New Members

[arsenal]

Hi everyone.
Recently this board has been subjected to new members joining and mistaking the jokes, banter or shit thrown as being a license to post absolutely anything they choose to. This has included threats, death wishes, comments directed towards real people and today repulsive comments directed towards a member who posted the best trip reports we've had all year. This can't go on. This board cannot be an open door for every crackpot, drug user or psycho to just pitch up and start posting vile insults because they feel like it. Some of the other boards that have the rules of a Victorian gaol are starting to look attractive. So I would be interested in the opinions of everyone else here. If anyone has any ideas as to how to prevent this I wold like to hear them. All opinions are, of course welcome but I am especially interested in those members who have either been here a long time, post regularly or both. This is not a thread for jokes, banter or shit. Just workable ideas.......please.

[dinagam]

Healthy and wholesome jokes and a pinch of banter should be OK. Shit, by any means should be left outside.

[arsenal]

OK dinagram so your workable idea is?

[bobsaigon2]

Really no way to prevent these unwanted posts from appearing, unless you put new posters on probation and monitor everything they submit before it is allowed to appear on the forum. But this seems rather burdensome and unlikely to fit in to the schedules of the owner/moderators of this board.

Personally, after having been threatened with a physical attack this morning, I can only suggest that the offending posters receive a warning when they start moving in a direction that is unacceptable, rather than after they have posted numerous times. Meaning closer monitoring, and that also may prove too burdensome.

Or rewrite some of the posting guidelines. As they stand now, they can be interpreted as saying “anything goes”.

[scottish-guy]

Why are you asking us?

The miscreant should have had his post deleted the instant he accused Newalaan of tampering with small boys, and alongside the deletion he ought to have been "finally warned".

When he then continued posting abuse, he should have been suspended pending a discussion within the Triumvirate.

Instead you have let it drag on and on - and worst of all the unfounded allegations are still there in thread for all to see.

The entire incident has been dealt with very badly. You have been given the powers to deal with these people - use them - don't come to us for advice

[arsenal]

We have lives Scottish and can't be sat watching the forum 24 hours a day. So your idea is instant suspension. OK. Certainly a possibility. And try and keep this thread civil please. I'm asking you because don't know how to stop it. Do you? If so then tell me, Otherwise be quiet.

[Manforallseasons]

So much for modernation.:stop_mini:

[arsenal]

So MFAS. What do you suggest? As your here, give us all your best ideas.

[scottish-guy]

It's not a matter of watching the forum 24 hours a day - it's a matter of acting when you see grossly libelous content accusing a member of criminal acts.

Hours later the content is still there, while you bitch about it on this thread and ask for advice - WHY?

It should have been deleted immediately on discovering it - and if Moses would not have backed you (or a447) up, then the "job" is not worth having.

[arsenal]

I did act. Look at the timelines. I have things to do.

[scottish-guy]

Are you saying the vile accusation has finally been deleted?

You're not the only one with "things to do" - I have things to do as well but you're here often enough to respond almost immediately to any banter I post about you.

If you genuinely don't have time to moderate the board effectively, why did you take it on?

[arsenal]

Yes. I deleted one almost immediately than I had things to do and then I deleted several others. If there are any that I haven't seen then please tell me right now.

[Manforallseasons]

Get rid of him, his manner and intentions couldn't be clearer.

[arsenal]

MFAS. That's very likely but getting rid of someone is not simply of one or even two Mods agreeing. We need three to agree before someone is banned either temporarily or permanently. It's a check on the mods and very sensible it is too. That's why it took a while to suspend Frequent because we needed agreement.

[scottish-guy]

Look, I got up for breakfast and read this thread - maybe 20 minutes ago.

It was this thread that made me look immediately to see what had been said over on the trip report thread - and it was there I saw what SameBB had said about Newalaan.

So it was still there after you'd started this thread or I clearly wouldn't have been able to find it and refer to its content would I?

If you had deleted it prior to starting this post (as you should have), how would I have been able to look at it and refer to its content?

[arsenal]

No. I deleted one and then some time later I deleted three before I started this thread. Anyway. Thanks for your ideas. Very helpful I'm sure. Happy?

[bobsaigon2]

I would suggest that "Deleted" appear when an offensive post is removed. The numbering of the posts does not indicate that there was any removal.

Also, it's not clear to me if the poster in question has been warned.

[a447]

This morning I agonised over whether or not to delete the offensive comments aimed at newalaan2 in samebb posts. I deleted, then I undeleted, then deleted again.

I decided in the end not to delete,only because he was "smart" enough to use the word "probably" and in another post, carefully place an "lol" to suggest he was joking.

We moderate together, not as individuals. I am waiting to hear from the other two moderators. As we are in different time zones, it is difficult to act as quickly as we would like.

All of us have to agree before we suspend or ban someone.

I agree wholeheartedly with arsenal. This type of behaviour should not be permitted. I have brought up the possibility of changing the rules so such members can be quickly dealt with. Please give us the time we require.

Meanwhile, we can continue to delete his offensive comments whenever they break the forum rules.

[scottish-guy]

One Mod could move (not permanently delete) a suspect post whilst he waits for another Mod to be online to agree or disagree about deletion and sanction.

There are 3 of you - if 2 agree, why wait for the 3rd?

[arsenal]

For all the obvious reasons Scottish. That's why. Instant suspension would be one way to go.
And we're still waiting for workable ideas from Scottish and MFAS. Long wait?

[scottish-guy]

I've just fucking given you one.

[arsenal]

If a mod is actually online at the time. I'm talking about a system whereby new members are under some kind of workable probation period. Yes, we can delete without any agreement and also undelete. But we're not here every second of every day. What do you suggest? Remember......workable.

[scottish-guy]

... Yes, we can delete without any agreement and also undelete...

Which blows a hole in your previous protestations as to why the allegations (which you yourself describe as "repulsive") were allowed to stay on view in the original thread whilst you started this thread appealing for suggestions about how to do your job!

Anyhow - it's not difficult to put new posters in moderation for a week or a month - so I'm not sure what you're asking.

Maybe as SameBB's membership was "sponsored" by Whitemouse, alarm bells might have tinkled if not rang loudly, but that's in hindsight

[arsenal]

Your timelines are wrong I know in which order I did things. But to be honest, this was a thread to have a sensible discussion about an increasing problem but you have chosen to turn it into a slanging match. I did say that after 3 months I would hand over the moderators position to you (drawing considerable scorn from Frequent on the board and others in PMs) However it is clear that you are eminently unsuitable so I am withdrawing that offer. No need to pretend you don't want it, everyone here knows you do.

[a447]

There are 3 of you - if 2 agree, why wait for the 3rd?

We can delete as we see fit, without informing the other moderators.

samebb has been around long enough to know how to skirt around the rules. That's why I chose my words carefully and wrote that he was "skating on thin ice." If he is clever enough not to break any rules, then perhaps it's time to change them.

You can't delete comments or ban someone unless you can point to a specific rule. Samebb didn't break any.

And certain comments should lead to instant suspension, IMHO.

[dinagam]

I suggest giving a star ranking to deleted comments.
* warning
** 1 week suspension
*** 1 month suspension

[francois]

Hi everyone.
Recently this board has been subjected to new members joining and mistaking the jokes, banter or shit thrown as being a license to post absolutely anything they choose to.

For starters, why do you, who are regular members of this board, just stop your jokes banter and shit thrown, at every post that someone makes and continue to do it endlessly ? You are setting the tone for this forum and are suffering the consequences.

[arsenal]

Francois. If you can't see the difference then you're in the wrong place. I honestly don't know why you come here other than to moan. The other two forums are far closer to what you want.

[joe552]

What exactly would your ideal board look like, francois? I enjoy the jokes and the banter - it's why I'm here everyday. I also find useful information when I need it - my Restaurant thread revealed many good places to eat in Pattaya, for example.

[Manforallseasons]

Joe I must agree with you; at the moment there are 3 boards that refer to themselves as "Gay", this one full of banter and fun...Gaybutton has become a place to post most anything not "Gay" aided largely by Smiles, Up2U and Fountainhall then there is Gaythailand which remains dedicated to where, how, and when to find sex in L.O.S.

[francois]

Francois. If you can't see the difference then you're in the wrong place. I honestly don't know why you come here other than to moan. The other two forums are far closer to what you want.

Obviously your request for input is another joke! I gave you a valid opinion and, as usual,I get shit upon once again. I am not moaning, only giving you my thoughts, which you can take or leave. I have been with this forum for over 10 years and I intend to remain until you ban me for trying to be a voice of reason. End of discussion, this is not about me, it is about this forum.

[arsenal]

I didn't ask for opinions Francois. I asked for workable ideas regarding preventing new members writing filth. I'd still like some of you have any. I cannot imagine any circumstances whatsoever that would lead to you being banned.

