in my opinion, 'gender fluidity' is valid - my company is 51% in my wife's name so we can get certain government grants. I run the vast majority of it but it's officially a women-owned business
I was discussing the American champion who doesn't identify as female yet always competes in the female category.
You refer to yourself as “the truth” just as there is “the adult in the room” when both of you are typically the antithesis of what your usernames say.
I would love to sit here and defend the LGBTQ community but the moderators will just ban me for three weeks if I say anything. So we can’t really discuss this topic.
Are you saying you're not allowed to defend yourself?
Moderation of any forum is difficult. You can never have absolute free speech. Aside from any other issues, the site would be most likely sued within the first few months. I'm not exaggerating to prove a point. If anyone could write anything about anyone else relatively anonymously (I don't believe anything is ever truly anonymous unless you get into the ridiculous with regard to devices) and it was left up, then there would be serious issues.
Having said that, I do think that there is a problem and it is a big one.
It's difficult if not near impossible for any moderator to remove their own personal bias. Even if you think you are actively trying to do that, believe me, you aren't! It's just human nature. In fact some people can try to do it and go too far the other way, although I don't think this is the case here. I can accept that in a way - to some degree - as I think it's near impossible to override but if someone is trying to actively shape the discussion then that is wrong and it will be very transparent.
What I find difficult too is that funny or lighthearted threads often seem to be removed.
A lot of the more elaborate trolls write threads disguised as being reasonable but it is actually some weird kind of baiting. So then if you write a thread about an everyday occurrence the moderators may look at it closely and they don't take it at face value because of the other threads and they delete it. Or, maybe I am being too generous there.
I have no idea who it is and it may be a group of people or one person or two or who knows, but there does appear to be some level of moderation which appears to be done not with good intentions.
I think there needs to be clearer posting guidelines. If posts keep being deleted there comes a point where people stop trying to post.
Since I wrote this post things have changed significantly for me here.
I'd advise other people to be more measured in what they say.
The latest thread to be deleted was someone asking if we really enjoy arguing with anonymous strangers here. Five minutes after I posted a thoughtful response on the merits of such discussions, the thread was gone. So deflating!
Bro Jos: there is a serious problem here. I know there are people who just like to troll, but there are a lot of us who put a lot of time into reading threads and coming up with sincere and thoughtful posts, only to see those threads are gone moments later. I have visited this site several times per day for over 15 years, but I’m getting close to a point where I’m feeling it’s no longer worth my time and energy. Please do something.
Thank you for this sincere and insightful post. I think you’re right on, and your experience is very similar to mine. Sadly, for me, I’ve got past the point of wanting to spend a lot of time with serious posting here. As you alluded, it just isn’t worth the effort. Too many fun threads, interesting threads, or controversial threads simply disappear without a trace.
I once had a moderator sit on this thread, waiting for me to post, and deleted about 6 of my posts in a row, one after the other as I wrote them. That was so incredibly brazen and rude that I decided, pretty much then and there, but I was done with serious posting on this forum. The moderators wanted to drive me away, they succeeded.
rekrunner wrote: Everytime you post, there is this phrase just above the "Post Reply" button: "By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions." One of the terms you acknowledge that you have read and abide by with each and every click of "Post Reply" is: "LetsRun.com may remove content at its sole discretion for any reason whatsoever," and again: "You understand that LetsRun.com does not pre-screen content but it may remove content at its sole discretion for any reason whatsoever."
rekrunner wrote:This is not really my point, and, sorry, it is not really directed at you. If you think the site has become less fun as a result of moderation, fair enough. I see a lot of hostility towards the moderators from a collection of many posters here, and wonder if all of these critics acknowledge, read, abide, and understand what they agree to with each and every post.
mikeh33: Great post. But unfortunately it also appears to be done in other ways too. And yes, at that point it's easier to say: you win.
rekrunner: People are aware of the TOS. Presumably the reason it is worded in that way is to prevent litigation. There is nothing wrong with having a rule that states that any content may be removed for any reason whatsoever - in fact it's probably extremely prudent to have such a rule in place. I believe that is really common and that it protects the site and other websites in a similar fashion. However, reading, abiding and understanding that rule does not mean that people should not be able to speak out when they feel the existence of that rule is being abused or wielded like some kind of tool. And it also does not mean that if they do choose to speak out, like mikeh33 did, that there should be some kind of attempt to drive them away from the website. That speaks more of personal vendetta than anything else and is pretty much the opposite of what moderation is supposed to be (impartial).
Moderation of any forum is difficult. You can never have absolute free speech. Aside from any other issues, the site would be most likely sued within the first few months. I'm not exaggerating to prove a point. If anyone could write anything about anyone else relatively anonymously (I don't believe anything is ever truly anonymous unless you get into the ridiculous with regard to devices) and it was left up, then there would be serious issues.
Having said that, I do think that there is a problem and it is a big one.
It's difficult if not near impossible for any moderator to remove their own personal bias. Even if you think you are actively trying to do that, believe me, you aren't! It's just human nature. In fact some people can try to do it and go too far the other way, although I don't think this is the case here. I can accept that in a way - to some degree - as I think it's near impossible to override but if someone is trying to actively shape the discussion then that is wrong and it will be very transparent.
What I find difficult too is that funny or lighthearted threads often seem to be removed.
