Ok. I have a complaint. Not that I think it matters. And I'll be a little surprised if this post doesn't get deleted, gets me another strike, or gets me banned. Or all three.

But I have "conversations" here with other members via PM's and they have the same problem as me, but they too are afraid to bring it up. So, me being the introverted one here who is afraid to tackle a tough subject, will say what some others have been saying.

The moderation here at AD sucks at times.

Nobody can dispute the need for tight control of the ship to keep it from getting out of hand, but some actions border on arbitrary, ridiculous, and downright wrong.

On July 25, 2003 I got a PM from the AD staff which I'll share a portion of:



So, I used that word with the dollar signs to highlight a point I was making in debating something to do with George Bush on September 18th. Within minutes, the "a" word was removed from my post by someone I was debating with and replaced with BIG BLUE LETTERS stating "INAPPROPRIATE PROFANITY FILTER BYPASS REMOVED" (nothing like having the cure worse than the illness, huh?). I was notified via PM right away that I got a strike (I think from Quark, but I could be wrong) for bypassing the profanity filter. So, in responding to the debate topic, I made reference to the PM I got saying that word was ok, but that too was deleted.

A little while later, I got a PM from someone part of the AD staff saying I got a strike because of a two letter reference I made to a Lewinski two days before (it had something to do with Billy Jeff - our last president). That two letter term was removed and replaced once again, with BIG BOLD LETTERS stating "INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL REMARK REMOVED".

All this for saying the "a" word? Well, it worked. I bailed from that debate and haven't been back since. You win. Congrats.

But now, I find out from a friend here that her posts are getting deleted. And she hasn't been given a reason. Who's point are we making here? Ours? Or the AD staff's? They spend so much time editing ours, it's tough to tell anymore.

It's very tough to debate very sensitive subjects here and call it a G rated board. How is discussing the merits of having sex with your sister less revolting then the a" word? How is discussing how anal intercourse can be pleasurable to a guy less offensive than using a two letter reference to a Lewinski?

Some moderators have subjectively ruled that adult language can't be used to discuss adult subjects. This is absurd. If AD is worried about school kids seeing the "a" word, why let them see some of the sordid garbage discussed in the Lifestyles threads (just as an example because it's the most common - they are all over)?

I have never personally insulted anyone on these boards even after being called a racist, a homophobe, and compared to Hitler because of some of my views. I have never masked the s and f bombs. I attempt to stay on topic as much as anyone else (but am far from perfect - just like everybody else). But I got 3 of my posts edited by people other than me and a strike because I said the "a" word.

Finally, I reported a recent post where somebody used the "a" word. And it's still there. Unedited.

I don't want to be part of a debate community that uses foul language and accepts personal attacks against other members. And that doesn't happen here. But I also don't want to be part of a debate community who's leaders arbitrarily restrict our speech to serve some other needs. Because using the word "*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***" or term "BJ" is hardly offensive, foul, or profane.

Now, this isn't lumping all the moderators together or saying all moderation sucks. But modifying our posts (except in extreme circumstances) seems downright wrong and contradictory to what this board is supposed to be about.

If this is not an adult board, say so. But please remove the adult subjects as well.

Bravo Dayton!

I came here from another forum whose moderators were nazis. I am hoping this board isn't likewise. I'm glad you were able to present your beef in an organized, well-argued fashion, despite how absolutely enfuriating it is to be sensored. I know first hand how maddening it is to have your posts modified, deleted, or otherwise tampered with for some arbitrary, trivial reason.

I agree, to an extent. BUT, I still love AD! I can see both sides of the issue and I'm conflicted, I have gotten frustrated in the past with certain decisions made about my posts, but then again, I have had the moderators take my side and on my defense on issues in the past also. I'll just keep on doing my thing. When I mess up, I mess up.

Edited because I had a change of heart and I don't want to come off unappreciative to the hard work those that keep the site up to the standards I respect them for.

I noticed there was a profanity filter the first couple of posts I made, but then I live in a country that loves to swear! Well maybe not, but I mean it appears to be perfectly acceptable in my country to use certain words (the 'a' word for example, or our version of it anyway) on daytime TV. But I totally respect if no profanity at all is condoned on this forum, and I haven't accidentally tested it since.

So if what you say is true DaytonRocker, and others seem to get away with using profanity whereas you have been given strikes for going around it, then I would concur that there is a problem. I haven't actually noted any profanity or posts where people have worked their way round it, but it seems inappropriate to be selective in moderation.

I can see where you are coming from on the point about an adult forum with adult topics - we aren't allowed to use small swears but topics that would get 18 ratings in a movie are discussed. However, I would still tend to see this as an adult forum anyway, with the removal of profanity just being a way of keeping the debates professional sounding.

I delight in doing the unexpected, and today is no exception. Hm. There's a paradox in there somewhere. Anyway, I feel compelled to defend the moderators here. Nobody knows like they do that I frequently complain about specific moderation actions, but let's all try to remember that they are human beings with real lives who volunteer their time to make this a better place. And they rarely get the thanks they deserve. Yes they make mistakes, yes they're inconsistent sometimes, but without them this place would really...well, you know.

That said, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions for improvement. First and foremost would be a way to appeal a moderator action, particularly a strike. (Can moderators really issue strikes? I thought that was limited to Mike and Jaime. Some clarification just on that point would be helpful.) I don't know how feasible it is in terms of the software we use, but the ideal would be where the person gets to face their accusers and have their say about why they feel the strike was undeserved, before the entire staff. I don't think I've ever seen a moderator action undone, or an apology issued, though there have been many cases where those things should have happened. A little accountability would go a long way.

As for posts disappearing, what can I say? That's just wrong. An entire thread in which I was active got deleted once, for what I considered grossly inadequate reasons. I for one would prefer if at least a notice were left behind noting the fact that something had been deleted, but this doesn't seem to be universal practice. Overall, it might improve things somewhat if some basic moderator guidelines were developed and posted where everybody can see and understand how moderation really works (even though they can't and shouldn't necessarily see the details behind specific actions).

While this thread remains, I would like to post an unqualified note of appreciation to the moderators and administration of AD.

Thank you for making the tough decisions that makes this place great place to come and get in involved in debate.

Eeyore, do you think this thread could be deleted? (joking!)

For the record I've read this. Don't expect a response from me today. I was trying to have a nice birthday.

The idea behind the profanity filters is to not get banned by software such as net-nanny and cyberpatrol. Mike can give you a better idea of how these programs work than I can, but it is possible to discuss adult subjects while using appropriate language to discuss them. That two letter reference mentioned by Dayton Rocker has an official name that would be appropriate on the forum.

I understand how it can sometimes be frustratring when profanity is a part of your speech, but America's Debate has a higher goal, and it's to give a voice to everyone, including the younger people among us. We have had a great response from our younger members, and they are all mature enough and intelligent enough to handle the adult subjects presented, but they can't be here with us and benefit from AD if they can't even access the site.

The reason behind the filters is to keep this a mature site to converse without the ruinging it with cuss words and personal attacks and etc

Granted, I am still "newer" than a lot of you, but that was my understanding about the profanity filters as well.

I know that a lot of businesses' computers have said filters installed so that sites containing certain "buzz" words will be blocked. The parenting site I frequent was aiming to be censorship free in its infancy, but it ended up being a near impossibility because it was being blocked from all sorts of filters as a result of certain words (namely profanity).

I don't know, maybe it's just the way I am, but the best way to avoid any potential "bad" marks on your AD record is to just avoid anything that might be construed as against some guidelines.

Also, we do have a number of young members and I think it's only fair to respect them by not using certain language within topics that have no use for said language (if that makes any sense).

I can't say I know anything specific about moderator duties or how they enforce the "rules", but I doubt any of them are intending to single folks out...maybe that's just me being my optimistic self???

Sorry you feel you've been treated unfairly DR. I hope you can work it out

Thanks for that, Plat. I was going to post something along those lines - not the "thanks they deserve" part, but just that indeed, we are volunteers, and we are prone to error.



1. Yes, moderators and administrators may issue strikes. Committee members may not.

2. I agree in principle about the idea of an appeal, but realistically, given the fact that we are all volunteers and spend varying amounts of time here, is it feasable? We (the staff) do discuss many (but not all) moderation actions. We do discuss all instances where strikes may be issued. We have, on occassion, rescinded an action based on feedback from the person in question, and there are infractions and moderating issues which have prompted us to further codify what we are doing. Daytonrocker's little story that may have included a PM from me is a case in point. That specific issue prompted the staff to spell out more clearly our policies on language.

While moderation will always take a certain amount of subjective and contextual reasoning, we are also struggling to make it as fair and objective as possible. I try and avoid moderating people who disagree with me on the boards - instead, I will bring it to someone else's attention. One thing to keep in mind, is that this is still a relatively new site. The staff shares a vision of a debate site which is professional, civil, clean, and mature - and to reach that goal, we keep tweaking.



I agree entirely; this is something we have been discussing among the staff as well.

Daytonrocker:


As far as I know, no one has their posts deleted without being given a reason.



What needs might those be? On the AD staff, we strive for several things: balance, fairness, and good debate. We keep an ideologically balanced staff. When we feel that our personal views may keep us from being fair, we turn our issues over to the rest of the staff.

Of course we make mistakes; everyone does. And it's your choice to be a part of it, or not. I think that we have some really good things going for us:

1. We are managing to keep a fairly high level of discourse here.

2. We recognize that the site we want is still in the future, and we are willing to evolve to get there.

3. Unlike most debate sites I've seen out there, our staff and administration does not have a political or ideological bias when it comes to managing the debates.

As Cyan said, the main reason behind the profanity policy is so that this site isn't blocked in schools and libraries by software such as NetNanny or CyberPatrol.

That said, profanity has no place (at least in my mind) in a civilized debate. Do some issues rile people up to the point of screaming at their computer? I am sure some do. But that is what seperates civil debate from a scream fest.

Every poster is expected to back his or her opinions with facts, links, and other evidence. We even frown on posts that simply say "I agree" without adding anything constructive. Why? So that the debate is constructive and that posts are thought out, instead of spewed out.

Some of the subject matter here is certainly not "G" rated. That does not mean that they cannot be discussed in a mature manner.

Profanity has no place here. We probably do need to be a little more clear as to what constitutes "profanity" though.

By the way, this is all my personal opinion, not necessarily that of the Site Admins.

Well, seeing that Dayton Rocker has disappeared after dropping this nice little bomb shell on Jaimes birthday, I feel obligated to comment further...

The person DR is referring to is me. Him and I were talking about the anti Christian attitude of some of the members and it led to a post of mine that was deleted yesterday without any notice and I commented on how it frustrated me. BUT, I didn't know he was going to us it as a tool to bash AD or the moderators. I NEVER told him he could use that conversation as part of this topic and I'm very sorry that he did. It was a personal conversation that was never intended to be shared with anyone else, it was just a passing comment-observation. I truly apologize and I hope that everyone knows that I have the deepest respect for Jaime and Mike.

I'm not going to comment on the profanity issue because I would merely be repeating myself. I am CERTAIN we've gone over this with you DR.

Cyan, Quark & Amlord - thank you for your thorough explanations (and kmsouthern, too).

I would like to explain the removal of posts. It happens and it has happened without notice. The rules you agree to when you post here clearly state this may happen:

The ONLY instances where we remove posts without explaining it are:
1) Because they are COMPLETELY unconstructive (examples: emoticon only posts, someone only saying "I agree" or "Great post!" and that's all they say). If it is an unconstructive one-liner or similar style post, we leave them and ask the person not to post one-liners.
2) Instances where a mod has asked everyone to get back on topic and another member is simultaneously responding to the off-topic post. That simultaneous, off-topic response will be removed.

Otherwise, we let you know why we've removed it. Please don't think you can't question us when a post is removed. You all have the right to PM anyone on the staff and ask 'what happened?' We will be glad to give you a response.

DR, the impression I got from your complaint is that your are bitter because of this profanity issue and now are requesting perfection from animals you know fail every once in awhile by their nature. When that perfection is not met you will feel justified in your complaint. Acting as if we are unwilling to accept criticism is faulty. We have made many improvements to the way the staff is run thanks to suggestions from members (especially you, Platypus. Thank you.)

Let me make this clear yet again - WE ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS HERE - INCLUDING MIKE AND ME. We all have real jobs and problems that we have to deal with just like you. If you are expecting perfection in moderation you are simply being unrealistic. That doesn't even happen in our own judicial system constitutionally afforded to us (thus, we have appellate courts).

