So why exactly was MJ4H boxed?

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Everyone is willing to bitch about mod decisions but no one is willing to acknowledge that the board is generally a really good place to visit and rarely devolves into the kind of antics most boards see. I think the results are worth putting up with the occasional mod insanity (and I've really only run across one when a mod changed a title of a thread because some folks didn't agree with the politics in it...)

I'll go along with this. The problem I think I see is you'll see more issues like this when a mod uses himself and his situation as the gold standard for the decisions he makes. That not thinking about the community. That's making sure he's taking care of himself.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I would argue the main point of that thread is to find hot women.

Seriously?

Have you read the thread?

It's about female teachers have sex with their students that are generally 7's on a scale of 1-10 who are shown in mugshots or other unrevealing pictures.

This whole argument about that thread is what I'm talking about. When I try to explain something, people take a ridiculous red herring and try to throw it out there. It makes any concrete discussion completely pointless.

People will next bring up the HoN threads - well, they again do not have revealing pictures of 16-20 year old girls posted all over the place. At best they have some pictures of celebrities from main stream magazines, and often not even that.

If you can't see the distinction between those threads, the occasional thread in the "images so cool" thread, and a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds I'm not sure what to tell you. There is a huge distinction in my book

[stevew]

MJ got fucked cause he fucked himself.

I thought it was poor form to delete the original thread in it's entirety, when the links could have been edited out.

But if you get told "no" and then continue to be an asshat, you're going to get assfucked.

[Dr. Sak]

I don't have a problem except when Noop puts those fuckin gifs in the Images thread and slows the load time way down!

Originally Posted by stevew

MJ got fucked cause he fucked himself.

I thought it was poor form to delete the original thread in it's entirety, when the links could have been edited out.

But if you get told "no" and then continue to be an asshat, you're going to get assfucked.

Someone saw Bruno this weekend.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If you can't see the distinction between those threads, the occasional thread in the "images so cool" thread, and a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds I'm not sure what to tell you. There is a huge distinction in my book

The point is that the initial complaint is that the pictures could limit people's ability to access FOFC, which I've never seen justified, and now it's moving to more of a morality police area.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If you can't see the distinction between those threads, the occasional thread in the "images so cool" thread, and a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds I'm not sure what to tell you. There is a huge distinction in my book

Is there a distinction made by your work filter if pictures are in one thread, as opposed to spread out across several threads?

Or if it's just your personal opinion and vision of the board you're talking about, just stay out his thread.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I'll go along with this. The problem I think I see is you'll see more issues like this when a mod uses himself and his situation as the gold standard for the decisions he makes. That not thinking about the community. That's making sure he's taking care of himself.

If you're referring to me, you're completely off-base.

If this is what I was doing, I would have deleted the thread and banned MJ4H.

Instead I, as ANY poster here can do, reported the thread (granted I didn't use the "report thread" button) to Ben because I thought that it was a borderline thread that should be looked into further.

In doing so I had the interests of the entire board in mind. My work has less strict filters than a lot of posters do. Part of what I'm asked to do as a mod is ensure that we do not get blocked by people's places of work because of this kind of BS.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Seriously?

Have you read the thread?

It's about female teachers have sex with their students that are generally 7's on a scale of 1-10 who are shown in mugshots or other unrevealing pictures.

This whole argument about that thread is what I'm talking about. When I try to explain something, people take a ridiculous red herring and try to throw it out there. It makes any concrete discussion completely pointless.

People will next bring up the HoN threads - well, they again do not have revealing pictures of 16-20 year old girls posted all over the place. At best they have some pictures of celebrities from main stream magazines, and often not even that.

If you can't see the distinction between those threads, the occasional thread in the "images so cool" thread, and a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds I'm not sure what to tell you. There is a huge distinction in my book

But a filter doesn't care! An image in a photobucket account is an image in a photobucket account. And the images were in spoiler tags, so they aren't visible if you don't want them to be. It seemed like MJ4H was trying to follow the rules here.

I don't follow the other thread much, but whenever I go in there, there's discussion as to how hot the women are. You can't deny that.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by wade moore

People will next bring up the HoN threads - well, they again do not have revealing pictures of 16-20 year old girls posted all over the place. At best they have some pictures of celebrities from main stream magazines, and often not even that.

If you can't see the distinction between those threads, the occasional thread in the "images so cool" thread, and a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds I'm not sure what to tell you. There is a huge distinction in my book

So is age the distinction that brought it into question? Or Status? Because thats a fine line to draw...I have seen some pictures that were as bad if not worse than what MJ4H posted in that thread on the HoN pics...but then again, it's ok...they are celebs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

In doing so I had the interests of the entire board in mind. My work has less strict filters than a lot of posters do. Part of what I'm asked to do as a mod is ensure that we do not get blocked by people's places of work because of this kind of BS.

So why are youtube videos immune from your crusade? When you pick out only one of many filter issues on the site, it looks like a moral issue.

[molson]

So will wade be suspended for breaking the mod rule about communicating about mod issues?

[larrymcg421]

I don't know how your work filters work, but "child molester" certainly seems ot be something that could get attention, maybe even more attention than pictures of scantily clad women.

