Link Censorship

[MrsLime]

Ok, I have made a New Topic so the original thread (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=16075.0) doesn't get bogged down.

Look, in this thread you have allowed a rival cardroom's URL to be posted, as long as it isn't hyperlinked.

But sometimes, in the same circumstance, you instead star out the URL completely so it is unreadable.

Other times, you just delete whole threads when a link is posted -- and the example I am thinking of was not even a direct link to a cardroom, but a link to a site that had a small rakeback banner at the top.

Of course I want BlondePoker to prosper, more so than the average Blonde.  And I agree that the 'free advertising' of rival rooms is bad.  But that isn't what this is about.

The problem is that there is nothing worse than inconsistent censorship.  This is the point I tried to make (perhaps badly) earlier in this thread.  The fact is, you censor links in an arbitrary fashion.  No, I didn't sugar-coat my words; but I made a reasonable point and I was not rude.

However, the response I get is a personal jibe from a Moderator and the wild accusation that I delight in making things harder for everyone.

I really do appreciate that a huge amount of effort is put in by the Moderators and the whole Blonde team.  However, on this occasion I feel that your response was out of line.

I dont care what you think, after all, im only a volunteer.... have a nice day, and can we get back to the point of the original post, and wish the England team good luck.

I'm sorry, but when you are wearing the Moderator Hat, I think you have to do better than 'I don't care what you think'.  Yes, underlining 'volunteer' everywhere is very funny but it doesn't really address the issue at hand.

I know Blonde isn't a democracy, and I am not suggesting that Moderators are accountable to members.  But along with the privileges of being a Moderator surely comes some responsibility.  I think I made a valid point regarding link censorship on Blonde and I would be interested to hear your (or anyone else's) non-apathetic opinion.

[turny]

oh dear here we go again...........batten down the hatches!

[AndrewT]

MrsLime, if you have issues with the way the Moderators moderate, discuss it with them via PM.

Threads like this bog down the entire forum.

[jezza777]

MrsLime, if you have issues with the way the Moderators moderate, discuss it with them via PM.

Threads like this bog down the entire forum.

[MrsLime]

MrsLime, if you have issues with the way the Moderators moderate, discuss it with them via PM.

Threads like this bog down the entire forum.

I think these sort of discussions are of general interest and therefore should be in public.  For example, other people might want to contribute their own opinions.

Why did you post your message above instead of PMing it to me?

[M3boy]

MrsLime - stop it, you wont win.

Quite a few of your posts (to me) seem to be to get a conflict going - maybe I am wrong.

Anyways, some people on here can say/do what they like and some cannot - you I am afraid seem to be in the "cannot" catagory. So just let it go

[turny]

MrsLime, if you have issues with the way the Moderators moderate, discuss it with them via PM.

Threads like this bog down the entire forum.

I think these sort of discussions are of general interest and therefore should be in public.  For example, other people might want to contribute their own opinions.

Why did you post your message above instead of PMing it to me?

 

[thetank]

As I understand it (there was a bit of techie language used there that I'm not sure i get fully) you're saying that you can't post a www.blondepoker.com (imagining that was some other site) but could write  blondepoker.com

You want for the situations where the mods remove a www.blondepoker.com, to instead just change it to a blondepoker.com, is that right?

If so, in that particular case, I dont see how the original poster can't go back and do that themselves if they're so inclined. If someone has posted something innappropriate, i don't see why the mods job should be to change it into an acceptable form.

[danafish]

John, all the while it looks like it's Mr Cat causing arguments. I don't think you should be messing with her good name. Just wanted to make it clear that these are not necessarily the cat's opinions. Just so everyone knows.

[madasahatstand]

im lost. is mr cat mrslime and who is messing with his good name? im assuming mrslime is a man with a play on words name i.e mr slime?

[Sark79]

Aren't we allowed to post names of sites on here?   As long as we don't actually post the link to the site?   is that what you mean?     I thought we could post the name of sites

[madasahatstand]

his point is that the rules are not clear (i think) leading to the type of cunfusion you are in now sark......lol

[Sark79]

ok,     .  I am always confused Mad , lol

[Sheriff Fatman]

NB: This is not the view of The Mods as a body, this is my personal view from a position of being a relatively new Mod.

The problem is that there is nothing worse than inconsistent censorship.

There may be nothing worse than inconsistent censorship in your view but to expect anything other than this is unrealistic.

As you know, the mods are part-time volunteers who browse the forum as and when they are able and take action when and where they see fit.  As a body we work to a broad range of guidelines but, like football referees, we each have our own 'take' on a particular stituation.

If something crops up which needs action taking urgently then the responsibility is largely down to the mods who are available at the time.  For those of us who are not available at the time there will generally be a record of the action taken for us to see when we next log in.

Sometimes I may see something that I may have responded to differently if I'd have been the one dealing with it.  However, my response isn't to immediately start berating the Mod concerned for doing what he/she did at the time.  I'm generally just grateful that action has been taken by someone in the first place.  Most of the time I'm 100% behind the action taken when I catch up with it, sometimes I see decisions where I would have done something differently but can see the validity of the action taken.  I am yet to encounter a situation where I am utterly opposed to the action taken in my absence.

The only way we will get consistent moderating is when we find a single mod who is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Much as Tighty Red-Dog anyone tries to be this person I don't think were going to find such a creature.  However, its not an ideal I ever expected to achieve when I signed up for this task.  I do it because I love being part of this forum and I'm determined to help it retain its unique identity among the countless other poker fora.  I don't expect that I will make moderating decisions that are '100% right' all the time, as very few decisions that we take result in a 100% consensus among those affected.  Similarly, I don't expect my fellow mods to be '100% right' all the time.  However, I do think as a whole we do a pretty good job in what is generally a fairly thankless task.  Simply put, people don't like having their posts deleted/edited and we are the people that do it.

If you want a simple 'take' on the situation, as I see it, then take a look at the efforts made over the years to have consistency among football referees by making their decisions more automatic in nature.  Has it made referees any less inconsistent than they were before?  I don't think it has.  In fact all that's been achieved is to take the element of 'common sense' away from the referees and made it far easier for them to have an overbearing influence on too many games.

Sheriff

[madasahatstand]

to add to your reply sheriff, moderation also considers the context in which a post has been made. you may have 2 saying the exact same things but the context of one may be insulting or inflammatory. i think its better for mods to have moderation guidelines instead of fixed rules and regulations. makes for flexibility and judgement of individual situations.

mad