This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Brooklynian Apologizes for Bone-Headed Editing of Posts — Brooklynian

Brooklynian Apologizes for Bone-Headed Editing of Posts

dailyheights
dailyheights
edited November -1 in Brooklyn Politics
Hi everybody,

Yesterday, one of the moderators edited a member's posts in a very dumb and mischievous way. I have already personally apologized for it on behalf of the moderator who edited the posts. I want to reiterate the apology, and let you know the steps we are taking to address this.

First, the issue: in the original posts, Barack Obama was referred to as "Barry", but multiple posts were edited to replace "Barry" with "President Obama You can find the thread here: http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59307

That's really dumb to do ... and the moderator in question must have had a lot of time on their hands. I've already strongly reprimanded the mod, and made it very clear that it was a mistake on our part. Here's what else we are doing:

1. We're starting an "audit trail" so any moderator actions are noted and can be reviewed to make sure the mod did the right thing.
2. If a moderator is involved in a disagreement, s/he is not allowed to moderate the conversation.
3. We'll also start a "reporting" system where an issue has to be reported before it can be acted on. Not sure how this will play out but most likely, we will make it so the person doing the reporting can't also be the person resolving the issue.
4. Now that we've established these policies, we will not tolerate shenanigans of this type in the future, whether it's a moderator or not.

This doesn't mean that moderators are going to get banned for making a bum call, and likewise, none of this means that Brooklynian is now the Wild West and you can go about insulting other users, posting hateful speech, etc.

So again, I'm sorry that one of the Mods' idea of a "disrespect-fixing" word replacement affected one of our member's posts and went unnoticed (for a while...) by the rest of the management.

Site policy is to remove posts that break the rules, or leave them alone. The rules of this website state, 'don't stoop to personal attacks, name calling... or other childish behavior.' Now, one can argue that repeatedly referring to the President of the United States as 'Barry' is "childish behavior," but honestly, it's a bit under my radar... and in any case, the corrective action taken by the Mod was absolutely questionable on at least two counts noted above.

Bottom line, the moderator who went rogue has been lashed to his chair for the rest of the day. Okay, not really, but as noted, we're dealing with it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, and sorry it happened.

-DH

Comments

  • piano
    piano
    Those all sound like good improvements. Thank you. It's just a shame that you have to do it in the first place, but it's clearly needed.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    You can't be serious. First of all, why the removal of Sweet teas poll she did for me? What are you so afraid of?

    Second, this was not just a one day incident as I noted. I went as far back as February and my posts were altered. Guess Carnivore has more time on his hands than you thought.

    2 of my altered posts from February: "No comparison. Sarah doesn't need a teleprompter like President Obama. A few notes on her hand as reminders compared to using a teleprompter word for word ( even then he screws up) is laughable. ."

    "So your answer is to blame Bush. Shocking. President Obamas been around too long to keep blaming Bush."

    You left out the changing of gore to Vice President Al Gore ( as if anyone would type out all of that) then clinton to President Bill Clinton etc. Is that childish behaviour, not fully writing out Vice President and or President?

    "disrespect-fixing" Don't insult our intelligence. Is it the Mods jobs to correct posts that they deem disrespectful? But I see not in the other direction, you know like Bush wasn't changed to President George Bush or Sarah wasn't changed to Gov. Sarah Palin.

    Nice how you refer to altering one's posts as "dumb and mischievous". The moderator who "went rogue" needs to grow the hell up. Oops, I hope that wasn't too childish.
  • dailyheights
    dailyheights
    Hey eggcream, I'm seeing a lot of noise above about the past that I don't have any interest or energy to rehash. All I can say is, I'm sorry you're so angry about it, and I hope you'll let it go. I'm bending over backward to fix this problem or you, and we're moving forward. Thanks!
  • cool the kid
    cool the kid
    Lol
  • aquamann
    aquamann
    yowza!
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Eggcream is to be known as EGGY from now on. h8 u, eggy.
  • piano
    piano
    I think childish can be OK. A lot of people put childish posts up that aren't really offensive. Look above this post. One could argue that the comments LOL and Yowza are “childish” (not that I’m saying they are), but they are hardly offensive or insulting and I have no issues them. At the same time, the other post that says h8 U Eggy is both childish and a personal attack and shouldn’t be allowed.

    The most important rule is no personal attacks, but that seems to be the least enforced. I.e. I disagreed with someone about preference in bagel and when they realized insulting my bagel wasn't bothering me, they started insulting me - basically saying I wasn't worthy to even have an opinion. That sounds personal to me. That's when a moderator should have come in and said please keep your attacks directed at the bagel, and should have rejected the post.

    And Egg, it didn't sound to me like DH was condoning the concept of "disrespect editing" at least I hope not. Sounds like he's not condoning editing by mods of any kind, and that's good.

    I think my only issue at the moment is that I think this moderator should be stripped of his moderating privileges without hesitation. If you're shorthanded I'm sure there are plenty of far more trustworthy people who would volunteer to replace him. He’s done nothing but prove that he can’t be trusted, and that kind of behavior is kind of mental - far beyond merely childish or heated. And editing others’ posts isn’t the only smarmy thing he’s done.

    This same mod sent me a PM threatening to give me a time out - or essentially ban me from this site - because I had been reposting a post that he had been deleting without just cause or even explanation. When I tried to circumvent his abuse of position, he threatened to abuse it even more. So I'm curious as to why this site can't do without him as a mod. He's been a detriment to the site. I wouldn't kick him off, just don't let him moderate - ever. Look at the headache he’s caused you already DH, do you really need that?
  • krowonhill
    krowonhill
    Thank-you for this, dailyheights. I really appreciate you addressing these issues publicly.