Finally, thank you to those of you who were kind enough to find some nice things to say about the forum both in this thread and in all the PMs I got in response to this. It's comments like those that make it all worth it. Thanks again.

As a member of the staff who has taken part in probably all of the Lifestyle threads you speak of, I would liken the discussions to first time sexual education classes for students. While there may be issues which elicit a snicker or revulsion, the topic may still be discussed in an educational and mature manner.

In talking about homosexual relationships, incest and bestiality/animal porn we took great strides to avoid sophomoric levels of discussion. There was a considerable amount of information disseminated in each of the debates regardless of whether each individual poster found them helpful, thought provoking or disgusting. While not every person can agree on a particular topic, they may still discuss them in a mature manner.


I don't know of any "other needs" being served in editing or removing posts which are either offensive or non-constructive. Those who have a post or topic edited or removed have access to the staff member(s) in question, assuming they weren't given an explanation to begin with.

I don't know how or why you used the words in question, but while you may not consider those words in themselves to be profane, particular usage of them can be. Whether the moderation half of the staff allows such language in different contexts, I don't see any reason to use them to begin with. While we aren't a formal debate site, I don't know that we need to be that informal when discussing topics. But that's just my opinion.

I have no complaints about this forum. I have received no warnings, never had a word or post disapear, and have been made to feel very welcome indeed.

I think this is probably the finest political debate forum I have ever encountered.

I agree with the filters set up by the AD staff. Google bot does search posts and if a cuss word appears on the post in google.com you can pretty much expect americasdebate.coim rating to go down

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm as scatological as the next man (well, as long as the next man is another somewhat foul-mouthed Brit anyway), and I've never had any problems with the way this board is moderated.

So well done moderators

It certainly makes a nice change from the board where moif & I used to do most of our debating, which - through a complete absence of moderation - has degenerated to an ongoing tag-team match of insults, trolling and flame wars, where everyone involved insists that they are the maligned party.

Frankly, I'd trade the losing the ability to say a few mildly rude words on here for actually being able to string two or three consecutive posts that actually address a particular debate topic any day of the week.

And if you disagree, mmf! Flbbbrbbr! to you too.

I think Jaime and Mike both know how much I love this place and consider it to be the best debate forum I have ever frequented.

That said, I have a couple of comments. There seems to be a backlash at DR for voicing this complaint. DR's post was extremely well put together, civil and questioning.

It may have bothered some of the staff - perhaps some feel they are being picked on. But DR may feel that way too.

If I placed myself in DR's position and had admin send a message telling me it was OK to use the "a" word, then have the word removed and an edit for profanity placed in the post, then receive a strike, then see other people using that same word with no restrictions - or see others including committee members use words like "crack whore", I too would be very confused and would think I was being targeted.

I would question if my post were being truly edited or deleted for a word or because of my views. I just ask that you place yourself in his shoes and consider the issue from his perspective.

BJ,

No one here would have known you were the person complaining to DR. He certainly didn't snitch on you. The least you could have done was stand up for him since he put himself in front of a firing squad.

Hey, I never told him to write it or encouraged him too. It was a PERSONAL CONVERSATION that I thought was going to stay that way. I owned up to it out of respect for Jaime and AD because I wanted a clear conscience. I don't owe DR anything, especially when I wasn't asked beforehand.

By the way, if you read my first posting after this all started, I did agree with him, to an extent.

You're right BJ. I should have said, "the least you could have done is remain silent."

That's true, but my pride got in the way, because I knew he was referring to me and well, I had to go and stick my nose right in the middle of it. Sorry, but even though know one else knew who he was referring to, I DID.

Regardless, I'm an honest person and I own up to things.

Thanks Bella. I neither stated or intimated that the moderation sucks. That's what almost everybody saw, but that's not what's there.

What I DID say, is I think it sucks at times. And I was very clear to state:



I made every effort to ensure I was being specific about my complaint. I'm not "bitter" (as someone suggested) about a strike. I just see a trend where some moderators are quick to edit posts not their own. And that's what I brought up and the crux of the problem as I perceive it. unfortunately, I used an example that someone has a LOT of grief with.

But more unfortunately, I didn't stop to think it was Jaime's birthday. What really, really sucks is my timing. I didn't have to broach what I consider a valid and controversial subject today. For that, I profoundly apologize to Jaime and everyone affected.

I know people are volunteers in helping to make sure AD stays as good as it has been, but I just don't think it's right to modify posts without extreme circumstances and to me, this appears to be a trend gaining momentum.

As far as "profanity", people have done their usual piling on (which is ok, I can deal with that) of self-righteousness by saying "well, if you have to use profanity..." and all that cr...err...stuff when I made the point that I reported this "profanity" elsewhere and nothing was done. The point is, there is adult langauge - which doesn't necessarily include foul language - and bible school language. Which apparently is the standard I've been held to while even given a strike. The terms I used in the middle of a debate are used in primetime TV and radio. There is nothing "foul" or "profane" about them.

But nothing I say or do will change people's attitudes that I'm "bitter" or attacking the moderation team because people have made up their minds already. I had a complaint (which i thought this forum was available for use) about an issue that has affected me that I believe is valid. And as usual, the attacks are as venomous as ever (you really gotta see my PMs... ).

Anyhow, Jaime...once I again, I truly am sorry for this timing. I was wrong and if I could take it back, I would.

I have to admit that makes me a bit uneasy. I can't say why, but it does. I do think we have a great moderating crew, and even if a "rogue" were to appear I'm sure Mike and Jaime could handle it, but knowing that such power has been placed in moderators' hands without knowing more about what checks and balances exist to curb abuse of that power makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's unreasonable of me to expect that degree of transparency, but I can only say what I feel.



Perhaps not. Perhaps it's not even necessary either. It's just part of that expectation I have based on other situations where there have been moderators.



I know a little about these efforts, and I think it's great that they're being made.



A laudable approach. I have to admit I've been bothered when I've seen a moderator participating in a discussion, heatedly expressing one POV, and then put on their moderator hat to condemn their opponent. I've had one do it to me, but the most frequent offender happens to be someone with whom I generally agree. To be fair, it also disgusts me when people pull the "I expected better from a moderator" trick to hold their opponent who just happens to be a moderator to a higher standard.



No offense intended, but when do we stop saying that? And to what extent does it justify or explain how we run things? Words like "professional" or "civil" apply to new or old, large or small.

Again, I don't want any of what I say here to be interpreted in a negative way. If I really thought ill of the site or the people - including all of the volunteer staff - who keep it going, I just wouldn't be here. I think we're doing great, but it's part of my character that no matter how great something is I seek ways to improve it.

Let me be clear. This board is nothing like that. Everybody here, including our administration and moderating team (even my debating nemisis, Wertz) is a good person. We're not here for a free for all. We need the great moderation like we have. I just happen to think we're toeing the line of abuse and I happen to be the idiot that felt a need to bring it up.

Keep in mind that Committee members cannot physically moderate posts. That is, they cannot edit or remove posts, or issue strikes.

The Moderation team consists of : Quarkhead, Cyan, Dontreadonme and the incognito DigitalPatriot.

The Committee is a sounding board for ideas, moderation, and how to deal with "sticky" situations. The Committee is currently myself, Abs like Jesus, Mrs. Pigpen, Wertz, UltimateJoe, and the oft-absent Kisov.

Of course, Jaime and Mike are the Admins and have full rights to not only moderate, but decide who is on the moderating team.

We have discussed the subject of moderating a subject that you are an active (and avid) participant in. We try to stay away from that (and the conflict of interest that is involved) whenever possible. Blatant violations of the rules are best dealt with quickly, however.

Another issue some might take issue with is the idea of "questioning the moderation". We frown on questioning the moderation of a thread publicly since it detracts from the debate. It takes the thread further off-subject (which is often the reason for questioning the mods).

A thread like this is a good way to get input from general members, of course. But, as has been said, the staff is all volunteer. We are no better or worse than any other member. Our views do not represent the views of the board, or its ownership. They are our own.

[PERSONAL SELF-INDULGENT COMMENT REMOVED...]

Sorry, couldn't resist...

EDIT to add : check This Link for a description of Staff duties and expectations.