[joe552]

francois, I still don't know what you want from the board. Jokes, banter and the occasional argument make it a fun place to visit. What would your board be like?

[bkkguy]

Recently this board has been subjected to new members joining and mistaking the jokes, banter or shit thrown as being a license to post absolutely anything they choose to. ... This board cannot be an open door for every crackpot, drug user or psycho to just pitch up and start posting vile insults because they feel like it. ... So I would be interested in the opinions of everyone else here.

the fact that a moderator is making such a post for open discussion in the forum highlights a serious problem with the site, and it is a top down problem

the current owners/managers of the site in the past made decisions about how to drive more traffic to the site and thus the forum eg from twitter and facebook - the current owners/managers need to decide if this is the source of these problem new users and do these decisions need to be reviewed? or is the source of the problem users more organic and different control mechanisms are required?

the current owners/managers need to make a decision as to exactly how much "shit throwing" by new and existing posters should be allowed to go live and what resources and tools they are willing to commit to achieve that and put the appropriate forum rules, software moderator tools and moderators in place and monitor performance

of course if the current owners/managers are not capable of making a decision about what the forum should be like and the current moderators "have a life" and "better things to do" and are as likely to be throwing shit as anyone else then what is the point of trying to start a "serious" discussion on how to "fix" the problem with advice from general forum members?

bkkguy

[Moses]

bkkguy, thank you for analyze...

but first post is about another thing:


Just workable ideas.......please.

[Jellybean]

Normally when I am back in the United Kingdom, I very rarely post on the forum and prefer to post only when I am in Thailand, where I usually spend half the year. But, I do drop in once or twice a week and catch up on the various topics. Therefore, a few weeks ago when I read that Moses had appointed arsenal, a447 and ChristianPFC as moderators I was surprised and even more surprised when all three of them accepted the positions. I was surprised because all three members are, in my view, major players on the forum. They add immense value to the forum and create a considerable number of interesting topics and all have a huge number of posts to their credit, some of which can, I believe, be legitimately described as being controversial on occasions.

But, in my opinion, a moderator cannot be a major player

[Jellybean]

Apologies, for some reason, use of apostrophes?, my post was cut off in its prime. I shall try again to publish the remainder of my post minus apostrophes:

But, in my opinion, a moderator cannot be a major player in the game and a referee at the same time. There is too much of a conflict in my opinion.

Being a moderator means, in my view, moderating your own behaviour, meaning you should be accepted by the membership as being impartial, fair and reasonable in your application of the forum rules. Therefore, again in my view, you lose the freedom to abuse or use abusive or intemperate language towards other members because, if you do, then you cease to become impartial. You also cannot use derogatory avatar names or profanity when referring to other members. To quote one example, arsenal, you continued to refer to Mickp as, BogsvilleMick after you became a moderator. That

[arsenal]

You are right in that respect Jellybean. There will therefore be very few posts from me until my tenure as moderator ends on Dec 31.

[Moses]

Apologies, for some reason, use of apostrophes?

Yes, After Apple updated iOS keyboard at iPhones few weeks ago, apostrophes become problem... Try to avoid them and substitute to quota " or another sign like * until developers will make fix for this problem.

[Jellybean]

Again I apologise to members. I have not posted for some time and appear to be falling foul of a problem with punctuation marks. I shall try one more time:

Thats fair game as an ordinary member, but not as a moderator.

If however you are not prepared to lose the freedom to post as you choose, within the rules of the forum of course, then members should not, again in my view, accept the moderator role.

Turning now to the exchange of posts between samebb and newalaan2. To begin with, the language on both sides was less than parliamentary, but moderators gave likes to one party to the argument, showing they were not impartial. Then when things got really out of hand, with unsubstantiated and unacceptable references to under-age sex, they should have been immediately deleted and a note left to say why the offensive comments had been deleted. A request to the member not to repeat the comments should have also been left along with a request for all members to moderate their language and to calm down.

When it comes to posts, which break the rules of the forum, I also believe that the offending post should either be, wholly or partially deleted, but, importantly, a note to that effect should be left by the moderator explaining his actions and saying under what rule the post has been deleted, or partially deleted, so that members can follow what has happened.

By way of background information, I was a civil servant, a tax official, for most of my working life. My job was to enforce the Taxes Acts in the UK. It is a job that requires the holder of the office to carry out his/her work impartially, justly, reasonably and without fear or favour. If we did not behave as I have described, we all knew that our actions could be challenged on appeal before tribunals, in the courts, or by complaint to an ombudsman or the taxpayer s elected representative. I therefore fully understand that being neutral, being fair and impartial to all sides on a forum like ours is not especially easy and certainly not for the faint hearted. The role of moderator was not described as a poisoned chalice, on more than one occasion, for nothing! Lol!

But, yet again, I say if you are a major player on this forum who holds strong opinions and likes to express those opinions, uses intemperate language and is not prepared to moderate your behaviour/language during your period of office as a moderator, then the job of moderator is not, in my opinion, for you.

And lastly, while I am here, may I say what a pleasure it is to see Joe552 back posting again. I hope all goes well Joe, during your trip to Thailand next year. Right, I think I have said way too much and will resume posting again when I return to Thailand in mid-January.

[scottish-guy]

OMFG - I come back from work and this is still going on to any extent?

Now the dust has at least partially settled, it's clear our esteemed moderators either have no moderation policies to follow or if they have such policies then they don't all interpret them the same way.

Whilst a447 and Christian are both reasonable, Head Judge Len makes it up as he goes along and when caught out doing so, he cannot take any criticism at all and lashes out like a petulant child - which is a bit of a handicap when your "job" relies on you being seen as even-handed and reasonable.

Hopefully they can now all agree amongst themselves that the libelous content posted about Newalaan should have been deleted/moved immediately it was spotted. Even though Newalaan and I do not see eye to eye (understatement), I still do not like to see that sort of shit thrown around.

Instead of that happening it was still there when I originally responded to this thread (if it hadn't still been there, I wouldn't have known what SameBB had said, would I?)

[Moses]

scottish-guy ​this thread is about new ideas how to manage newcomers or to control users who violate rules, please keep on rail

[newalaan2]

Just workable ideas.......please.

Put this thread BACK to the main forum and keep it 'live' there, pinned even, a place where some with workable ideas might see it. If you want members to see it and reply it needs to be where most log straight into. Previous owners were sticklers for every single thread being in exactly where they thought it should be, .e.g a general discussion about the forum should be immediately moved to 'forum feedback' when in actual fact the topic was relevant enough to remain on the main page until discussion ebbs away... perhaps then 'park it' in one of sub-forums.

As for banter and wildly off topic shit, I liked it best when all that litter was moved to the flaming forum, 'jinks' was pretty good at splitting threads and moving the way off-topic stuff, inane banter and 'in-jokes' between 3-4 forum regulars to the flaming forum, and that included some that I was active in and happy to see tidied out of the main forum, because that is where previous contributors come to read and then decide if worth contributing to a thread or starting a new one. Not everyone has hours in the day to wade through tons of litter to get to some interesting/relevant content and try to get some traction/momentum.

There was a comment from Arsenal recently which he declared the forum was as busy as ever...yes but with what exactly? just inane nonsense, in-jokes, banter, utter rubbish and irrelevant off topic crap. Six regulars blathering back and fore with multiple nonsensical posts is NOT a busy forum, a busy forum is one where a WIDE RANGE of posters in numbers come and contribute. The occasional comment, and moving a thread off topic to a similar or relevant side topic is fine and natural, but not the cliquy drivel which has littered this forum for months.

Why don't some of you ask those you know who sit on the sidelines only reading not contributing, or previous contributors who don't bother why they don't contribute? The answer will be because it's simply not worth the effort to post or start a thread and have it derailed into a mish mash of one-liners...and it needs to be said 90% of these one-liners are not funny, not in the slightest bit amusing. Banter back and fore, for EVERYONE else not part of the clique it's just downright fucking boring, and a useless waste of time clicking on.

When moses partly took over I was hopeful, when he took over completely and we were rid of surfcrest who RUINED the whole point and basis of SGT's reason-to-be, it's different-from-the-crowd edgyness in favour of a bland, integrated 'community' simply aping gaybutton and gaythailand, I was more hopeful it might get back to that edgy, interesting, information-central smiles set up which spike and neal (for the first half of his ownership) continued with successfully. I realise now the full value of jinks who put in the hours to keep the forum problem free as moderator.

I don't personally think moderators should/need to bee seen or heard except in extreme situations where a post which is problematic for the forum or owner needs to be addressed. Then a short explanation on the post and why it's been moved/deleted is all it needs. Quoting forum rules to the long serving members here is a total waste of space, for crying out loud....who gives a fuck about 'rules' made up when the forum was conceived? we all know what is acceptable and what is not. My red line is anything deemed to cause problems for the forum/owner or a threat so outrageous it needs to be taken seriously. Not the waffle and blatherings from nonentities like samebb, it's all yakkety-yak....jibber-jabber, witterings of toothless cretins who have decided they are 'somebody' and bark away with their gummy gobs. That stuff just needs to be parked out of the main forum.