    I agree with piano that the personal insults that fly back and forth on this site are the most difficult aspect of participating on it, outside of specific abuses by the mods. The comment above referring to eggcream as "eggy" embodies a personal attack. It's ironic and sad that it appears on a thread in which dailyheights is apologizing to eggcream because of bad behavior by others on this site.

    Given that eggcream's views are usually in the minority, he has endured a lot of these kinds of personal attack. I can speak from experience when I say that it is very demoralizing and begs a similar response. It takes a fair amount of resolve not to stoop to that level. This is how flame wars start.

    In my opinion, it is far better for the mods to adhere to The Rules and call out posters on personal attacks from the get go.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    dailyheights wrote: Hey eggcream, I'm seeing a lot of noise above about the past that I don't have any interest or energy to rehash. All I can say is, I'm sorry you're so angry about it, and I hope you'll let it go. I'm bending over backward to fix this problem or you, and we're moving forward. Thanks!
    No noise, just facts. Sorry you fail to see the difference. You're bending over backwards to make excuses for Carnivore.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    "At the same time, the other post that says h8 U Eggy is both childish and a personal attack and shouldn’t be allowed. "

    That's ok Piano and krowonhill, there are mental midgets all over and a double standard here on Brooklynian as you've been a witness to.
  • dailyheights
    dailyheights
    Well... Call me crazy, but I think you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to be offended by "eggy" when your username is eggcream. If there's some hidden meaning of "eggy" that makes it a personal attack, then I guess I'm just not hip to The Kids and their hip lingo.

    Also, not to disappoint, but the mods do reserve the right to delete posts that don't meet community standards, edit hate speech out, etc. This is very standard on the Internet.

    Finally, I thought it was clear from my previous post, but I'll put a finer point on it - the mod responsible is not off scot free but I definitely consider them to be on "probation" as it were. It would go a long way toward forgiveness if that mod would just admit a momentary lapse in judgment and pledge to move forward in the spirit of the new rules.
  • piano
    piano
    dailyheights wrote: Well... Call me crazy, but I think you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to be offended by "eggy" when your username is eggcream. If there's some hidden meaning of "eggy" that makes it a personal attack.
    It's a bit disappointing that I actually have to explain this, but it's not the eggy that's personal. It's "H8 U." Maybe the 8 was a bit confusing, but he's saying "Hate you" to eggcream.

    Are you saying it is acceptable on this site to say "I hate you" to someone? Frankly, I wouldn't care if insults and personal attacks were allowed. That would be better than the current situation which allows some people to attack others, but not everyone.
  • booklaw
    booklaw
    I don't find "I hate you" to be an insult or a personal attack. It's not like calling someone an ass or a cheapskate. It's acknowledging personal distaste.

    A month or so ago, Krowonhill wrote of me, "booklaw, I shudder to think that you are a participant in America's representative democracy." I took that to mean she had no respect or affection for me, i.e. that she was expressing her contempt and dislike (or hatred, as the case may be).

    She is entitled to her opinion, so long as it does not involve name-calling or a personal attack, and so is Mr. Met.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    booklaw wrote: I don't find "I hate you" to be an insult or a personal attack. It's not like calling someone an ass or a cheapskate. It's acknowledging personal distaste.

    A month or so ago, Krowonhill wrote of me, "booklaw, I shudder to think that you are a participant in America's representative democracy." I took that to mean she had no respect or affection for me, i.e. that she was expressing her contempt and dislike (or hatred, as the case may be).

    She is entitled to her opinion, so long as it does not involve name-calling or a personal attack, and so is Mr. Met.
    So when Carnivore said to me " you're a parody of yourself" and I replied " thank you for your intelligent response" which one would be considered an insult? My response was deleted.
  • pmonk
    pmonk
    This is a blog people - not a marriage or something.
  • piano
    piano
    booklaw wrote: I don't find "I hate you" to be an insult or a personal attack. It's not like calling someone an ass or a cheapskate. It's acknowledging personal distaste.
    No. This is absolutely 100% wrong. Telling a stranger you hate them is hate, it's not informed. So you're saying then someone can put up a post that says they hate blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, short people, etc. because this is a personal distaste? That's pure rubbish.

    This kind of BS is the problem with this site. You might as well just let everyone say what they want, or you'll always have someone playing semantics and finding a loop hole to say shit to people and get away with it. Really, this is never going to work. If someone can say I hate you, then I can say fuck you to whomever I want.
  • dailyheights
    dailyheights
    UGH. GUYS... this is getting incredibly tedious and nit-picky. For the record:

    OK, Carnivore appears to have modded his own discussions more than once. We get it.

    OK, it's regrettable that mr. met just said "I hate you" in a cutesy way.

    OK, "I hate you" is not a personal (ad hominem) attack.

    OK, regardless, it's not nice to say "I hate you."

    I'm not averse to keeping this thread open (ie, not locked to further comments)', but we have already heard the complaints - let's keep further comments in this thread to constructive discussion of what else we can to make the site better. Thanks!
  • pmonk
    pmonk
    Sweet melt piano!
  • vidro3
    vidro3
    lock this damn thread.
  • dailyheights
    dailyheights
    Actually... good idea, vidro3. If anybody has anything they want to add to the thread that will help, PM me first.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories