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.
arsenal (October 24th, 2017), bobsaigon2 (October 24th, 2017), Brad the Impala (October 25th, 2017), francois (October 24th, 2017), Surfcrest (October 24th, 2017)
Agree with you, Christian, 100 %.Originally Posted by christianpfc
bobsaigon2 (October 24th, 2017)
Scottish wrote:
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.The "constant deletion" worked so well that I was able to still read the allegations whilst the Head Judge was busy .....
I think the phrase 'workable ideas' is pretty self explanatory and shouldn't require any further instructions.
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.
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.
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'
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.
arsenal (October 25th, 2017), christianpfc (October 27th, 2017)
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote