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:Just noticed that 20:39, 20:42 and 20:53 do not appear on Recent Topics (although 22:39 is there). Was it something I said?

My post, my bad. I realized my mistake just as I hit submit.

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.

If Jeff said he'd think about something in a different way would you shut the fuck up and move on?

Just noticed that 20:39, 20:42 and 20:53 do not appear on Recent Topics (although 22:39 is there). Was it something I said?

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

I'm sorry that this site is not run to the perfect standard that you desire. I am not going to give you a model. The minute I did that a bunch of you would devote every free minute you had to finding loopholes, inconsistencies, or shortcomings in it. I have better things to do with my life then spend it debating such minutia. As for your claim of "censorship", can you provide an example of a single viewpoint that I have prevented from being expressed on this site. If you cannot provide an example, then I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

My apologies, then. Apparently I caught you on a rainy Monday. Let me know when you are in a better mood so we can revisit this discussion of course at your discretion when it is OK with you and you will not be offended for simply being asked to clearly monitor your own website which is a great inconvenience to you unless you are unilaterally agreed with. My bad.

jsteele wrote:
I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

jsteele wrote:So, I assume you are advocating censorship? It's going to be hard to satisfy the pro-censorship and anti-censorship crowds at the same time.

You assume incorrectly. I'm merely identifying one earlier post and language in the current quoted post (which I've inartfully tried to include above) that I found offensive. A few other times I've reported posts or language I've found offensive. But the report button would be useless here, as I noted. That is all.

Anonymous wrote:
I found your abortion quip rather offensive a few weeks back. You're certainly not the first to use the bolded phrase above, but I find it awful every time I see it on DCUM. No sense in hitting the report button to complain to the fox overseeing this henhouse, so I just mention it here.

So, I assume you are advocating censorship? It's going to be hard to satisfy the pro-censorship and anti-censorship crowds at the same time.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

I'm sorry that this site is not run to the perfect standard that you desire. I am not going to give you a model. The minute I did that a bunch of you would devote every free minute you had to finding loopholes, inconsistencies, or shortcomings in it. I have better things to do with my life then spend it debating such minutia. As for your claim of "censorship", can you provide an example of a single viewpoint that I have prevented from being expressed on this site. If you cannot provide an example, then I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

I found your abortion quip rather offensive a few weeks back. You're certainly not the first to use the bolded phrase above, but I find it awful every time I see it on DCUM. No sense in hitting the report button to complain to the fox overseeing this henhouse, so I just mention it here.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

I'm sorry that this site is not run to the perfect standard that you desire. I am not going to give you a model. The minute I did that a bunch of you would devote every free minute you had to finding loopholes, inconsistencies, or shortcomings in it. I have better things to do with my life then spend it debating such minutia. As for your claim of "censorship", can you provide an example of a single viewpoint that I have prevented from being expressed on this site. If you cannot provide an example, then I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I can't keep track. Are the "voices in your head" and "share a brain" the same poster? Funny stuff.

Nope. See, not so easy to keep track of, huh?

Why so smug? All I said was that they were funny.

Sorry. All the mudslinging on this thread and I got caught up in action. No offense to you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

Now wait a second, Jeff said he deleted only one post and now even OP is acknowledging that multiple responses were deleted.

Personally, I seem to recall multiple postings being deleted, every one of them challenging the OP's premise. BUt it is very clear child-stealing OP is determined to have THE VERY LAST WORD HERE. So, whatever.

She was wrong, end of story, as was Jeff. The responses were neither hateful, mean, nor abusive. Even Jeff didn't say that.

I am person you are quoting and this is my first post on this thread. I am not the custody OP either nor did I post on that thread. I was merely talking about a different occasion when Jeff edited a thread on behalf of the OP were it was clearly warranted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

Now wait a second, Jeff said he deleted only one post and now even OP is acknowledging that multiple responses were deleted.

Personally, I seem to recall multiple postings being deleted, every one of them challenging the OP's premise. BUt it is very clear child-stealing OP is determined to have THE VERY LAST WORD HERE. So, whatever.

She was wrong, end of story, as was Jeff. The responses were neither hateful, mean, nor abusive. Even Jeff didn't say that.

Sigh. It's a different poster, you dimwit.

Anonymous wrote:Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

Now wait a second, Jeff said he deleted only one post and now even OP is acknowledging that multiple responses were deleted.

Personally, I seem to recall multiple postings being deleted, every one of them challenging the OP's premise. BUt it is very clear child-stealing OP is determined to have THE VERY LAST WORD HERE. So, whatever.

She was wrong, end of story, as was Jeff. The responses were neither hateful, mean, nor abusive. Even Jeff didn't say that.