Banning? For what purpose? Surfcrest was deluded into thinking he was banning and warning real people, they were in fact merely 'handles'....meaningless nom de plumes, for which the banned individual only need set up a 'another' to continue. I've had about 8 different handles over on gaybutton as on occasion when truths have been told, the handle was banned, more out of vindictive sulkiness than anything else. What? challenge gaybutton? begone!

MY IDEA.
Resurrect the FLAMING FORUM again and sweep all the garbage littering the main forum into there! Sorry, was rambling on only to realise at the end the new 'members control' thing was the real topic. So let any new members post as they wish and be subject to same as everyone else, and when they post garbage Mickp-style sweep the lot into the flaming forum. Keep the MAIN forum litter-free and many will return.

Also this stops sensitive creatures from sending multiple PMs to complain about this argument and that comment, when all they need do to avoid....is avoid clicking on to the Flaming Forum. Neal told me that these petty complaints 10 times a day was the start of his losing patience with the board. What started out as an ego massaging centre of attention 'toy' soon became one long headache.

[Moses]

MY IDEA.
Resurrect the FLAMING FORUM again and sweep all the garbage littering the main forum into there! Sorry, was rambling on only to realise at the end the new 'members control' thing was the real topic. So let any new members post as they wish and be subject to same as everyone else, and when they post garbage Mickp-style sweep the lot into the flaming forum. Keep the MAIN forum litter-free and many will return.



have you seen Holding Room sub-forum?

[francois]

I didn't ask for opinions Francois. I asked for workable ideas regarding preventing new members writing filth. I'd still like some of you have any.

Arsenal, this is what you wrote:

All opinions are, of course welcome but I am especially interested in those members who have either been here a long time, post regularly or both.

I have been here a long time and I did give you my opinion. I leave it there.

[newalaan2]

have you seen Holding Room sub-forum?

Yes I have. 'Holding' means there for a period of time before being put elsewhere [that's my understanding of surfrests intention behind it?]. Flaming Forum was a permanent area where threads and posts deposited (or indeed started )there, remained there. So you could resurrect and find thread/posts easily. It also encourages to keep momentum on the thread going as you know where it is and where it will be when you come back to find it. Also from the name its quite clear what is going to be going on in there, so anyone who doesn't care for in-fighting, arguing and off topic litter/rubbish can see and avoid.

[colmx]

I find it incredulous that the "rules" do not allow the removal of posts that threaten physical violence or ill will upon a person.

Surely they should be modified to stop this kind of threat. There is a level of decorum and respect that these forums should have and its not difficult to see when someone has stepped over the line

We all know that BBB is a nutcase, but a harmless one at that. On the other hand other members have shown themselves as being quite volatile.... and nobody knows if they are really a Chihuahua or a Rottweiler

On another forum I use the moderators use a rule "what would you do if someone said that about your grandmother/father" when deciding whether to moderate

So:
=>Your granny is a pig pink fat wrinkly elephant = Probably true and just banter, therefore allowed

=>Your Grandfather is a bald haggis eating maniac from Scotland = probably true and just banter, therefore allowed
=> I hate your granny, she's a stupid c*nt = possibly true and just banter, therefore allowed, but poster may be asked to tone down their language

On the other hand:
=>If I ever see your granny I will punch her, unless someone puts her in a shallow grave first = this kind of comment is inappropriate and offensive and should be removed

=>Your grandfather was a leader in the scouts and he was probably interfering with all the younger scouts = this kind of comment is inappropriate and offensive and should be removed

=>Your grandmother is a fucking retard = this kind of comment is socially unacceptable and offensive and should be removed

You remove the content of the offending post, but leave a moderator comment to not ruin the flow of the thread.
The offender gets a yellow card or infraction - which lasts 7-30 days. If they offend again during the yellow card period they get a red card and a 30 day ban.

On their return from the 30 day ban, they may have 2 more infractions (yellow/Red) before being permanently banned

Its not rocket science... in fact the forum software probably has this built in already?

[scottish-guy]

That is exactly what I mean about "having policies" - but apparently that is not the kind of "idea" which is welcome.

It's one thing having "rules" but you must also have a policy (which is clear and agreed upon by all the moderators), on how to enforce those rules and on the sanctions which apply when these rules are deemed to have been broken.

The problem at the moment seems to be that, with an apparent lack of any policy, the moderators are each interpreting the rules in a different way, confused about how many it takes to reach a decision, and totally clueless about what to do once they eventually agree that 'something must be done'.

The reason it (largely) worked with jinks ("no capital J please") was that he was not trying to moderate by committee as seems to be happening now - he just called it as he found it.

There is nothing inherently wrong in having 2,3, or even 4 mods - but only if there is a policy for them to follow and be consistent upon.

So my "idea" is that the 3 of them get together, decide what constitutes a 'punishable' offence - as Colmx has outlined above, decide on the disciplinary pathway, stick to it, and apply it to new and old members alike - with new members under active moderation for their first 2 weeks

[Moses]

Yes I have. 'Holding' means there for a period of time before being put elsewhere [that's my understanding of surfrests intention behind it?]. Flaming Forum was a permanent area where threads and posts deposited (or indeed started )there, remained there. So you could resurrect and find thread/posts easily. It also encourages to keep momentum on the thread going as you know where it is and where it will be when you come back to find it. Also from the name its quite clear what is going to be going on in there, so anyone who doesn't care for in-fighting, arguing and off topic litter/rubbish can see and avoid.

No. It is sub-forum what is invisible for searchengines and to visitors without login. Moving to there is permanent. May be I will change name soon to "Trash can" or to "Serpentarium".

[Moses]

You cannot run the Board by committee

I can. And I do it over 15 years on another forums. Wait a little bit. We are working about policies "on the go".

[newalaan2]

No. It is sub-forum what is invisible for searchengines and to visitors without login. Moving to there is permanent. May be I will change name soon to "Trash can" or to "Serpentarium".

No please DON'T do that. Name it Flaming Forum. One side effect of the flaming forum previously was that it DID attract big numbers, some of those 'numbers' did then check out and post on the main forum, it actually helped overall to get momentum going. Some who said they hated the infighting still went there to 'look' like the proverbial train crash scene where many don't really want to look, but do anyway. The thing is, they had no comeback to complain about anything there as they knew they would be told...well don't click-on! But they still looked!

If it attracts traffic for whatever reason that can't really be bad can it?

[newalaan2]

Why not transport this thread live on the main forum? there is interest in it, surely that's enough reason alone to have it on the MAIN discussion page. You want to attract interest and input so that's where it should be. No?

[arsenal]

It was moved Newalaan2 because Scottish behaved the way Scottish always does. If the shit that came your way yesterday comes his then he can contact A447 or Christian. As can NIrish for that matter. They're both on my ignore list and will remain there for the duration of my period as moderator. And they are free to whinge all day on my decision and to whomsoever they choose to whinge to. And whinge I have no doubt they will. Long and loud. The time I spent yesterday deleting posts about you by samebb amounted to over 3 hours. None of the mods fully understands the software here and so we didn't know how to temporarily ban him. So constant deletion was the only option.

[Surfcrest]

No please DON'T do that. Name it Flaming Forum.
Because there is no flamer bigger

Surfcrest

[Moses]

Why not transport this thread live on the main forum? there is interest in it, surely that's enough reason alone to have it on the MAIN discussion page. You want to attract interest and input so that's where it should be. No?

cuz of name of the main forum: Sawatdee gay THAILAND...

[scottish-guy]

...Scottish behaved the way Scottish always does... As can NIrish for that matter. ... they are free to whinge all day on my decision and to whomsoever they choose to whinge to. And whinge I have no doubt they will. Long and loud... None of the mods fully understands the software here and so we didn't know how to temporarily ban him.

The "constant deletion" worked so well that I was able to still read the allegations whilst the Head Judge was busy setting up another thread to ask members how to deal with the problem. That's a fact which is simply undeniable.

That fact, together with the revelation that none of the 3 Mods understands the software points to a failure of policy and process. Again, it's self-evident but if pointing it out makes me the bad guy then so be it. I would have hoped that pointing it out might encourage the individuals to work to improve the situation - as no doubt the same scenario of trolls posting "shit" about members will re-occur in the near future.

I do not dislike Len in any way and I have had some good laughs over the years as well as lots of argument - but taking criticism is not his strong suit. He says he spent 3 hours working on the board, and I don't doubt it, but that's the job he he was happy to take and on occasion that necessity will arise.

