Official thread to discuss moderation policies

Ctrl+Alt+Del wrote:

This is preposterous! My kids shouldn't be able to read this!

Please do something about this, Weldon and Robert!

Thank you.

Maybe you should think about keeping your kids off a site that can't stop anonymous trolls posting such obscene comments, because it refuses to require registration?

This is absolutely disgusting bullying in a thread supposedly about how to stop bullying here.

I've had an obsessive troll make physical threats against myself for over a year here. The same troll regularly posts obscene comments, that are so obscene I evidently can't even allude to their nature (not that I enjoy having to do so at all).

Yet now I'm getting steam rollered by the mob demanding that I be banned simply for objecting to this, and objecting to the likes of Casual Observer siding with this troll simply because we disagree on Kenyan doping???

This place is truly a cesspit.

If this place really is representative of the elite running community, then it probably is true that 99% of elite runners are utter cheats and doped to the gills. :(

Ctrl+Alt+Del wrote:

This is preposterous! My kids shouldn't be able to read this!

Please do something about this, Weldon and Robert!

Thank you.

Lol, your sons have read much worse than this on the internet

This post made by the troll nearly a week ago is still up. Can the mods explain why, and also can they clarify as to whether they feel I should stop complaining about them in order to pacify the individuals such as 'Phantasy Star' and 'Racket' who are screaming I should be banned (but not apparently the troll itself) for simply alluding to the nature of these sick posts?

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=9412941&id=9491826#9491826

Wejo, please explain why we aren't allowed to even mention the name of M!ke R0ssi on this board.

Don't forget, this is the guy who tried to steal your $10.000 and who has punched his own wife in the face on the street.

What threads will Runner’s World reference when their article comes out?

wtfunny wrote:

Wejo, can you please outline one thing that after reading this thread, you think you guys might need to consider doing differently?

Sure.

1) Be sure we are looking at the reported posts more often. Time is important. A lot of posts we don't want on her are deleted but not quickly enough.

2) Have a dialogue with our visitors about what we are doing with moderation.

3) Be more likely to be ban people even if at least temporarily when they are creating problems.

4) Review the posts are moderators are deleting to make sure they are not abusing their power.

5) Consider coming up with ways to show people the type of posts we delete or ban to be more transparent.

6) Reiterate to people the goal is for them to not read anything they find offensive.

I don't doubt for a second people will find stuff offensive.

Some of the examples in this thread itself shows how moderation isn't easy. There was a link to a thread about an an Australian Diplomat calling for emergency visas for white farmers. It linked to an article in the NY Times.

Some said it was racist or race baiting. I can understand where they are coming from. Others were fine with it.

Then there was another thread that linked to an article on the Jeffrey Epstein case and how it was evidence of a Zionist-Illuminati Sexual Blackmail System. Some said it was antiSemetic. I can understand where they are coming from. What was most interesting to me was some people were fine with one thread but not the other or vice versa.

Take Donald Trump's tweets on twitter that the House condemned as racist today. Twitter said they did not violate their policies. Point is people can see the same issue very differently.

7) The one debate we are having internally is whether to ban people who are uncivil or make personal attacks. I think they should be banned. You can disagree with someone without name calling . Disagree with them on the facts. Even if someone posts something you consider racist/sexist. Argue against it. The worst of the worst will be removed (ie racial slurs, etc), but if someone posts something you find offensive why not argue against it instead of calling them names?

I'm simplifying this a bit.

In terms of out internal debate, I banned someone for a few days who in a post used the phrase "nasty looking butch democrats." Another mod was surprised. I said I want a more civil LetsRun.com. Bringing politics into a non political thread with a speech intended as a slur "butch democrats" isn't civil and isn't necessary. However the slur wasn't directed at another poster.

But then we need to try and write this into our TOS as that type of stuff isn't there beyond us calling on people to "Be civil"

The same mod didn't disagree with me banning the person who wrote, "Shut up fukktard. I peg you as a rider of garbage carbon frame Shimano plasti-bikes. You have no soul, no flavor. You also went full retard man. Have you not learned by now you never go full retard? Yeah, the tour is still BORING AS PHUKK. "

Way more uncivil and directed at another poster.

wejo wrote:

wtfunny wrote:

Wejo, can you please outline one thing that after reading this thread, you think you guys might need to consider doing differently?

Sure.

1) Be sure we are looking at the reported posts more often. Time is important. A lot of posts we don't want on her are deleted but not quickly enough.

