Appropriate Stuff
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
Report away.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
So the last page was referenced as a reason to close the thread<link>. Which img's crossed the line?
Img's are
Dog attacks lady
Flesh tent
Never trust a fart
Kermit's Fingers
Curosity shocked the dog
Skid mark Super Hero
Most of those were posted by yours truly so I would like to know which one was inappropriate and why.
Img's are
Dog attacks lady
Flesh tent
Never trust a fart
Kermit's Fingers
Curosity shocked the dog
Skid mark Super Hero
Most of those were posted by yours truly so I would like to know which one was inappropriate and why.
You rebel
Just trying to follow the rules.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Thank you.... Even after my comment of spending my seed on your mom. <3 U.
Btw, I have never reported anyone either. Tbh, I don't even know how to
No, it's really just coincidental. I received a request/report from someone about the thread a couple of days ago. Just happened to be around the same time as the new mods were appointed.
Not going to go there. I will say the request/report was from someone who isn't a mod, who was concerned that the thread had gone too far from the "family friendly" environment we strive for here.
Stoked and I have both done that. Repeatedly, I think. (Granted it's been in about 3 different threads.) What part of the process are you still confused about?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I <3 U 2
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm interested in everything you aren't revealing and why.
The only thing we are not revealing is who has reported any specific post and other mods votes.
What do you think is being hidden?
So basically you want to know names? I think that's the only thing we haven't revealed. And sorry, but it's not going to happen. It's our policy not to reveal who reports posts and how the moderators vote, to provide them at least a modicum of shielding against backlash.
Is there anything else besides individuals' names that you are interested in?
Colton PM'd me the list of snitches. I've already called in the hits.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
Today is a day that I'm very glad to have been granted emeritus status. In this role I have some unique privileges: I don't vote for discipline (and didn't vote on this issue) but I have total transparency as to what happens behind the curtain. I also have some perspective as a long-time user and long-time moderator. To be clear: I don't have a dog in this fight but I do have some perspective as to what's going on. Pretend for a few moments that I am kicky: jazzfanz ombudsman.
To those of you blaming the new moderators: You're just barking up the wrong tree. The overwhelming urge not to **** up in their first week is driving those guys. They are being very careful/cautious. Historically it takes a few weeks before people truly realize it's just another board and it's ok to state your opinion. This was not something driven by those guys and honestly, you should feel bad for them. They basically showed up for their first day of work and had customers blast them for ruining everything by themselves. That is unfair and overwhelming. To the extent that you believe the new moderators were picked for their specific views on any particular thread or content issue I can assure that this was discussed exactly zero times by the previous moderating team. It was really about looking at who applied, how earnestly they appeared to want the thankless position, and making sure they didn't have extensive rule breaking histories themselves. Extra points were given for being handsome (somehow Jazzspazz still got in).
Some general experience regarding enforcement of rules: Everyone hates it. I've had many instances where I've told users in the past how to behave and how things were going to be. A substantial percentage of users just go ape**** about being told that the rules apply to them no matter how clearly you lay it out. I've literally provided pixel heights for how tall signatures can be in the past and provided screen shots and users still claimed they didn't get it. As people we want to be helpful and nice. The first couple dozen times a moderator will try and humor the user and point out the rules and explain the process. That is never satisfying for either party because the fight isn't about rule clarity; the user just wants a different decision. After a year or so as a moderator you're more comfortable just telling people that they have to eat **** and follow the rules and they don't get a say in it. That is, in all honesty, a much easier way to handle things for both ends; it shortcuts the back and forth and gets you where you're probably going to end up anyway. Experience teaches that the users are jerks either way so there's not a lot of reason to baby them.
By starting the same thread over and over again you knew you were being disruptive and trying to overturn the final decision: To those of you that did this, you didn't fool anyone. Everyone knows what's happening. In the past I have actually issued temporary bans for exactly this type of behavior as a 48 hour cool down period while the mods voted. That actually seems to work in everyone's best interests.
This stuff isn't as arbitrary as some of you want to make it seem: Board policy has always been to make this place relatively family friendly. That's Jason's mandate and has been for over a decade. That's why we have profanity filters and why we have content rules. In the bad old days moderator action was unilateral. Some mods were infamous for having weird and bizarre standards. The reality is that the three vote mod system removes all of that from the equation. It's a consensus based system. Many votes are not unanimous but they are rarely polarized. Vote splits tend to be along the lines of "should we ignore this or just send a warning PM" or "is this a warning or have they done it enough times that we need to actually put down an infraction?" There are rarely disputes that come down to some people arguing for a ban and others arguing to ignore it. There are strong policy reasons for votes to be done in secret. That allows the mods to speak honestly and frankly in an area of trust and it allows people to freely report what they want reviewed. That said, I can tell you honestly that if you could see behind the curtain there are no cabals and conspiracies afoot. Some of you would probably be shocked about who reports what and how uncontroversial the decisions really are.