The petulancy displayed in announcing that myself and NIrish are to be "ignored" and a virtual incitement to trolls to post "shit" about us which he then will not delete - is breathtaking and ill-advised. Moderators are supposed to be even-handed. Even if you totally loathe certain people or if certain other people are your bosom buddies, you must be seen to apply the rules equally and fairly to all.

I hope that he will reflect on his actions and output over the last 24 hours and instead of posting a tirade of misplaced self-justification, he will maybe just bring himself to admit that it could all have been better handled.

[christianpfc]

Jellybean for moderator! Colmx for moderator!

Actually everyone should control/moderate his replies to assumed trolls.

Latintop has shared his views about punter/prostitute interaction on this board ad nauseam, yet some posters still feel the need to comment.

Similar with Mickp, no matter what crap he posted, there was always someone who couldn't resist to reply.

[Moses]

The "constant deletion" worked so well that I was able to still read the allegations whilst the Head Judge was busy setting up another thread to ask members how to deal with the problem. That's a fact which is simply undeniable.

So, how many time you click "red triangle" to call moderator? Let me guess: no one time.

- On this street, I was robbed three times and the police still have not found the villain!
- Did you report to the police?
- No

[a447]

Scottish wrote:


The "constant deletion" worked so well that I was able to still read the allegations whilst the Head Judge was busy .....

The comments concerned were not deleted because no allegation was made. As I have already pointed out, samebb cleverly worded his statements so as not to cross the line. He stopped just short of accusing a member of paedophilia. If his comments did not cross the line, then they can not be deleted, even though I'm sure most, if not all, members found his comments distasteful.

[francois]

francois, I still don't know what you want from the board. Jokes, banter and the occasional argument make it a fun place to visit. What would your board be like?

Civilized! Sorry Joe, but jokes and banter, repeatedly, on every topic, don't make this a fun place to visit. I realize that as time goes on a thread goes off course but on this forum it becomes a game between the same 6 or so posters, each and every time.

[francois]

Jellybean for moderator! Colmx for moderator!

Actually everyone should control/moderate his replies to assumed trolls.

Latintop has shared his views about punter/prostitute interaction on this board ad nauseam, yet some posters still feel the need to comment.

Similar with Mickp, no matter what crap he posted, there was always someone who couldn't resist to reply.

Agree with you, Christian, 100 %.

[bkkguy]

bkkguy, thank you for analyze...

but first post is about another thing:

Originally Posted by arsenal https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/images/metro/blue/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showthread.php?p=227007#post227007) Just workable ideas.......please.




None of the mods fully understands the software here and so we didn't know how to temporarily ban him.

given a comment such as this by a moderator and the arguing back and forth between moderators and posters in this thread perhaps Moses or arsenal can clarify what type of "workable" ideas you expect from forum visitors to "solve" the current problems - after all Moses you apparently have "years of experience" with discussions forums, if you can't formulate a workable set of posting guidelines, set up the forum software as required to control member postings and make sure the moderators understand the rules and the software what do you expect us to suggest?

bkkguy

[Moses]

given a comment such as this by a moderator and the arguing back and forth between moderators and posters in this thread perhaps Moses or arsenal can clarify what type of "workable" ideas you expect from forum visitors to "solve" the current problems - after all Moses you apparently have "years of experience" with discussions forums, if you can't formulate a workable set of posting guidelines, set up the forum software as required to control member postings and make sure the moderators understand the rules and the software what do you expect us to suggest?

bkkguy

aresenal wrote about fact, what internal control panels for moderation are new for him and he don't know it in full yet... it wasn't about "set up the forum software as required to control member postings"

[arsenal]

I think the phrase 'workable ideas' is pretty self explanatory and shouldn't require any further instructions.

[scottish-guy]

So, how many time you click "red triangle" to call moderator? Let me guess: no one time.


Moses, the first I knew of the post which libeled Newalaan was when I saw Arsenal's subsequent thread entitled NEW MEMBERS (i.e. this thread)

On reading the thread I learned that an unidentified poster had posted "repulsive" content about Newalaan.

Being repulsive myself, my curiosity was understandably aroused - so I went to read the content (guessing it would be on his trip report thread), saw it was indeed grossly offensive and had been posted by SameBB.

Kindly bear in mind that, as I've made clear, this "repulsive content" was already known about, had already been dealt with (yet it was still there!) and that I'd effectively been directed to it by a Moderator.

So, given that the Moderator/s already knew about the post from SameBB, had decided it was "repulsive", but allowed it to remain - why would I click the "red triangle", as

a) It was already known about
b) It had allegedly been dealt with

[a447]

Again, I don't want to split hairs, but newalaan2 was not libeled.

However, his post was certainly repulsive.

I am all in favour of a rule which would allow us to edit such comments. We are working on it.

But please understand that just as it is sometimes difficult to get four people together in a room in real life, it is far more difficult to get them together in cyberspace, especially as we live in different time zones.

We are not just sitting on our hands, ignoring everyone's concerns.

[arsenal]

I don't know what Scottish is writing about but I can probably guess and edit it for you.

'You didn't make me moderator and I really really want to be'

[bobsaigon2]

Here’s my prediction:-- SGT will change very little or not at all, despite the best efforts of those charged with the change.

The “anything goes” nature of the board will not change because no one can decide on new posting guidelines that will limit the types of posts that are acceptable.

Owner/moderators will continue to say they cannot do anything about offensive posts because virtually everything is within the posting guidelines.

Once or twice a year there will be some posts that are so offensive and tasteless that the question of banning will arise. Several weeks may pass before the owner/moderators can come to a consensus about the ban. The ban will be temporary and the poster will return to post at will.

If it’s not an “anything goes” board, on what basis will posts be deleted and posters banned? Critical, demeaning, disparaging posts, posts that attack individuals rather than ideas, posts that are offensive by the standards of any community --- will these result in deletion or banning and how will the posting guidelines be rewritten to address these issues? I don’t know and it’s clear that no one else knows.

There is a desire to prevent egregious posts but I doubt the ability of owner/moderators to arrive at the means to prevent these, unless there is screening of all posts submitted by certain individuals.

Also, I suspect that moderators, whether volunteers or appointed or elected, will find their tasks too burdensome to bear for more than a few months.

The alternative to all of the above is to have someone with the authority to decide what posts are not suitable, or what posters are not suitable to the nature of SGT. It seems that on other boards, there is no need for the owner to refer to a particular posting guideline. If he doesn’t like a post, it’s gone. If he doesn’t like a poster, the poster is gone. Simple really. Anyone in favor of that type of control over posts/posters?

I really wish I had some valid suggestions to offer, but none come to mind. I must rely on the owner/moderators to find ways to make the changes that will satisfy most board members. I wish them good luck.

[scottish-guy]

Again, I don't want to split hairs, but newalaan2 was not libeled.

However, his post was certainly repulsive.

I am all in favour of a rule which would allow us to edit such comments. We are working on it.

But please understand that just as it is sometimes difficult to get four people together in a room in real life, it is far more difficult to get them together in cyberspace, especially as we live in different time zones.

We are not just sitting on our hands, ignoring everyone's concerns.

1. I think if someone had posted (and I paraphrase) that I probably miss the "good old days" in Sunee because in those days it was easy to molest children - I'd feel libelled - wouldn't you ? It's an error in law to think that one has to be specifically named or specific allegations made in order for a libel to be proven.

Think of Liberace who won libel damages from a newspaper columnist for being identified as being gay although the specific allegation was never made - it was all done by innuendo. The content which was posted by Samebb falls into the same category - making defamatory and libellous accusations by innuendo.

2. I'm having difficulty understanding this management by committee you seem to be working under - one person says that all 3 Moderators need to agree on stuff whereas you yourself posted yesterday that ONE person could delete posts. Which is it - it can't be both.

To be honest a447 I really don't care about the internal confusion amongst the moderation team - what I do care about however is that we, the members, are expected to swallow the incompatible codswallop being put out.

For the record, I am not interested in moderating this forum, but if I did then bearing in mind my previous unpleasant experience I'd make damn sure the moderation policies and processes were cast-iron before taking on the task!

I do understand that none of the three of you asked for the job but at the end of the day each has accepted it - so there is no point in one of you bitching about having to spend 3 hours actually doing the job you each chose to accept.

The good news is that I really don't care about this issue anymore - it's boring the tits off me, so I won't be commenting on it further.

Probably. :p

[newalaan2]

Because there is no flamer bigger........Surfcrest

How true and totally agree. Couldn't have said it better myself. I always wondered why you had your name at the foot of all your posts as if we couldn't read that the post was in fact authored by 'surfcrest' I guess you just like the look of your own handle. But here it did come in handy as the perfect response to your very own 'remark'.