2) Have a dialogue with our visitors about what we are doing with moderation.

3) Be more likely to be ban people even if at least temporarily when they are creating problems.

4) Review the posts are moderators are deleting to make sure they are not abusing their power.

5) Consider coming up with ways to show people the type of posts we delete or ban to be more transparent.

6) Reiterate to people the goal is for them to not read anything they find offensive.

I would suggest 7) mods post under their registered handle, not anonymously, unless they arent going to moderate that particular thread.

Oops. You had a 7, it was just farther down. Consider mine suggestion 8. I like your 7, I agree with a short ban for name calling.

Wejo, good ideas. Thanks for sharing and following up on this.

Regarding new policies, simply posting - and enforcing - them should help quite a bit.

What this forum has been lacking from inception is a way for members to privately communicate with each other. I have been on this forum for years, and have never met and communicated with even one new person from this forum. Had there been a way to communicate privately, I am sure that this forum would be much more interesting.

I have long wondered if this was a decision made on purpose because you do not want people who come here to communicate with each other privately. Is that the reason you never update the forum to a modern type style?

Michael Smores wrote:

Thank you for deleting this thread

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6430965&page=7

What thread's that?

So do you run, like, marathons? wrote:

Ctrl+Alt+Del wrote:

This is preposterous! My kids shouldn't be able to read this!

Please do something about this, Weldon and Robert!

Thank you.

Lol, your sons have read much worse than this on the internet

He obviously doesn't know that right now his sons are on porn sites or sexting their girlfriends.

Weldon tell me, was Calculo banned?

Hi wejo: these^ are great, imho. Thank you.

As for 5: instead of deleting a post, you could simply replace all of its content with a standard remark such as:

Deleted because of personal attack

Deleted because of racism

Deleted because of vulgarity

If you ban people who "make personal attacks", you'll empty the forum quite quickly.

Coevett, I didn't threaten you and I didn't write posts accusing you of any deviant sexual behavior.

Therefore, there is no reason to threaten me with legal action.

Wejo, you don't have any reason to give any user or their lawyer the IP of someone who never made any threats.

OldGeezer wrote:

Wejo, please explain why we aren't allowed to even mention the name of M!ke R0ssi on this board.

Don't forget, this is the guy who tried to steal your $10.000 and who has punched his own wife in the face on the street.

I wonder why we never get a reply to this question.

Has M.ke successfully sued the Brojos?

Phantasy Star wrote:

Coevett, I didn't threaten you and I didn't write posts accusing you of any deviant sexual behavior.

Therefore, there is no reason to threaten me with legal action.

Don't worry about that. The last thing he wants is a legal investigation into his posting habits.

Phantasy Star wrote:

Coevett, I didn't threaten you and I didn't write posts accusing you of any deviant sexual behavior.

Therefore, there is no reason to threaten me with legal action.

Wejo, you don't have any reason to give any user or their lawyer the IP of someone who never made any threats.

I shouldn't worry about this. It just means you have triggered Coevett into one of his higher levels of outrage. Basically Coevett's levels of insults / outrage can be summarized as follows:

Doping Apologist: Anyone who disagrees with Coevett or points out the absurdities of some of his posts.

Autistic: Anyone who presents a reasoned argument that Coevett cannot respond to.

Racist: Anyone who implies that white runners could also be taking PEDs.

Posting under multiple IDs: When other people agree with your comments. Often he will claim he can see your IPs to "prove" he is correct.

Victim of violence: Often this comes out of nowhere, or some mild comment such as "give your head a shake"

Bestiality or other sexual deviations: Again, they come out of nowhere. But Coevett does have an impressive knowledge of them.

I'm reporting you to the FBI (or variations): Congratulations, this is the highest level and you have achieved it.

To be honest I don't know if Coevett is a real person, a highly successful troll, or simply a creation of the BroJos to keep these boards humming. If he is a troll, or a BroJo creation, then he is very, very good. I'm actually leaning towards the BroJo creation explanation. In which case Malmo leaping to his defense on Page 4, "Your plight has not gone unnoticed" was pure genius.

malmo wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Not sure if your idea of 'hateful content' is the same as mine (you mention 'racism' which, while real racism is truly bad, we know the term is often abused by doping apologists to try to close down any discussion of the Kenyan problem), but I do agree that genuinely hateful stuff is left up for too long.

.

I've explicitly used your situation as an example for the Brojos when false charges of racism are being hurled at you in an attempt to shut your opinion down. Your plight has not gone unnoticed.

lol