like him or hate him, he makes some strong points." The linked column was nothing more and nothing less than a commentary on a perception of media bias on the coverage of Michael Sam. The column author wrote not a word of commentary on the substance of gay rights. As other MGoCommenters have been falling all over themselves to say, "This has been the biggest story in sports for the past 48 hours." (48 hours-plus, now.) Analysis of that national coverage meta-story ought to be fair game.
"Obviously political website." Hmm. Okay. You got me. It was not an "obviously politcal" column; it was media criticism. It was not an "obviously political" post on my part; I said nothing substantive about the debate, much less politics. But yeah, Newsbusters is, in general, just one side of the political spectrum. So all sources with a political lean are now verboten? So explain the link to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show in the other thread that I have referenced.
I should add; the "DFW sports anchor" thread is now a true godawful mess. I can hardly bear to wade through it. From players' "junk" in the locker room, to a general free-range discussion of "sexual aggression," "sexual assault" by "dudes," "lesbian locker rooms," "steers and queers" in Texas [I know full well it is an intended sarcastic reference to an R. Lee Ermey solliloquy in Full Metal Jacket] and so on and so forth.
By comparison, my thread on the Tebow/Sam media treatment comparison was 10,000% more serious, and more civil. At least it was when I started it.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^
I don't understand you. If you have to lengthily defend yourself after virtually every post and thread you create, clearly there's a problem and it's likely you.
You're a guy that touches the stove and gets burnt, gets warned about hot surfaces, and then stubbornly maintains your rights of harmful exposure.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
It is flamebait. You clearly posted it in an attempt to agitate the board, which you view as having too one-sided an opinion on the topic. And I'm not sure how you can claim that the column itself isn't political or that he makes no claims about the substance of gay rights when the column includes sentences like, "Having taken the 'courageous' step of joining society's most trendy and celebrated grievance group..." (note the scare quotes around "courageous").
I can't speak to the current state of the other thread, because I simply didn't read it. Maybe you should consider a solution along those lines in the future.
And in response to this, "my thread on the Tebow/Sam media treatment was 10,000% more serious," I'll leave my original comment from that thread:
That seems like a pretty gross misrepresentation of the response to Sam's announcement, as well as a very selective memory of Tebow's entrance to the NFL. Both Sam and Tebow have garnered extremely positive and negative responses, and everything in between. To act like Sam has been embraced whole-heartedly while Tebow was universally attacked is not only disingenuous, it's outright wrong. For a site that proclaims to fight against media bias, that was a horribly inaccurate and biased column.Let us also not forget, that poor put-upon Tebow was drafted in the 1st round and was given the starting job by his second season.
So stop playing the oppressed victim. You're either agitating on purpose, in which case it is flamebait and should be removed, or you're just terrible at understanding the dynamics of the board and shouldn't be posting anyways.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
My completely civil and respectful-disagreement reply to you?
For my part, it isn't even question of a civil debate. Everything I have posted has been civil and serious. It really seems to me to be a matter of shutting off one side of a debate, by any means necessary.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^
The thread was gone before I saw your response and still can't see it, what with the mods taking it down. Can you still see it?
If your real intention was that you're trying to start the same debate from the other point of view, why does it need its own thread? What about what you posted is going to somehow be different from the existing threads? Logically, your post would just go in the same direction of the one that was already posted, it would just be started by a biased rant from a political website, rather than a local news anchor.