I'm allowed to be online at work, but they certainly wouldn't want me to be looking at a thread about child molesters, or even on a forum where there was such a thread. When that thread gets bumped, I close my browser and do not visit FOFC for the rest of the day.

I have no idea what work filter would catch MJ4H's thread but not the child molester one.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The point is that the initial complaint is that the pictures could limit people's ability to access FOFC, which I've never seen justified, and now it's moving to more of a morality police area.

Originally Posted by molson

Is there a distinction made by your work filter if pictures are in one thread, as opposed to spread out across several threads?

Or if it's just your personal opinion and vision of the board you're talking about, just stay out his thread.

Let it be known that I'm trying to be helpful here, but the continuous red herrings are driving me nuts.

I have no f'ing clue what my work filter does.

Some scan file names. Some scan meta tags. Some scan file size. Some look for text in the messages on the board. Some have human intervention.

I don't know what my work does or what everyone here at FOFC has setup at their job.

What I do know is that a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds has the POTENTIAL to set off alarms for a place of business. More so than a picture of a teacher in a sweat shirt for her mug shot that slept with a student, more so than a picture from the cover of Maxim magazine, and moreso than one single picture of a scantily clad 16-20 year old.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Everyone is willing to bitch about mod decisions but no one is willing to acknowledge that the board is generally a really good place to visit and rarely devolves into the kind of antics most boards see. I think the results are worth putting up with the occasional mod insanity (and I've really only run across one when a mod changed a title of a thread because some folks didn't agree with the politics in it...)

I think this is a little too simple. Sure, there are always a couple of people willing to argue about mod decisions and another couple with what I would call constructive criticism, but are the voices really that loud? There are 2 or 3 people talking about how bad a decision it is and 50 others making movie quotes to mock the banning. Isn't that pretty much tacit acceptance that it's no big deal, right?

SI

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

So will wade be suspended for breaking the mod rule about communicating about mod issues?

There is no such mod rule.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think this is a little too simple. Sure, there are always a couple of people willing to argue about mod decisions and another couple with what I would call constructive criticism, but are the voices really that loud? There are 2 or 3 people talking about how bad a decision it is and 50 others making movie quotes to mock the banning. Isn't that pretty much tacit acceptance that it's no big deal, right?

SI

This was my take as well fwiw - and part of why I say I would have been better off just leaving this thread alone.

[MikeVic]

I'd say there are more than 2 or 3 people that disagree with the initial ruling. It really confused me as to what is and isn't allowed here.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by wade moore

What I do know is that a thread full of scantily clad 16-20 year olds has the POTENTIAL to set off alarms for a place of business. More so than a picture of a teacher in a sweat shirt for her mug shot that slept with a student, more so than a picture from the cover of Maxim magazine, and moreso than one single picture of a scantily clad 16-20 year old.

When the images are hosted on Photobucket, and under one user account, and hidden in a spoiler tag....thats stretching it there...

The filter at the place I used to work out would have shut down on the child molester thread in a heartbeat, because of the text.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Well, this sums it up for me...I guess I need to start visiting a few different boards, but before I head...take a gander at several hundred other threads throughout this board and make sure they get deleted, banned and what not, because we don't want the board to turn into that as well....

Do you need help finding those threads? Because I would be happy to go through and report them for not being "FOFC" type material.

Please start (and end) with any thread involving a picture of Kathy Griffin.

Thx

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't know how your work filters work, but "child molester" certainly seems ot be something that could get attention, maybe even more attention than pictures of scantily clad women.

I'm allowed to be online at work, but they certainly wouldn't want me to be looking at a thread about child molesters, or even on a forum where there was such a thread. When that thread gets bumped, I close my browser and do not visit FOFC for the rest of the day.

I have no idea what work filter would catch MJ4H's thread but not the child molester one.

Now I know what to do next time you piss me off.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Please start (and end) with any thread involving a picture of Kathy Griffin.

Thx

Why you gotta treat me like that?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I generally like this place, but is it so hard for mods to explain stuff and admit they're wrong if a decision doesn't make sense?

Wade did explain: he posted questionable pics, they were removed, and he acted like an asshat behind the scenes to the mods. Much of the asshattery was in private to the mods and Wade does not want to air that dirty laundry. Seemed like a pretty clear explanation to me, but people always want to delve deeper.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Wade did explain: he posted questionable pics, they were removed, and he acted like an asshat behind the scenes to the mods. Much of the asshattery was in private to the mods and Wade does not want to air that dirty laundry. Seemed like a pretty clear explanation to me, but people always want to delve deeper.

To be clear: I am not a mod and have no idea what was said behind the scenes. I'm just reiterating Wade's explanation which was pretty straightforward in here.

[MacroGuru]

{snip}

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Wade did explain: he posted questionable pics, they were removed, and he acted like an asshat behind the scenes to the mods. Much of the asshattery was in private to the mods and Wade does not want to air that dirty laundry. Seemed like a pretty clear explanation to me, but people always want to delve deeper.

The entire thread was removed, not just the pics.