Well, I did a search over the internet on political debate. AD came up somewhere around number 3 or 4. So, I added Billy Jeff to it (the initials). It came up with an AD post with someone's name (oops..never thought about that. We'll have to ban all people with that name) who's initials are the same as Billy Jeff's. Anyhow, I did a search with the full name of the Billy Jeff and it linked to an AD post - by a Committe Member - on August 21st, 2003.

This is the same person who jumped on the DR bandwagon today with:


Go figger.

Is this some crack at my wonderful nick name DR? ...... ......hEY! that means I would be banned!

Don't use the word "crack". That could be construed as something inappropriate...lol

But no. When getting my strike, I was told by a staff member that "inappropriate sexual remark" (the Billy Jeff/Jean initials) would be seen by schoolkids and henceforth banned. However, the whole term was used by a committee member a couple months ago and nobody was too concerned. This is another double-standard I've been held to.

In any event, the term could hardly be deemed an inappropriate sexual remark this day and age, but it could also be someone's name - which it is - and how I found it.

So, again my point is that 3-4 members of the staff modified my posts and gave me a strike for this in the middle of a debate all within 5 minutes. So, in my opinion, this wasn't about the term(s) I used. It was using the power of administration to punish me for something they didn't like.

So, I'm bringing it up to keep this from getting out of hand. I don't care about the strike. That will go away. I'm bringing it up because I believe the power of adminstration is being used as a debating tactic. And regardless of who's working for what, that's flat out wrong.

It's not my board, but I strongly oppose posts being modified for any reason except in extreme circumstances. If someone masks REAL profanity (the s and f bombs), warn them or give them a strike. Add a post that states so and so was warned for that infraction so everybody knows. But once you go into our posts and do what you want, it gets easier to justify doing it again and again. When you replace the "a" word or "Billy Jeff" word with big blue letters making it looked something lewd was said, it detracts from the debate, unnecessarily affects someone's credibility, and is plain and simple censorship. If someone calls me an idiot, don't replace "idiot" with the big blue letters stating PERSONAL ATTACK DELETED". Give a warning or strike and a note indicating personal attacks will not be tolerated. But modifying our posts ends up making the cure worse than the illness (in most cases). I've been called much worse names by even members of the staff, but I don't want that removed. I've got over 500 posts here, so it's not like I dropped in one day and said a couple things to make people mad and leave. After that many posts, someone should have a clue about my level of understanding of subject matter (regardless of how much you disagree) and my debating style. If you want me to back off, tell me to back off.

But don't send me a PM saying the language I use is ok, then give me a strike for it. And that's precisely what happened.

Again, this doesn't happen all the time and as a rule, the administration is very good on this board. But I am not the only one that is seeing this. I'm just the only one foolish enough to bring it up and make an issue out of it.

I understand where you're coming from and it's hard for me not to want to start swearing like a sailor at some peoples opinions on subjects. But in all honesty, it's helping me to develop a better way of expressing myself by not having the arsenal of profanity at my disposal. Maybe I'm too sensitive sometimes, but words do hurt and sometimes people go too far with their harsh retorts (me being one of them when I first started debating here... "Hitler" ). I'm sure it's very difficult to moderate and debate at the same time and I've actually noticed the moderators take a step back and not debate as much for the sake of fairness.

PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCES REMOVED. POSTED WITHOUT PERMISSION.

No offense, but this was more than "a little story".

3 to 4 members of the AD staff collectively kicked my a$...errr...butt within 5 minutes of using a term that could only be deemed inappropriate in bible school.

And yes, you changed the ruled from PG-13 to G rated that day - after giving me a strike. This, in part, was posted:



In other words, you deemed the "a" and "Billy Jeff" word vulgarities to give me a strike. Of course, those terms are ok elsewhere.

CLOSED. DO NOT POST PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM ALL PARTIES.

I apologize. My error. They were not PMs. Carry on with your complaint.

Here is the portion I removed.

Dayton Rocker-

We've given you the opportunity to complain all you want.

Here is the best solution I have to offer you at this point: http://www.google.com/search?q=political+debate

Click it, and find somewhere else to participate if you don't like it here.

We will give you a full refund.

Otherwise, please direct your comments to me via PM.

This topic is officially closed.

Mike