[newalaan2]

1. I think if someone had posted (and I paraphrase) that I probably miss the "good old days" in Sunee because in those days it was easy to molest children - I'd feel libelled - wouldn't you ?

I'm taking this a bit off-topic but seems to be being discussed by mods so I take it as ok.

As you rightly said in another post we have never seen eye-to-eye (under-statement) but I do appreciate that you are supporting the fact you saw me as being libelled and I would certainly take the same stance if the other way round.

To be honest it's been a bit of a shock to read here and over at Gaythailand that there has been a fuss regarding samebb comments.I didn't really notice until I fully read this thread and the stuff over at Gaythailand, which I did in hindsight as I had vented at samebb and was done with him.

I did see the post he made you refer to but skimmed over it because he was just blathering, really, I was more bothered about the fact he hadn't absorbed what was written in the original post and that he had assumed the 'bye gone era' I had referred to was Pattaya, but clearly from the original post it was a reference to Bangkok, not Pattaya, as that was where I spent most of my time in the early days, in Bangkok, not even in Silom/Surawong but in other areas.

Also I felt it simply didn't apply to me directly as he referred to 'his type' rather than specifically newalaan2, and was more of a general dig at older guys who visited Thailand back then, I wasn't part of the scene he was taking jabs at so didn't feel I had anything to defend, so it really just went over my head, in some way I kind of agreed with that sentiment regarding sunee 20 years ago, I hated it. The only two bars I visited reasonably regularly in sunee during the first 5 years of visiting Pattaya was Topman and NokNok (then run by M of the current Cupidol Bar). My time was spent in Pattayaland and Day/Night area where my hotel was, preferring karaokes and clubs to bars for picking up lads.

But I personally didn't feel he was direct enough to make an accusation. If I had felt that or he had made a clear accusation I would have answered it publically directly to him in a post, I am not known for holding back in these circumstances. He did the same with a threat of violence, pouring a drink over me, in a cowardly way.......and instead of making a direct threat he chucked in a LOL at the end as if joking. I have just found some of these details and I'm deciding whether they need a reply or not. My feeling was that after my last reply to him he really wasn't worth the bother/effort, but that said I'm not going to let threats go unanswered.

I told him in a post that 18 years of visiting produces many friends and many contacts, and those contacts are loyal friends, so he really does need to be careful with some of us guys here who have visited for years. Already I've had emails suggesting a name for him as well as other bits of info, without asking for any, these have arrived unsolicited. But I would be very hesitant about taking stuff from an anonymous internet forum to a real-life situation. I have met up with board members and bump into a few in my visits, see some regularly like francois but these are pleasant friendly moments in time.......not grudges.

[Brad the Impala]

To be a good moderator you need the patience of Job and the skin of a rhino. Unfortunately none of the appointed moderators have demonstrated this, and I don't think that they would claim it for themselves either. People like that are hard to find, acknowledged.

What you certainly don't need is moderators with axes to grind and snarky comments to make.

As Bob says, SGT will change very little with the sort of tinkering being discussed, and in honesty I'm not sure that it needs to.

[a447]

Scottish wrote:


2. I'm having difficulty understanding this management by committee you seem to be working under - one person says that all 3 Moderators need to agree on stuff whereas you yourself posted yesterday that ONE person could delete posts. Which is it - it can't be both.

There are two categories of "stuff" but only one requires all three moderators to agree. The final decision is at the discretion of the owner.

Any moderator has the ability to edit/delete posts.

There is no "confusion amongst the moderation team" as such. The "confusion" lies in the poor wording in the Guidelines and Rules which is holding us back. We need to tighten them and add one or two new ones.

[a447]

....SGT will change very little....and in honesty I'm not sure that it needs to.

And therein lies the heart of the problem.

[arsenal]

Yes. It needs to change very little I agree. Just a bit and it's only two new members recently who took it over the edge. Hence my request for ideas.

[Surfcrest]

How true and totally agree. Couldn't have said it better myself. I always wondered why you had your name at the foot of all your posts as if we couldn't read that the post was in fact authored by 'surfcrest' I guess you just like the look of your own handle. But here it did come in handy as the perfect response to your very own 'remark'.

No my love, THAT would have taken you at least a full page...possibly a lot more and it still wouldn't have been funny.

Surfcrest

[a447]

The point I am making is that many members do not want change - they think the board is ok as it is. Any attempt to rein in abusive posts, threats, take accusations and less time about other members is seen as interference in the free-wheeling nature of the board.

For example, just the other day I told samebb to be careful about what he posts in relation to members. I saw it as a warning, which moderators are allowed to issue when it seems things may get out of hand.

But another member saw it as a "threat" and suggested I should not have said anything.

You just can't win.

The situation we have faced recently is very unusual - three members all deciding to misbehave at the same time, necessitating moderation. Normally, most members manage to self-moderate and there had been very little call for moderation over the years.

In the years since Neal left and Moses took over, how many posts were made? Thousands, I'd imagine. And how many members have been banned / suspended? Very few.

How many posts have been edited or deleted? I can't recall any. (but I don't read every post in every thread).

So I think members are worrying too much about something that hardly ever occurs.

Changes to the rules are being considered on an attempt to address the "anything goes" nature of the board, as mentioned by Bobsaigon. Hopefully any changes will be soon finalised.

[francois]

Jellybean for Moderator.

[arsenal]

Francois for Emperor.

[arsenal]

BobSaigon for Au Du'o'ng Vu'o'ng.

[arsenal]

Arsenal for President of Scotland.

[bkkguy]

aresenal wrote about fact, what internal control panels for moderation are new for him and he don't know it in full yet... it wasn't about "set up the forum software as required to control member postings"

typical selective quote, you missed the most relevant part - "and make sure the moderators understand the rules and the software"

most of this multi-page discussion would not be needed if the moderating rules where clear, the software was setup and the moderators knew how to use it - this is not rocket science!
bkkguy

[Moses]

most of this multi-page discussion would not be needed if the moderating rules where clear, the software was setup and the moderators knew how to use it - this is not rocket science!
bkkguy

sure... it will come with time

[Smiles]

All I'd like to see would be for the Admin to let us know that a Moderator will never again burrow into a Member's post(s) and edit it without any notice that a Board guideline had been broken.

This very dangerous event happened recently with a 'Nirish Guy' post . . . wherein "Christian The Moderator" broke into his post simply to edit spelling and grammar. Utter bullshit and should never have happened under proper moderation.
I'm quite surprised that hardly any members felt that this was a blatant misuse of moderator privilege.
It's obvious Christian has no clue what a Mod should be doing, or not doing, on a well-run message board. It's obvious Moses has not talked to his Mods regarding what he expects from them.
Moses ... do you condone this kind of fascist moderator behavior?

[christianpfc]

Far fetched, but:

2.3 The official language of the Board is English. ... It is incumbent on every member to ensure his posts are intelligible to all members.
Should we amend the rules: Spelling, grammar and punctuation has to follow [name of an authority of English language]?

I let most typos, grammar and spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation pass, but there a few cases per week that I have to correct. I rather try to keep this low-key and not make a fuss about it, editing is much better than pointing the mistakes out in a reply to the thread.

I'm quite surprised that hardly any members felt that this was a blatant misuse of moderator privilege.

Maybe you are the only one who feels this way?

...[Christian] broke into his post...fascist moderator behavior?
Drama queen!

[Brad the Impala]

I let most typos, grammar and spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation pass, but there a few cases per week that I have to correct.

Drama queen!

How gracious of you, to let those mistakes pass. Presumably there is supposed to be an "are" in your sentence between "there" and "a".

As English isn't your first language, and in the past it has been necessary to explain English expressions to you, do you really think, just from a technical point of view, that you are the right person to do this editing, which if it should happen at all should be acknowledged within the post itself. This has been the practice of normal moderation of this forum since long before you joined it.

To justify your actions you quote a rule that states only that the language of the board is English and that a post must be intelligible. Does bad spelling make it a foreign language or unintelligible?

We've also existed with spelling mistakes and poor grammar for some time. Sometimes it is(pedantic to avoid the apostrophe truncation)even entertaining, particularly freudian slips. Will you be correcting those too?

Colloquial dialect, will you be correcting that? Phonetic spelling of thai words? Slang?

[bobsaigon2]

It is very rare indeed when a post is unintelligible. There are several types of common mistakes in spelling and grammar that can be observed but these do not obscure the meaning of the posts. I suggest that moderators do not edit posts. It does not encourage a congenial atmosphere.

[Smiles]

To Christian, it's simple: just stay the fuck out of Member's posts unless the post is obviously in violation of the guidelines.

To Moses: I'd still like the know what you think about this. Oddly quiet you are.

As you can see, the little prick has done it again. Just because he can. He's just playing with Members because he's been granted the power to do so.