I don't really care about the thread in question. I don't understand why it's the horse anyone would want to die on. But here we are. In a week this won't even matter anymore.
To those of you blaming the new moderators: You're just barking up the wrong tree. The overwhelming urge not to **** up in their first week is driving those guys. They are being very careful/cautious. Historically it takes a few weeks before people truly realize it's just another board and it's ok to state your opinion. This was not something driven by those guys and honestly, you should feel bad for them. They basically showed up for their first day of work and had customers blast them for ruining everything by themselves. That is unfair and overwhelming. To the extent that you believe the new moderators were picked for their specific views on any particular thread or content issue I can assure that this was discussed exactly zero times by the previous moderating team. It was really about looking at who applied, how earnestly they appeared to want the thankless position, and making sure they didn't have extensive rule breaking histories themselves. Extra points were given for being handsome (somehow Jazzspazz still got in).
Some general experience regarding enforcement of rules: Everyone hates it. I've had many instances where I've told users in the past how to behave and how things were going to be. A substantial percentage of users just go ape**** about being told that the rules apply to them no matter how clearly you lay it out. I've literally provided pixel heights for how tall signatures can be in the past and provided screen shots and users still claimed they didn't get it. As people we want to be helpful and nice. The first couple dozen times a moderator will try and humor the user and point out the rules and explain the process. That is never satisfying for either party because the fight isn't about rule clarity; the user just wants a different decision. After a year or so as a moderator you're more comfortable just telling people that they have to eat **** and follow the rules and they don't get a say in it. That is, in all honesty, a much easier way to handle things for both ends; it shortcuts the back and forth and gets you where you're probably going to end up anyway. Experience teaches that the users are jerks either way so there's not a lot of reason to baby them.
By starting the same thread over and over again you knew you were being disruptive and trying to overturn the final decision: To those of you that did this, you didn't fool anyone. Everyone knows what's happening. In the past I have actually issued temporary bans for exactly this type of behavior as a 48 hour cool down period while the mods voted. That actually seems to work in everyone's best interests.
This stuff isn't as arbitrary as some of you want to make it seem: Board policy has always been to make this place relatively family friendly. That's Jason's mandate and has been for over a decade. That's why we have profanity filters and why we have content rules. In the bad old days moderator action was unilateral. Some mods were infamous for having weird and bizarre standards. The reality is that the three vote mod system removes all of that from the equation. It's a consensus based system. Many votes are not unanimous but they are rarely polarized. Vote splits tend to be along the lines of "should we ignore this or just send a warning PM" or "is this a warning or have they done it enough times that we need to actually put down an infraction?" There are rarely disputes that come down to some people arguing for a ban and others arguing to ignore it. There are strong policy reasons for votes to be done in secret. That allows the mods to speak honestly and frankly in an area of trust and it allows people to freely report what they want reviewed. That said, I can tell you honestly that if you could see behind the curtain there are no cabals and conspiracies afoot. Some of you would probably be shocked about who reports what and how uncontroversial the decisions really are.
I don't really care about the thread in question. I don't understand why it's the horse anyone would want to die on. But here we are. In a week this won't even matter anymore.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
So the last page was referenced as a reason to close the thread<link>. Which img's crossed the line?
Img's are
Dog attacks lady
Flesh tent
Never trust a fart
Kermit's Fingers
Curosity shocked the dog
Skid mark Super Hero
Most of those were posted by yours truly so I would like to know which one was inappropriate and why.
Since I'm the one who referenced it, I'll give you my opinion on the two that I would have voted for removal/fract.
1) Easily the Kermit's finger one. That's a slightly different (very slightly) take on one of my all time favorite jokes, but it's easily not appropriate here.
2) The last pic. Now this one is more borderline, but I don't care to see anyone's feces streaked drawers.
You don't really need that. If you do need it, just ask the guy who posted them. I'm sure he'll send it to you via PM.
After 17 different warnings and infractions I find it difficult to believe that you haven't learned anything over the years.