A lot of the more elaborate trolls write threads disguised as being reasonable but it is actually some weird kind of baiting. So then if you write a thread about an everyday occurrence the moderators may look at it closely and they don't take it at face value because of the other threads and they delete it. Or, maybe I am being too generous there.
I have no idea who it is and it may be a group of people or one person or two or who knows, but there does appear to be some level of moderation which appears to be done not with good intentions.
I think there needs to be clearer posting guidelines. If posts keep being deleted there comes a point where people stop trying to post.
Since I wrote this post things have changed significantly for me here.
I'd advise other people to be more measured in what they say.
Good luck with resolving the moderation issue.
Hello track chick. I do not understand your post, can you be more specific? Have the moderators deleted some of your posts?
mikeh33: Great post. But unfortunately it also appears to be done in other ways too. And yes, at that point it's easier to say: you win.
rekrunner: People are aware of the TOS. Presumably the reason it is worded in that way is to prevent litigation. There is nothing wrong with having a rule that states that any content may be removed for any reason whatsoever - in fact it's probably extremely prudent to have such a rule in place. I believe that is really common and that it protects the site and other websites in a similar fashion. However, reading, abiding and understanding that rule does not mean that people should not be able to speak out when they feel the existence of that rule is being abused or wielded like some kind of tool. And it also does not mean that if they do choose to speak out, like mikeh33 did, that there should be some kind of attempt to drive them away from the website. That speaks more of personal vendetta than anything else and is pretty much the opposite of what moderation is supposed to be (impartial).
Sure -- anyone can post their experiences on this forum, as long as it conforms to the TOS, understanding that it is subject to deletion for any reason whatsoever.
I don't fault the moderators nearly as much as I do the few bad apples (again, not "mikeh33" and not you, for clarity) who created the need for more aggressive moderation in the first place, because they lacked both civility and self-control. "Board Reader" pleaded with the "Bro Jos" to "Please do something". They did -- they ramped up moderation to turn this board into something closer to what they want -- a civil place to discuss running, and, as rojo puts it, to discuss the topics you might talk about when running.
I think the expectations of the readers needs more reflection. If the site owners have a personal vendetta against one poster or a few posters, and abuses and wields the tool of absolute moderation, that is one of the prerogatives of being the site owners. (Although I don't understand how a site that permits anonymous posts could truly prevent any poster from posting.)
You keep speaking of litigation. I'm not aware of any law that requires a site owner to announce its moderation policy, or to conform to any policy decided by its anonymous readers rather than the site owners themselves.
mikeh33: Great post. But unfortunately it also appears to be done in other ways too. And yes, at that point it's easier to say: you win.
rekrunner: People are aware of the TOS. Presumably the reason it is worded in that way is to prevent litigation. There is nothing wrong with having a rule that states that any content may be removed for any reason whatsoever - in fact it's probably extremely prudent to have such a rule in place. I believe that is really common and that it protects the site and other websites in a similar fashion. However, reading, abiding and understanding that rule does not mean that people should not be able to speak out when they feel the existence of that rule is being abused or wielded like some kind of tool. And it also does not mean that if they do choose to speak out, like mikeh33 did, that there should be some kind of attempt to drive them away from the website. That speaks more of personal vendetta than anything else and is pretty much the opposite of what moderation is supposed to be (impartial).
Sure -- anyone can post their experiences on this forum, as long as it conforms to the TOS, understanding that it is subject to deletion for any reason whatsoever.
I don't fault the moderators nearly as much as I do the few bad apples (again, not "mikeh33" and not you, for clarity) who created the need for more aggressive moderation in the first place, because they lacked both civility and self-control. "Board Reader" pleaded with the "Bro Jos" to "Please do something". They did -- they ramped up moderation to turn this board into something closer to what they want -- a civil place to discuss running, and, as rojo puts it, to discuss the topics you might talk about when running.
I think the expectations of the readers needs more reflection. If the site owners have a personal vendetta against one poster or a few posters, and abuses and wields the tool of absolute moderation, that is one of the prerogatives of being the site owners. (Although I don't understand how a site that permits anonymous posts could truly prevent any poster from posting.)
You keep speaking of litigation. I'm not aware of any law that requires a site owner to announce its moderation policy, or to conform to any policy decided by its anonymous readers rather than the site owners themselves.
So…letsrun doesn’t need new moderator policies, it needs new readers who appreciate and support heavy handed moderation?
I don’t know if that is realistic. I doubt it. I mean, clearly, the board can get along fine without me. But I think in the larger running community the die is cast. LRC is what it is in the minds of the small handful of people who will seek out a running website. I doubt that heavy handed, inconsistent, and inscrutable moderation will draw a “new” audience. Those people, to the extent they even exist, are probably surfing elsewhere. And I doubt that will change.
So…letsrun doesn’t need new moderator policies, it needs new readers who appreciate and support heavy handed moderation?
I don’t know if that is realistic. I doubt it. I mean, clearly, the board can get along fine without me. But I think in the larger running community the die is cast. LRC is what it is in the minds of the small handful of people who will seek out a running website. I doubt that heavy handed, inconsistent, and inscrutable moderation will draw a “new” audience. Those people, to the extent they even exist, are probably surfing elsewhere. And I doubt that will change.
I think I was saying it needs some old readers to behave better, and that moderation is a tool defined and implemented by and for the site owners.
You say surfing elsewhere, but if you want to go to a running site and post in a public forum, where else would that be?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.