Last edited by christianpfc; October 30th, 2017 at 00:40. Reason: spelling priviledge->privilege, miss-use->misuse

[cdnmatt]

Holy shit, we have a German gammar Nazi as a moderator now?

I'm certain this was a good idea (sarcasm).

[Moses]

To Moses: I'd still like the know what you think about this. Oddly quiet you are.

I think: 3 moderators from 3 different countries and from 3 different cultures are at first month of moderation and are learning how to moderate. We will discuss that case at forum for moderators.

I want to remind: public discussion of cases of moderation is against forum's rules, please use PM to me.

[Smiles]

I want to remind: public discussion of cases of moderation is against forum's rules, please use PM to me.
I sent you a PM awhile ago.
No answer, no achkowledgement. Why bother?

[christianpfc]

"Correct a wise man and he will appreciate you, correct a fool and he will hate you."

(Konfuzius?)

[bobsaigon2]

(Confucius). True enough Christian but one needs to keep in mind that some people are not interested in being corrected. They are either quite comfortable with their lives as they now choose to lead them, or have faced too many corrections in the past. My suggestion is not to do any correcting unless the writing is unintelligible, and in that case send a PM to ask the meaning.

[Smiles]

"Correct a wise man and he will appreciate you, correct a fool and he will hate you."
(Konfuzius?)
I'll try one more time to get it through your incredibly thick head Christian.

The issue is NOT about correcting spelling or grammar (I personally don't give a tinkers damn whether I spell a word incorrectly or screw up the kings english).
The issue is about you intruding into a Member's post and editing 'stuff' where there is absolutely no violation of the Guidelines. Doing that is not your job as a Moderator and never has been.

If you can't see the difference between those two very different issues then I suggest you resign as a Moderator.

And you can leave the childish platitudes in the playground.

[cdnmatt]

Wow, I actually just liked one of Smiles' posts. What's the world coming too?

Christian, is most post gramatically correct enough to pass, or do you need to jump in, and edit it?

I think I spelled "gramatically" incorrectly, so it might need an edit.

[cdnmatt]

I want to remind: public discussion of cases of moderation is against forum's rules, please use PM to me.

What are you talking about?

I guess technically speaking you can ban public, open and honest discussion of forum policy. However, you do understand that you will totally kill the board if you do that, right?

[Moses]

What are you talking about?

I guess technically speaking you can ban public, open and honest discussion of forum policy. However, you do understand that you will totally kill the board if you do that, right?

even me, with my poor English, understand difference btw "moderation case" and "moderation policy"... is it that hard for you to understand difference?

well, I will try to explain:

- "why he is banned?", "why I got infraction?", "why that post been deleted?" - moderation cases, they should be discussed only in PM with moderator or with me

- "should we allow to post nude pics?", "should be posts what have no connection to Thailand moved to another corresponding forum?" - that is policy, and may be discussed in https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/forumdisplay.php?10-Feedback-Forum-HowTo-forum-s-FAQ

[Brad the Impala]

Oh dear, A447 is at it as well now. Jumping in to "correct" member's posts that need no correcting.


He might very well be. I hear he's be laid a lot.


I quoted this and added the comment that Christian was going to be very busy with his spelling corrections.

Enter a447 to edit my quote of his post so that the correct spelling been appears in my quote, making a nonsense of my comment.

"Last edited by a447; October 30th, 2017 at 10:00."

However he doesn't think to correct his own post above that still contains the be not the been!

Well not yet, wonder if there will soon be an edit on the original post #14. So glad that the moderators have found something really useful to do with their new edit powers!

http://https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showthread.php?19090-What-do-u-think-of-this-forum&p=228049#post228049 (https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showthread.php?19090-What-do-u-think-of-this-forum&p=228049#post228049)

[a447]

WTF are you on about??

Far be it for me to make a nonsense of your comment. I mean, as if I'd ever do that! Lol

You don't need my help - you do that all the time all by yourself.

You mean you wrote that whole post about "be" instead of "been?"

Ever heard of predictive text?

(Nothing much happening where you are, eh?)

[cdnmatt]

even me, with my poor English, understand difference btw "moderation case" and "moderation policy"... is it that hard for you to understand difference?

well, I will try to explain:

- "why he is banned?", "why I got infraction?", "why that post been deleted?" - moderation cases, they should be discussed only in PM with moderator or with me

- "should we allow to post nude pics?", "should be posts what have no connection to Thailand moved to another corresponding forum?" - that is policy, and may be discussed in https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/forumdisplay.php?10-Feedback-Forum-HowTo-forum-s-FAQ



What I'm saying is you might pay the server bill, but whether you like it or not, this forum belongs to us SGT members, not you. We're allowed to debate board policy in a public and open format if we want to. Sorry, but not up to you, Moses.

Again, technically speaking you could lock down the board if you wanted, because afterall, it is your server. That would be a very stupid thing to do though, becuase you would kill the board.

If us as a SGT membership want to publicly debate forum policy, then let us. If and when it happens, we'll be doing it to help you, and the forum as a whole. Don't hamper the process, because if you do so, you can kiss your advertising revenue goodbye.

[Brad the Impala]

I agree a447, only two tiny letters, so why did you need to go in and edit my post, which was accurately quoting you, until you edited it? Your editing had nothing to do with predictive text.

"Last edited by a447; October 30th, 2017 at 10:00."

[cdnmatt]

I really hope this is all just a practical joke, and not the new SGT.

a447 just edited Brad's post? I couldn't think of a more upstanding member than Brad, so that's quite discerning.

[Moses]

What I'm saying is you might pay the server bill, but whether you like it or not, this forum belongs to us SGT members, not you.


Dreams... dreams. My house - my rules. Point.


We're allowed to debate board policy in a public and open format if we want to.

Sure and I even pointed where it can be discussed - at this subforum (where we are now)


Sorry, but not up to you, Moses.

Again: dreams... dreams. It is private property, you know?


you can kiss your advertising revenue goodbye.

First you should find here any advertising from which I can get revenue before to get such conclusions... Ehh?

Once again specially for you, who again pretend not see difference btw "case" and "policy":


everyone can discuss moderation policy at this forum, moderation cases should be discussed in PM...

[scottish-guy]

Someone has obviously not only doused Moses, Len, and the sidekicks in water but shone some bright light on them and fed them after midnight.

Look what they've turned into.


5756

[bobsaigon2]

Quote Originally Posted by cdnmatt
What I'm saying is you might pay the server bill, but whether you like it or not, this forum belongs to us SGT members, not you.

Matt, are you well? The Forum belongs to the board owner. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. We are allowed to participate in the Forum. That is the extent of our ownership.

[cdnmatt]

Quote Originally Posted by cdnmatt
What I'm saying is you might pay the server bill, but whether you like it or not, this forum belongs to us SGT members, not you.

Matt, are you well? The Forum belongs to the board owner. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. We are allowed to participate in the Forum. That is the extent of our ownership.

Without a membership, there is no board, correct? That's my point.

arsenal? No problem with him, and I'm sure he'll make a great mod.

Christian? Not sure, and on the fence? At the very least will be strict and non-judgemental, so good qualities there. However, I think Moses needs to go out of his way to ensure Christian understands his role. He doesn't need to be editing posts for spelling or grammar errors.

a447? That was an absolutely horrible idea, as he's one of the biggest pieces of shit this forum offers. He just recently went and edited one of Brad's posts, so point proven right there.

You're right though, Moses doesn't need to listen to us. If he likes his ad revenue though, then I would suggest he does.

[scottish-guy]

It's not a matter of who needs who more than the other.

On the one hand Moses can do whatever the fuck he wants, aided by SGT's resident dance band, Len and the Sidekicks

On the other hand the members are not held captive here, and can leave anytime.

[a447]

I agree a447, only two tiny letters, so why did you need to go in and edit my post, which was accurately quoting you, until you edited it? Your editing had nothing to do with predictive text.

"Last edited by a447; October 30th, 2017 at 10:00."

Sorry. I was editing what I saw as my own post. We are allowed to do that. But I neglected to edit the OP, where "be" was typed instead of "been". (predictive text)

And I thought the "mistake" you were referring to was the word "laid". Which I left as is, btw.

It wasn't a moderation issue. If it were, I would have told you that you can not discuss it.

[Smiles]

So Moses ... have you, or have you not, instructed your Moderators that there will be no more intruding into a Members post(s) and editing the post for any reason whatsoever, except where the post is obviously in violation of the board's guidelines.

Its a simple question Moses, really simple.

I don't want you, a447, Arsenal, or Christian screwing around inside my posts (except for guideline violation).
You wouldnt like it, your Mods probably wouldnt like it, and I'm dead sure most regular Members wouldn't like it.



And if you dont remember how all this got started, here's that Nirish Guy post for you to read again. I thought he was right on the money.


