Editing rule...Check this out Griz

GT Fish

http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?77970-9-29-2012-Port-Saint-Lucie-Offshore-Fishing-Report

This is a long time poster and member..He hates it..Post#2

He has nothing to do with OT..

capt.nate

oh snap!

Docked Wages

Thanks for the heads up, you should be a mod :-)

Its unfortunate that the actions of a few have such a negative impact across the majority. But given the circumstances I dont see any other way FS can filter the adolescent behavior that triggered this restriction.

GT Fish

I think we can change it back..People know what not to post.

Michael Repper

Docked Wages wrote: »

Thanks for the heads up, you should be a mod :-)

Its unfortunate that the actions of a few have such a negative impact across the majority. But given the circumstances I dont see any other way FS can filter the adolescent behavior that triggered this restriction.

FS could deal with the minute percentage of members who actually post **** without wrecking a feature that is widely available on most forums on the internet.

Docked Wages

Michael Repper wrote: »

FS could deal with the minute percentage of members who actually post **** without wrecking a feature that is widely available on most forums on the internet.

OK, now that is suggesting a subjective judgement call of how much is acceptable. Then when you edit a HOTD the poster will use the previous blind eye approach as a precident.

Best way to over rule this is to A) get a written letter from every FS sponsor stating that they will accept and continue to sponsor a site that is pornography friendly or give it time and when there is less adolescent behavior going on request again and Griz will probably reactivate it. Just like a perma ban is not really permanent.

Michael Repper

Docked Wages wrote: »

OK, now that is suggesting a subjective judgement call of how much is acceptable. Then when you edit a HOTD the poster will use the previous blind eye approach as a precident.

Best way to over rule this is to A) get a written letter from every FS sponsor stating that they will accept and continue to sponsor a site that is pornography friendly or give it time and when there is less adolescent behavior going on request again and Griz will probably reactivate it. Just like a perma ban is not really permanent.

That's absurd. If FS doesn't allow ****, delete the posts and ban the posters every single time.

Gary S. Colecchio

fishonhenson wrote: »

have any of the mods taken any management type courses? you never manage to the few or make policy to the few

I have. That's why I don't do it anymore.

capt.nate

Who posts ****? All I remember is silly harmless photoshops.

Docked Wages

Michael Repper wrote: »

That's absurd. If FS doesn't allow ****, delete the posts and ban the posters every single time.

FS tried that, but when the few have dozens of alias for the sole prupose of being banned it does work. Then you are forced to go with an automated filter. No conspriracy theory here, just not enough mods or time to continously recheck old posts for edits that violate FS standards.

Docked Wages

fishonhenson wrote: »

have any of the mods taken any management type courses? you never manage to the few or make policy to the few

I have taken too many, and you are right. If we follow the Jack Welch format the bottom 10% would be continuously eliminated.

Michael Repper

Docked Wages wrote: »

FS tried that, but when the few have dozens of alias for the sole prupose of being banned it does work. Then you are forced to go with an automated filter. No conspriracy theory here, just not enough mods or time to continously recheck old posts for edits that violate FS standards.

Then you guys were doing something horribly wrong since removing posts and banning members who post pornography works for forums.

I do not buy that FS does not have enough mods to enforce it's rules.

If FS does not have enough mods to enforce it's rules, they could either screw up a forum feature that exists on most forums across the internet or they could, I don't know, recruit a mod or two...

Gary S. Colecchio

Docked Wages wrote: »

I have taken too many, and you are right. If we follow the Jack Welch format the bottom 10% would be continuously eliminated.

And?

Michael Repper

nate wrote: »

Who posts ****? All I remember is silly harmless photoshops.

I don't know. I have not personally seen **** posted since many months ago when some member got banned for posting some guy with a stuffed raccoon. There was the big to do over the poof fairy post banning and then the convo turned to members posting ****. I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't really about **** at all, but much more restrictive personal standards of individual mods.

Docked Wages

Gary S. Colecchio wrote: »

And?

And eventually YOU will find yourself in the bottom 10% and be eliminated :-)

Michael Repper

Docked Wages wrote: »

And eventually YOU will find yourself in the bottom 10% and be eliminated :-)

Why would Gary be banned? That makes no sense. Does he post ****? No...

Michael Repper

I keep hearing that deleting posts and banning members being too much work is what led to the change to the edit feature. It keeps ringing through loud and clear in nearly every explanation from the forum staff.

Docked Wages

Michael Repper wrote: »

Then you guys were doing something horribly wrong since removing posts and banning members who post pornography works for forums.

I do not buy that FS does not have enough mods to enforce it's rules.

If FS does not have enough mods to enforce it's rules, they could either screw up a forum feature that exists on most forums across the internet or they could, I don't know, recruit a mod or two...

Florida Sportsman Forums Statistics

Threads:75,848Posts:966,998Members:25,215Active Members:7,534
Welcome to our newest member, SsabRetsam


How would suggest that FS validates the compliance of 966,998 posts have not been edited with inappropriate material?

Would this be a daily or weekly action of opening and reviewing each thread?

This action is a result of a minority group intentionally executing this brilliant approach to circumnavigate the process.

Don’t hate FS hate the violators.

Michael Repper

Docked Wages wrote: »

How would suggest that FS validates the compliance of 966,998 posts have not been edited with inappropriate material?

Would this be a daily or weekly action of opening and reviewing each thread?

This action is a result of a minority group intentionally executing this brilliant approach to circumnavigate the process.

Don’t hate FS hate the violators.

You cannot prevent **** from ever showing up on a public forum that allows pictures to be posted. What mods can do is delete it when they see it, when it's reported, and ban the members who do it. Every single time.

If you are telling me right now that FS does not have enough mods to enforce it's rules, then I guess FS needs to recruit a couple more mods for this section, eh?

The only way FS could prevent **** from showing up on this forum is to convert it to a blog and require all posts be reviewed before publication. That is just silly. Moderation works for forums all over the internet.

Messing with the edit feature is lazy, defeatist nonsense that only serves to avoid the issue.

capt.nate

Maybe instead of increasing the mods cut back on all the sub forum crap?

Griz

What do you think a reasonable edit window would be?

Michael Repper

Griz wrote: »

What do you think a reasonable edit window would be?

Why does there need to be a limit on the edit feature? Why not just delete all **** and ban the member who posts it? It seems to be working fairly well since I don't see **** popping up in here every day and I do a lot of reading here.

If you don't have enough mods to enforce the rules, recruit a couple more.

capt.nate

Griz wrote: »

What do you think a reasonable edit window would be?

none. if someone wants to go back and edit a pic in their post they can still do so.

Michael Repper

nate wrote: »

none. if someone wants to go back and edit a pic in their post they can still do so.

That's a really good point, nate. All someone has to do is upload a **** pic with the same name in their photobucket and voila. Even if you completely remove the edit feature it is still simple to do.

Does this suggest that we should disallow pics from being posted? No. Moderation works.

Docked Wages

Michael Repper wrote: »

Why does there need to be a limit on the edit feature? Why not just delete all **** and ban the member who posts it? It seems to be working fairly well since I don't see **** popping up in here every day and I do a lot of reading here.

If you don't have enough mods to enforce the rules, recruit a couple more.

MR this explanation is for you and my last on this issue.

The inability to edit after ten minutes was enacted due to a small contingency of users that were abusing the ability to edit. This group of users have found it amusing to post under an alias username with a simple post then after the post dropped to the bottom of the page they would edit it with inappropriate material, nude or pornography photos just to tease and test the limits of tolerance by the moderators. FS cannot filter past replies to see when or if these adolescent actions occur. With 996,000 posts, adding more mods to continuously check past posts for compliance is not feasible. Furthermore it is not as simple a banning a user once identified as these users names come from a pool of disposable user names set up simply to be banned. This is a reactive action to mitigate a calculated action by a few with the sole intent to disrupt. FS has an obligation to its members and sponsors to protect the integrity of the posts that can be accessed at anytime.

