jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering what you would do in the examples provided by a PP. If I"m remembering correctly:

example one:

OP knows of a couple who is trying to adopt a baby. The couple is gay, and OP wants to know if there's any way to intervene and prevent the adoption. Surely others would chime in and say "it's not your place to do that!". We're assuming a real question from a familiar IP address, not a drive-by / trolling. Jeff, if the OP then said "please, they're not answering my question!" would you intervene similarly?

Example two:

OP's daughter is a bit "chunky" at four years old and is considering adderall, hoping the appetite suppressing benefits help with her daughter's weight. OP is not interested in hearing that it's not the appropriate use for that medication, or that she might be damaging her daughter's psyche with the body image obsession she's imposing on the girl, OP only wants to know if people have noticed appetite suppressing effects with adderall, and also a physicial that would be open to prescribing it to a four year old. Jeff, if the OP asked you, would you bar conversation beyond the specific appetite stimulant effects of adderall and a doctor who will prescribe it?

The point many of us are making is that you're starting to walk a fine line here when you decide when you'll intervene and when you will not. You jokingly say that consistency is not something you promise here, but I think it would be really challenging to sit around and determine which answers are germane or not (I mean, do you really want to spend your time that way, anyway?) and if you're using the premise of the argument as the litmus test (maybe the disrupting an adoption is so abhorrent that of COURSE you're not going to prevent people from saying it) but we're really relying on you to be the lone arbiter of what's worthy of full debate and what can only be discussed within very narrow confinces.

What's interesting to me is that you haven't acknowledged once that we might have a point here. Do you really think you are completely right or is there any room for you to just say "maybe I need to reconsider this" or "these are valid issues?" You seem angrier every time you post, which doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm trying to make you think about something a different way.

I was serious above when I said I am not going to provide hard and fast guidelines. I was also serious above when I said that I view moderating this site as an art rather than a science. And, you had better believe I was serious when I said that you should not expect complete consistency from me. Your examples illustrated exactly why I have taken these positions. You are suggesting that the extremes should rule the middle and that rather than basing my decisions regarding moderation on the type of threads we normally see around here, I should come up with rules that take into account extreme scenarios that we may never encounter. Let's say that I agree. Because someone might come here and ask how to build a bomb and some users might want to tell that user not to build a bomb rather than simply providing instructions, I should never intervene in a thread to prevent non-responsive answers. So, let's say I agree and I promise never to intervene in such a manner.

But, then what if there is a thread started by a 15 year old girl who is pregnant as a result of a rape by her father. She wants an abortion, but lives in Virginia where parental notification laws would require permission from that same rapist father. So, she posts asking whether she can obtain an abortion in Maryland or DC. Should I allow anti-abortion folks to call her a baby-killer and engage in the type of antics that we recently saw here in a similar thread? According to those who think I should never get involved in a thread, yes, I should allow those attacks because they might be interesting or might provide a different perspective or might educate someone other than the OP who might be reading the thread. Of course, a girl in this situation would have a lot more problems and need a lot more assistance beyond abortion advice. Some users might want to suggest places the girl could turn for help to escape her abusive father. Some might have personnel stories that they want to recount in order to support her. So, should I remove and/or prohibit baby-killer posts but allow those suggesting how she can get help with her family situation? Frankly, I think I should and probably would. But, what guideline or rule would I be following? Wouldn't I be acting unfairly and inconsistently? Yes, and I wouldn't give a damn.

The bottom line is what is stated in our "Frequently Asked Questions":

Don't all users have a right to free expression and should be able to post anything they like? Isn't it censorship when a Site Administrator interferes with that right?

No and No. We allow great leeway in what users are allowed to say, but Site Administrators reserve the right to delete and/or modify any message at any time for any reason. DCUM is privately owned and operated and, as such, First Amendment rights do not apply (though they are given great reverence).

This is the way things have always been here and its the way they are going to continue.

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't find Jeff, or his moderation, to be "out of control" at all. I think he shows a lot more patience than I would. Face it, people on this site do behave worse than 8th graders with a substitute teacher and a certain point all Jeff can do is exercise his best judgment and wait for people to complain.

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't find Jeff, or his moderation, to be "out of control" at all. I think he shows a lot more patience than I would. Face it, people on this site do behave worse than 8th graders with a substitute teacher and a certain point all Jeff can do is exercise his best judgment and wait for people to complain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't find Jeff, or his moderation, to be "out of control" at all. I think he shows a lot more patience than I would. Face it, people on this site do behave worse than 8th graders with a substitute teacher and a certain point all Jeff can do is exercise his best judgment and wait for people to complain.

FWIW, you took the "out of control" out of context. In that context it was more the "I wasn't kidding" and "I don't want to have to tell you again" and "I really meant it" type of language he uses. I find it unnecessarily hostile. I never meant to infer that Jeff was out of control. In fact, if he's anything he's in control.

Yeah, I get that it's your sandbox or henhouse or whatever. And I find your quick response to technology-related questions to be extremely helpful. But now I see your posts are tending to be either offensive (abortion, STFU) or you appear to be the angry out-of-control substitute teacher yelling at a bunch of rowdy school children. What's with all the hostility? You, and probably only you, know that some of these posters asking you questions are not the same "Amys" that you've referred to or other people who are just out to spoil your day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't find Jeff, or his moderation, to be "out of control" at all. I think he shows a lot more patience than I would. Face it, people on this site do behave worse than 8th graders with a substitute teacher and a certain point all Jeff can do is exercise his best judgment and wait for people to complain.

FWIW, you took the "out of control" out of context. In that context it was more the "I wasn't kidding" and "I don't want to have to tell you again" and "I really meant it" type of language he uses. I find it unnecessarily hostile. I never meant to infer that Jeff was out of control. In fact, if he's anything he's in control.

Maybe you regret your choice of words but "out-of-control" was not taken out of context by the PP. Here's the quoted bolded:

Yeah, I get that it's your sandbox or henhouse or whatever. And I find your quick response to technology-related questions to be extremely helpful. But now I see your posts are tending to be either offensive (abortion, STFU) or you appear to be the angry out-of-control substitute teacher yelling at a bunch of rowdy school children. What's with all the hostility? You, and probably only you, know that some of these posters asking you questions are not the same "Amys" that you've referred to or other people who are just out to spoil your day.

Even if you wanted to compare Jeff to a teacher trying to reign in an "out-of-control" class, the analogy doesn't work. The teacher either lets the kids run rampant or take steps that the kids might not like to regain control of the classroom. You may not like his language or find him hostile but so what? He's entitled to post just like anyone else and before you start complaining about him, why don't you get a UserName so we can let you know when we find you out-of-control, offensive or hostile. Stop giving him grief.

Anonymous wrote:Even if you wanted to compare Jeff to a teacher trying to reign in an "out-of-control" class, the analogy doesn't work. The teacher either lets the kids run rampant or take steps that the kids might not like to regain control of the classroom. You may not like his language or find him hostile but so what? He's entitled to post just like anyone else and before you start complaining about him, why don't you get a UserName so we can let you know when we find you out-of-control, offensive or hostile. Stop giving him grief.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, you know, you're sexy when you're angry. You are too, Maria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if you wanted to compare Jeff to a teacher trying to reign in an "out-of-control" class, the analogy doesn't work. The teacher either lets the kids run rampant or take steps that the kids might not like to regain control of the classroom. You may not like his language or find him hostile but so what? He's entitled to post just like anyone else and before you start complaining about him, why don't you get a UserName so we can let you know when we find you out-of-control, offensive or hostile. Stop giving him grief.

I certainly do not regret my choice of words, as I've explained. We'll just have to disagree regarding their interpretation. But I'm sure I know what I meant better than you do. As I've said, if Jeff is anything, he's in control. He also seems quite capable of arguing his own position. But so sweet of you to stick up for him. As far as I know, he's never asked me to stop making observations. When he does, I will.

How about I copy your post over to OT and see if other people think your words were taken out of context? You've can try explaining you have a different interpretation of "out-of-control" but you know you're going to get flamed big time for calling Jeff a hostile, angry, out-of-control substitute teacher.

I've been having trouble posting all morning. I was starting to get paranoid. Fox, henhouse and all.
(In fact I tried for 35 minutes to get this post through.)