Quote Originally Posted by Nirish guy View Post

[edited for spelling and grammar on 22sep2017 by ChristianPFC]

To hell with your edited for spelling and Grammar Christian ! You Anal TWAT ! Who the fuck do you think YOU are. This is an internet message board not a university class you dick. Here's three words you can correct away at.......Fuck Go and yourself !!

[Moses]

So Moses ... have you, or have you not, instructed your Moderators that there will be no more intruding into a Members post(s) and editing the post for any reason whatsoever, except where the post is obviously in violation of the board's guidelines.

Its a simple question Moses, really simple.

Why you think what I will report here?

[cdnmatt]

Why you think what I will report here?


Are you serious? That was your response to Smiles' very simple and respectful question?

If this is how you're going to act, then say goodbye to your forum, along with your ad revenue.

You do know that Smiles was previously in your position, and owned this board, right? Just a guess here, but it might be beneficial to listen to him.

Moses, you have myself, Smiles, bobsaigon, Brad the Implala, and more all telling you you're taking this forum down the wrong path. Why are you not listening?

If you're that tired of being board owner, then give it to me. I'll send you $3000 USD right now via bitcoin in exchange for you transferring the domain, and providing me root access.

[Moses]

Are you serious?

Yes.

By the way: why you again bring here mythical "ad revenue"? Do you see any ads here besides Siamroads? Also it been declared by me more than 3 times already: any gay-targeted business will have here advertising for free.

[cdnmatt]

No, I don't see at all actually. I remember back when I could see, you had this place plastered with ads, not to mention were constantly promoting your tour guide service.

Again, if you're tired of taking care of this forum, then understandable, and offer remains on the table. I can have you $3000 USD within the hour if you want.

[Moses]

I remember back when I could see, you had this place plastered with ads


Who is your dealer?

[bobsaigon2]

..... Moses, you have myself, Smiles, bobsaigon, Brad the Implala, and more all telling you you're taking this forum down the wrong path. Why are you not listening?....

Matt, to clarify, I did not tell Moses that he is taking this forum down the wrong path. The path, that is the posting guidelines, was already in place when Moses took over.

What Moses has done is to appoint moderators to attempt to prevent the posting of objectionable content. I see nothing wrong with that. I made the observation that this is a difficult task since present guidelines allow so much latitude.

Good natured, congenial bantering is welcomed by all. The unwelcome posts are those that are monumentally offensive or personally abusive. It is these posts that I hope can become unacceptable under revised posting guidelines.

I am sure owner/moderators would welcome your suggestions in this regard.

[joe552]

As far as I'm aware, each mod lives in a different time zone - a447 in Australia, christian in Thailand and arsenal in the UK.


Surely between the 3 of you it should be possible to monitor the board.

[a447]

The only editing so far has been in relation to the violation of board guidelines, apart from:

A) my editing of my own post - and the negative consequences that caused, for which I have apologised, and
B) Christian editing out members' spelling and grammar.

I agree 100% that any editing should be done strictly in accordance with the published guidelines.

What seems to be lost in this discussion about moderation is that only a couple of people now are causing trouble - and they have been dealt with in accordance with the Guidelines and Rules. It's the same people who are posting the "objectionable content" referred to by Bob, apart from one member who had a bit of a brain fade and I deleted his post. He agreed that he had slipped up and has since apologised.

For years the board seems to have operated without moderators and we saw what happened. We were slowly but surely having down the path to the Bitchboard. Moses has decided that he doesn't want to be a part of that and so asked three members to moderate.

But we need to tread carefully and not rush into issuing sanctions when the rules are so open to interpretation.

So yes, suggestions would be welcome.

And Joe, we are monitoring the board. As far as I can determine, objectionable posts have been dealt with swiftly.

[Smiles]

I am sure owner/moderators would welcome your suggestions in this regard.
Exactly. My suggestion -- the only one -- would be that Moses does the right thing and puts the "Nada" on Moderators crawling into Members' posts and editing them with no reference to a specific guideline violation.

[joe552]

This might bring down the dogs of war, but here goes. Take Tom Daley for example. I found him attractive when he was 16. I still think he's a good looking guy.

[bobsaigon2]

Sorry to be repetitious, but I agree, there should be no language editing by moderators. If a post is unintelligible, moderator can PM the poster to find out if he wants to clarify his post. Faulty grammar or spelling should not give moderators cause to intervene. Whether or not a post is objectionable and deserves deletion is an entirely different matter.

[scottish-guy]

The "wrong road" that is being gone down is the "fuck you" attitude that is being displayed towards the members.

It starts at the top with Moses arrogant declaration that anybody who feels aggrieved by a decision made by him or by Head Judge Len & The Sidekicks must take it private and no-one else can discuss it.

That sort of attitude just pisses people off, and specifically it pisses me off because I dislike being dictated to over what I can or cannot comment on. I thought SGT was a discussion board - who knew.

It comes on top of this recent response to a punter:


..My house - my rules.. - which is very reminiscent of the Fat Cunt's arrogant "It's my playground" comment of yesteryear which had a number of members gnashing their teeth in anger.

Also in the mix is Len's recent utterly bizarre announcement that any mention of children would be sanctioned, together with his other proclamation that his moderation policy is "Never Explain" - and although Christian's and a447's unwelcome meddling in posts hasn't affected me specifically (yet), it's indicative of the fuck you attitude.

Sad as it may seem on an anonymous board, I regard the characters on SGT as acquaintances and quite a few as friends even though I have never met the vast majority. I hate nobody and enjoy coming here and I would find it very disappointing if the entire character of the board changed.

It's clear from Moses responses (which I'll take at face value) that he derives little or no income from the board and uses it only as a vehicle for his Siam Roads palaver (whatever that even is - I've never bothered to find out) - so he doesn't give a fuck really whether we stay or go.

Therefore I'd suggest there's little point getting worked up and more point in just voting with our feet if and when the board atmosphere becomes intolerable. There is no point trying to reason with either Moses or Head Judge Len and the other two are clearly (as I've said) - sidekicks (no offence guys)

[Smiles]

Sorry to be repetitious, but I agree, there should be no language editing by moderators. If a post is unintelligible, moderator can PM the poster to find out if he wants to clarify his post. Faulty grammar or spelling should not give moderators cause to intervene. Whether or not a post is objectionable and deserves deletion is an entirely different matter.
Bob, what would consider "objectionable" ... other than "Lese Majesty" that is?
That word is stunningly subjective. Putting that word into the guidelines will trigger fights much more heated than editing grammar or spelling mistakes.:))

PS ... who the hell is "LEN"?

[bobsaigon2]

That's it Smiles, precisely. The term Objectionable is, in the SGT context, extremely subjective, and it is the definition of that word which should be of paramount concern to anyone trying to revise the posting guidelines. There will never be a consensus, but I believe that at some point, a board owner/moderator must step in when a post does not meet generally accepted levels of civil discourse.

OK, how do I define generally accepted levels of civil discourse? Defining that is the task of the owner/moderators, not me.

[Moses]

If somebody forgot: here are forum's rules since 2013 (at least)
https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showthread.php?15945-Posting-rules-amp-guidelines

no one letter been changed since that time...

[Brad the Impala]

The only editing so far has been in relation to the violation of board guidelines, apart from:

A) my editing of my own post - and the negative consequences that caused, for which I have apologised, and
B) Christian editing out members' spelling and grammar.

I agree 100% that any editing should be done strictly in accordance with the published guidelines.


Re Point A. You didn't edit your own post. You edited my post quoting you. You did it to make yourself look better. I thought that you had already acknowledged that:


I was editing what I saw as my own post


As for the apology, that might have appeared genuine if it hadn't been preceded by your usual abuse when the editing was first pointed out.


WTF are you on about??

Far be it for me to make a nonsense of your comment. I mean, as if I'd ever do that! Lol

You don't need my help - you do that all the time all by yourself.




So three questions for Moses, if you would be so kind:

1. What are the current time limits on Moderators editing their own or other people's posts?
2. What are the current time limits on posters editing their own posts?
3. Why were the members of this forum not able to be told who had been banned(and several asked)when you were quite happy to announce it on another forum?

[Moses]

Re Point A. You didn't edit your own post. You edited my post quoting you. You did it to make yourself look better. I thought that you had already acknowledged that:



As for the apology, that might have appeared genuine if it hadn't been preceded by your usual abuse when the editing was first pointed out.




So three questions for Moses, if you would be so kind:

1. What are the current time limits on Moderators editing their own or other people's posts?
2. What are the current time limits on posters editing their own posts?
3. Why were the members of this forum not able to be told who had been banned(and several asked)when you were quite happy to announce it on another forum?

about "a477 accident": as I understand situation - a447 thought what he edited his own post when edited your, when he found it - he clicked "save" instead of clicking "cancel" that bring label "edited by..." under your post... and he gave apology to you... I think "accident" is closed


Moderators have no limits to edit.
Posters: 30 min
In both cases after 15 min from time of first posting label "edited by..." will appears

Wrong. Members "are able" and I wrote about it week ago at the day when frequent been temp.banned. But in general here will be no announce of such events with exemption for special cases (my sole discretion), as well as we will not invite orchestra and will not celebrate banning.

[Brad the Impala]

Thank you for quick answers, although it doesn't explain why after several days and several requests, we still could only surmise that frequent had been suspended, see Member Banned thread.

[Moses]

Thank you for quick answers, although it doesn't explain why after several days and several requests, we still could only surmise that frequent had been suspended, see Member Banned thread.

No, look at the thread: frequent's nickname appears at 5th post... after it there was nothing else to add

[scottish-guy]

If somebody forgot: here are forum's rules since 2013 (at least)..no one letter been changed since that time...

Nobody's arguing about "The Rules" - the disquiet is over the way they are currently being applied and the attitude of some of the people applying them

[a447]

There may be a temptation to attack a banned member, knowing that he can not defend himself.

Not mentioning who has been banned can, to some extent, curtail such behaviour.

[scottish-guy]

Equally, there may be a temptation to support him - that's really what's attempting to be curtailed.

Basically Moses and Head Judge Len have no intention of having their judgement questioned - that's what's behind it all.

If you can't see that a447 you may borrow my binoculars

:D

[Moses]

Basically Moses [..] have no intention of having their judgement questioned - that's what's behind it all.


Almost. Moderator's decision is final unless he wants to change his decision. And I don't want public multi-page drama every time after moderator's action. Wanna to discus - welcome to PM, supporting public cheerleader-drama is forbidden.

[a447]

Equally, there may be a temptation to support him - that's really what's attempting to be curtailed.

If the member has been legitimately banned, i.e. he has violated a clearly stated rule, then it's hard to support that member unless you withdraw your support for the rule he breached.

So there's a much greater chance that someone will go on the attack while the member has his hands tied. They could justify such an attack by simply pointing to the rule.

[scottish-guy]

5757 5758

[a447]

SG, do you agree with me when I say that if you support the violator, you cease supporting the rule?

That seems to me to be the crux of the matter.

[joe552]

I think we're more likely to vote with our fingers - such is the nature of technology.

Siam Roads offers an escort/tour guide service, in some of the more popular tourist destinations. Speaking personally on behalf of the lads, I'd rather off a boy from a bar and have him act as my tour guide. At least, there'd be sex available.

[Moses]

I think we're more likely to vote with our fingers - such is the nature of technology.

Siam Roads offers an escort/tour guide service, in some of the more popular tourist destinations. Speaking personally on behalf of the lads, I'd rather off a boy from a bar and have him act as my tour guide. At least, there'd be sex available.

unless he will be arrested for illegal guiding without license (mostly in Bangkok or Ayuthaya in Thailand, Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi in Vietnam, somehow at Bali)...

[scottish-guy]

SG, do you agree with me when I say that if you support the violator, you cease supporting the rule?

That seems to me to be the crux of the matter.


The crux of the matter is that, as in life, you ought to stand up for what you believe in.

Rules are subject to interpretation and application - either or both can be wrong, and to say that no dissension will be tolerated is to proclaim your own infallibility.

Do you feel infallible?

[a447]

Yes, but I specifically referred to "a clearly stated rule", not those which are open to interpretation.

Of course, imprecisely worded rules are a can of worms.

[scottish-guy]

The rule (discussion of moderating decisions) you're referring to is imprecisely worded and is open to interpretation.

The fact that Moses has found it necessary to explain it at least twice in this thread alone (the difference between decision and policy), points to that fact

[Smiles]

" ... The fact that Moses has found it necessary to explain it at least twice in this thread alone (the difference between decision and policy), points to that fact
Noted that our Board Grammarian has not yet edited your latest post. But, rest assured that very soon ~~ while you're sleeping perhaps ~~ he will creep into your post and add the missing period.

[joe552]

I rarely make it this far on the board, and now I can see why.

[scottish-guy]

... while you're sleeping perhaps ~~ he will creep in...and add the missing period...

I'm far too old for periods!

:D

[Nirish guy]

I'm far too old for periods!:D

Surely that should be I'm far too old for periods - full stop !
:)

[arsenal]

Think of the moderators as you think of any organisation that has power/responsibility such as your local council, the EU, the UK/USA/Australian etc government. Decisions are made and some you'll like and some you won't. We can do certain things such as move threads/posts or on occasions delete something. We cannot force members to post high quality posts that are relevant to the topic, well written and humorous. Nor can we force Scottish to actually post something about gay Thailand or even Thailand rather than the endless stream of 'pick 'n' mix' stuff that makes up 99.9 percent of his posts. I wish.

[scottish-guy]

Disappointingly for you I'll be continuing to post what I want, where I want, and at what time I want.

Meanwhile you can stick your rules firmly up your arse.

[arsenal]

I don't believe I mentioned 'rules and I think it's clear to everyone that anyone can post what they want, where they want and at what time they want. This includes me, even if it niggles a raw nerve which clearly it did.

[bobsaigon2]

Here is the question, often discussed but not yet answered... When should a post be deleted or a poster banned? We are currently in the anything-goes stage, and pretty much within the context of the old Latin suggestion that De gustibus non est disputandum, or, broadly translated on Wikipedia as, Personal preferences are merely subjective opinions that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were.

As has been said elsewhere, there are only a few board members who submit what most people see as objectionable posts. Maybe owner and moderators should just focus on educating those few people about acceptability of posts and not worry so much about creating new posting guidelines.

[arsenal]

Moderating is by it's very nature an inexact science. We do what we can but members who screeeeeeaaam like Violet Elizabeth Bott on this free facility when mods don't do what they want as quickly as they want might like to stick to posting an endless stream of worthless nothingness and try not to wear their bitterness/ambition like the Emperors new clothes. Just saying like.

[Smiles]

Here is the question, often discussed but not yet answered... When should a post be deleted or a poster banned?
On Sept 23rd the owner/admin of GayThailand (Scooby-doo) opened a thread called "Multiple Members Suspended Today"
The name of the topic (and the posts therein) reminded me of the "I'll wipe 'em all out" scene at the end of 'The Godfather (l)'.
Heaven forbid that this board ever goes down that nasty road. Book-burning is not a Sawatdee trait, thank christ.
Needless to say the usual suspects had a field day pouring hossanas on Scooby's brave coup, though there was some minority postings in rather quiet oppositon.

http://www.gaythailand.com/forums/topic/10562-multiple-members-suspended-today/

[scottish-guy]

Oh I rather think it's Len who has the raw nerves.

Being only a mere mortal I can say what I like - but when you have the forum's Head Judge launching thinly veiled attacks, it merely illustrates his unsuitability for a "job" he loudly proclaimed he would never take!

[arsenal]

For a full definition of what constitutes 'worthless nothingness' please see the post above. Or any of his others for that matter. Just saying like.

P.S. If snotface would like to frequent my post and give me one of his creepy 'likes' then that's ok by me.

[scottish-guy]

You're entitled to your opinion Len - just as I'm entitled to not even take it seriously

[arsenal]

Well you certainly have a lot to say about something you don't take seriously.

[bkkguy]

Moderators oversee specific forums ... Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgeable in the subject of the forum they are moderating.



For a full definition of what constitutes 'worthless nothingness' please see the post above. Or any of his others for that matter. Just saying like.

P.S. If snotface would like to frequent my post and give me one of his creepy 'likes' then that's ok by me.

Moses if arsenal is typical of the behavior and attitude that your are rewarding when appointing moderators it is perhaps not surprising that most threads here degenerate into a shitfight by page 2!

bkkguy

[arsenal]

bkkguy.
"rewarding"

Grow up. I'll forward your application to be moderator as you obviously think you can do a great job. Vacancy 31 Dec 2017.

[Moses]

it is perhaps not surprising that most threads here degenerate into a shitfight by page 2!

bkkguy

So you are not surprised why shitfight at past started at the first page and now only at the second?

[a447]

"rewarding"??

More of a punishment, I'd say!

[arsenal]

bkkguy"s application is being considered. Bet that shuts him up.
😎😎😎

[bkkguy]

bkkguy.
"rewarding"

Grow up. I'll forward your application to be moderator as you obviously think you can do a great job. Vacancy 31 Dec 2017.

"rewarding" wasn't my term - it is from the official board FAQ

and don't bother forwarding the application - the posts on this and other threads by moderators and administrators should be enough to warn anyone off getting involved!

bkkguy

[arsenal]

The moderators thank you bkkguy for your efforts and contribution. Your application has already been forwarded and will receive the fullest consideration. All members are invited to post on any topics on this free to use forum. All complaints are treated with the respect they deserve.