[molson]

Wade's kind of taking a bullet for the faceless mod ogres here, I mean, anyone's entitled to complain about a thread or picture and have it looked into. Wade's opinions surely carry a lot more weight because he's an insider, but this thread really should be about the actual mod decision, which of course isn't possible, which leaves us all to speculate and complain about a real red herring - the reporting of the thread.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

And here is MJ4H's response...it's linked on his Twitter account..

Well, that seems like asshat mods to me.

[molson]

Deleting the thread was an absolute asshat move. That's not something I thought we had to worry about.

[stevew]

I see another boxing coming in 3.2.1....

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Let it be known that I'm trying to be helpful here, but the continuous red herrings are driving me nuts.

I have no f'ing clue what my work filter does.

No wade, it's not a red herring, but we are led to believe the thread was deleted because it crosses some risk-threshold for people being able to go to FOFC at work. It's been pointed out that the thread could not possibly be more risky than any number of other threads here. Just waving your hands at work filters as a justification for actions is an odd way to respond to them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

{shrugs} I'm not seeing a big problem here.

WTF hot chick pics had to do with a poker dynasty escapes me (well, not entirely, trying to drum up hits I guess, but generally speaking the two aren't directly related).

And reposting them under the circumstances he describes himself seems like no less than a 50-50 bet to get boxed, not completely predictable but not exactly shocking either.

edit to add: The other point that seems to be missed in this thread is that the owner of the forum can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants. Sometimes that concept gets obscured over time I think, but this isn't a democracy and ultimately nobody owes any of us jack shit in the way of explanations.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It's been pointed out that the thread could not possibly be more risky than any number of other threads here.

I have not seen that proven in any way, shape, or form. I see people throwing that logic out there - I have yet to see it proven.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by stevew

I see another boxing coming in 3.2.1....

You win the thread.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I have not seen that proven in any way, shape, or form. I see people throwing that logic out there - I have yet to see it proven.

Unless human eyes are looking at MJ4H's thread, there is nothing objectionable.

The odds that human eyes at an IT department are looking at MJ4H's thread without the FOFC user having looked at it at work are small.

There are text issues, linking issues, and similar content concerns with many other threads here.

QED Many other threads here are at least as objectionable as MJ4H's thread.

[MacroGuru]

hahahaha, and I get edited!

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I have not seen that proven in any way, shape, or form. I see people throwing that logic out there - I have yet to see it proven.

Originally Posted by wade moore

I have no f'ing clue what my work filter does.

Some look for text in the messages on the board.

So... the hot child molester thread then?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So... the hot child molester thread then?

If the goal of you and others is to get other threads deleted, be careful what you wish for.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

{snip}

Classic

[molson]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

hahahaha, and I get edited!

How are you even still here?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You win the thread.

At least we'll get Wade's "2-3 suspensions/bannings a year" out of the way today.

[Dr. Sak]

It's the fuckin Catalina wine mixer

[Pumpy Tudors]

shitstorm warning in effect for fofc county

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If the goal of you and others is to get other threads deleted, be careful what you wish for.

YEAH BITCHES... HE'LL SHOW YOU.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

At least we'll get Wade's "2-3 suspensions/bannings a year" out of the way today.

:shurg:

Find me 2 other boxings in the last 364 days.

Good luck.

[molson]

And MacroGuru is in the box.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You win the thread.

YAY-

And a BRAND new Car!

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If the goal of you and others is to get other threads deleted, be careful what you wish for.

No I don't want threads deleted, that's the point. Other threads that could POTENTIALLY be worse for work filters have existed here for a long time. Why was this MJ4H thread handled differently?

[Ksyrup]

I think the problem here is that MJ4H expected immediate action on his PM and refused to wait for an answer before taking matters into his own hands. It's quite clear to me that Ben was handling this personally at wade's request that he look at it. Contrary to widespread belief, the mods here do not work shifts or patrol the virtual halls like 4th grade hall monitors actively seeking out troublemakers or responding to issues pro-actively. Absent some sort of attack on the forum that requires immediate action - which I don't recall ever happening - I believe the most any of us has ever done is post an issue up for discussion in the mod forum or ping Ben/Ryan for them to get involved or handle the issue.

So, for MJ4H to think that on the weekend, someone (in this case, he only sent his PM to Ben it appears, definitely not the general mod group because I didn't get it) would immediately respond to his request to restore the thread without pics, is a bit ridiculous. I can't speak for Ben, but my guess is that if he had waited a day or two for Ben to respond, this never would have reached the point it did. At a minimum, knowing that the pics were considered objectionable, and not having heard from Ben, if he really couldn't wait to re-post the thread, I wouldn't have expected him to include any reference to the pics, twitter account or no. But that's just me. Again, I'm not speaking for Ben, but if a second thread had popped up with nothing but the poker stuff in it, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

If MJ4H had taken it slow, it would have worked itself out fine. All he needed was just a little patience.

*cue whistling*

[cartman]

Gawddangit Wade, this isn't a draft thread. This is the kind of behavior you show regularly in those.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by molson

And MacroGuru is in the box.

Nothing personal against him, cause I like him.

But if you post "words of someone beyond the grave" you're going to get boxed 100000% percent of the time.