It is unfortunate that the actions of few have a negative impact to the whole but FS saw no other way to quickly contain this problem.

Have a nice day and thank you for your understanding.

flattitude

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Florida Sportsman Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any content item for any reason.

---

the above is every rule you need .. it already says you can do whatever you want whenever you want for whatever reason you want. This is the problem There is no set of rules and even if you had them spelled out it still wouldn't work without fair, unbiased, thick skinned, even moderation with no favoritism at all. Unfortunately you have double standards, moderators with agendas etc. and on top of that their leader has a hard on for several members just cause they don't fit in to the cookie cutter poster they want. If you have an open forum eventually two people won't see eye to eye and decide to disagree. The problem arises when the person who disagrees is in a position of power and decides to impose his beliefs on the masses.

Michael Repper

Docked Wages wrote: »

It is unfortunate that the actions of few have a negative impact to the whole but FS saw no other way to quickly contain this problem.

Quickly contain this problem which is invisible to me and I bet the majority of regulars in OT?

Where is this ****? Show me. Show me the **** that you can't delete. Where are these users that you can't ban? Can you point me in their direction?

I could go back right now and change every single one of my photobucket pictures to **** and there is nothing that any changes to the edit feature could do to stop that. The edit solution does not work.

flattitude

Docked Wages wrote: »

MR this explanation is for you and my last on this issue.

The inability to edit after ten minutes was enacted due to a small contingency of users that were abusing the ability to edit. This group of users have found it amusing to post under an alias username with a simple post then after the post dropped to the bottom of the page they would edit it with inappropriate material, nude or pornography photos just to tease and test the limits of tolerance by the moderators. FS cannot filter past replies to see when or if these adolescent actions occur. With 996,000 posts, adding more mods to continuously check past posts for compliance is not feasible. Furthermore it is not as simple a banning a user once identified as these users names come from a pool of disposable user names set up simply to be banned. This is a reactive action to mitigate a calculated action by a few with the sole intent to disrupt. FS has an obligation to its members and sponsors to protect the integrity of the posts that can be accessed at anytime.

It is unfortunate that the actions of few have a negative impact to the whole but FS saw no other way to quickly contain this problem.

Have a nice day and thank you for your understanding.

You apparently are not listening there are ways around the edit window so if we wanted to post **** in an old post it can be done. very easily in fact. if you wish we can have a contest take a picture which complies and wait the ten minutes then after the edit is done I will show you how i can change the picture without you knowing it. pretty soon you guys are gonna strangle the life out of this place as usual with heavy moderation and broken promises to boot.

flattitude

Michael Repper wrote: »

Quickly contain this problem which is invisible to me and I bet the majority of regulars in OT?

Where is this ****? Show me. Show me the **** that you can't delete. Where are these users that you can't ban? Can you point me in their direction?

I could go back right now and change every single one of my photobucket pictures to **** and there is nothing that any changes to the edit feature could do to stop that. The edit solution does not work.

he didn't listen the first time you said it he ain't gonna hear it now. non computer literate people have a hard time grasping what your even referring to.

Capt'n. Chumbucket

Docked Wages wrote: »

Florida Sportsman Forums Statistics

Threads:75,848Posts:966,998Members:25,215Active Members:7,534
Welcome to our newest member, SsabRetsam


How would suggest that FS validates the compliance of 966,998 posts have not been edited with inappropriate material?

Would this be a daily or weekly action of opening and reviewing each thread?

This action is a result of a minority group intentionally executing this brilliant approach to circumnavigate the process.

Don’t hate FS hate the violators.

Appears that this may actually require you to do your job by monitoring posts. What do you do now?

capt.nate

flattitude1976 wrote: »

You apparently are not listening there are ways around the edit window so if we wanted to post **** in an old post it can be done. very easily in fact.

yup. watch.......