A moderators work is never done

.

Oh c'mon rz...sing along!




.

Before you get yourself wound up, the initial thread was not off limits although it might have been moved (e.g, to unusual) if it were in the baseball season.

The original thread was about Pete Carroll and it turned into what type of kids attend USC. Maybe you didn't mean it that way (insulting) but that is how it came across imho. Since the thread was causing discord between members and it seemed like it was deteriorating "away" from the original topic, I closed it. Since it was not a baseball topic, I took the further step to remove it.

CD, Wound up? me? There was absolutely no intent to insult any specific individual in that thread and I even admitted to being a Carroll supporter. Maybe now I'm getting a little wound

Seems to me as a not "what you say", but "who is being bothered" deletion. I didn't see this "circle the wagons" moderator support when Bowden and FL ST were being discussed.

Better question: are we still in the United States of America????

.

I missed the whole thread. I'll put my Mitch Miller humor back on the shelf!

Carry on.

And Tx...now your post makes sense. Very clever!



.

.

Yes indeed!



.

One of the most powerful words in the hsbaseballweb vocabulary!

Why couldn't the alledged offending post be deleted and the thread remain?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Better question: are we still in the United States of America????

TR,
If someone comes into your house, do they have the right to say anything the want? No, even though your house is in the USA, your house is private property and you have the right to grant permissions about who can enter, who can't, and you alone have the right to set forth a code of conduct. It can be anything you want, because it's your house, you own it, you make the rules.

The HSBBW is no different. It is private property, owned and paid for by a private entity. They alone get to set the rights and permissions of use.

People want to come to your house, they abide by your rules, people want to come the the HSBBW house, they abide by house rules. There are no constitutional freedoms granted for either.

If speaking your peace is your main objective, you can go purchase a domain name, pay for the hosting, build the website, and say whatever you like, and no one can tell you, you can't. That's the United States of America you're looking for.

TR...just pretend you're Elaine.

CPLZ

You are so wrong---in my house--on the front lawn--in my back yard with the grille going---yes they can say what they want--I may not agree with them nor may other guests-- but I don't throw them out or "virtually " erase them----

THERE IS NO DEBATE IF THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH--what you people are creating here is a site without free speech


My God are you so wrong

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
CPLZ

You are so wrong---in my house--on the front lawn--in my back yard with the grille going---yes they can say what they want--I may not agree with them nor may other guests-- but I don't throw them out or "virtually " erase them----

THERE IS NO DEBATE IF THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH--what you people are creating here is a site without free speech


My God are you so wrong

No, he is correct. Should anyone come into my house, invited or not, and insult my wife, they will be leaving. They have no free speech in my home and I do not have to tolerate boorish behavior.

The constitutional protection of "freedom of speech" protects one from censorship by the government, and as courts have ruled, agencies or agents of the government. The courts have also expanded that to include any entity that is supported by the government, such as schools and public transit organizations.

Web sites are privately owned. The owners may elect to moderate posts and use any criteria they choose.

The so called "Bill of Rights" protects us from our government, not our neighbors. Civics 101. There are other laws that protect us from each other.

On a semi-related note: I have the utmost repsect for the moderators here. I would not want the job. I may disagree with their actions from time to time, but I would never question their motives. I have seen some sites where the moderators get right down in the mud with idiot poster and become part of the problem rather than the solution.

I think the moderators at HSBBW strike a good balance of allowing an appropriate amount of debate and off-topic material before getting involved.

I wasn't aware of the controversy about the original thread while it was occurring. I don't know exactly what was said, or who took sides.

But I can attest to the truth and accuracy of this thread's title:

"A moderator's work is never done."

The title probably was not meant to compliment any moderators here, but I'll use it anyway.

We've discussed this before. The HS Baseball Web forums would not exist as a family-friendly, safe community without the unselfish and endless work of our moderators.

Do I expect members to always agree with moderator decisions? NO. Do all moderators even agree with other moderators' decisions? NO. Some decisions are made that are different from what I might have done. And sometimes moderators won't agree with my decisions either, which is okay.

It can be very time-consuming for moderators to monitor threads that have grown argumentative or are stepping over the lines of the Board Manners (for example by mentioning players in a non-positive way, etc.). Moderators are part-time, unpaid volunteers and do not have time to constantly monitor that type of thread. Sometimes they may choose to close it. If there were derogatory statements made in the thread, they may choose to delete it. (My monthly hosting bill does include a charge for total number of posts stored.)

This isn't the first time we've had the type of discussion above, and it won't be the last. But I'm hoping that now we can all go back to discussing baseball, or the weather, or Burt Blyleven being passed over for the Hall of Fame again.

Julie

By the way, I consider the member who started this thread a friend, and also consider most of the members who have posted on either side of this discussion to be my friends. No intent on my part to take sides or dictate anything. Just a friendly request for understanding.


Julie

.

Hmmm? I wonder? Was it something I said?






.

And the most respected name in the HSSBBWEB vocabulary!



Disclaimer: This is not an actual photo nor am I attempting to describe what MN-Mom looks like ( although she probably is dressed in purple with Viking horns waiting for Sundays game).

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
in my house--on the front lawn--in my back yard with the grille going---yes they can say what they want--I may not agree with them nor may other guests-- but I don't throw them out or "virtually " erase them----

They may say what they want at your home, because you grant them the right, they don't have that right unless you provide it. That doesn't mean that everyone has or should do it your way. Part of the freedoms granted by our Constitution and Bill of Rights is our ability to treat our private property any way we see fit. That's what give you your rights in your house, my rights in mine, and HSBBW's rights on its private website. Another part of being a free society, is that you nor anyone else can tell another how or what they may or have to do with their private property.

The term University of Spoiled Children exists whether it's legitimate or not. Assuming it's legitimate it doesn't apply to every student or alumnus associated with USC. I have relatives where the term applies. I have friends where it doesn't apply.

.

It's April...so what!?

I'll take 'em down when I'm good and ready!







.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
The term University of Spoiled Children exists whether it's legitimate or not. Assuming it's legitimate it doesn't apply to every student or alumnus associated with USC. I have relatives where the term applies. I have friends where it doesn't apply.

I don't believe censorship is ever a dead horse. I also didn't find the post offensive. We're becoming a society of no sense of humor and censorship.

There is a reason the HSBBW has flourished over the past umpteen years (I've been here since about 1998). I think that reason is this website is controlled primarily by "moderators" and not "dictators". Freedom of speech? Yes, I have what I consider freedom of speech on the HSBBW but those reading far outnumber me and they have freedom from inappropriate, damaging and hurtful comments. The way I look at it ---- moderators aren't here to moderate what ONE says, but rather what THOUSANDS read ..... The HSBBW has an agenda that is geared toward the uninformed, the "newbie" and the first time poster. That agenda was established at it's inception and has remained constant throughout the years. Moderating is the ONLY way that agenda can be maintained. Moderating is a healthy necessity. Evidently it works!
Fungo

Jimmy03 and CPLZ have to absolutely correct on freedom of speech and what role it plays with government versus private individuals. Without coming across as a jerk I would like to ask how many of you actually read and researched the first amendment? As a teacher of social studies I come across many kids who have heard "Freedom of Speech" but they have no earthly idea what it means. They look at it from the simplistic viewpoint - ability to say whatever you want. But if that was actually true how do you explain slander being a criminal offense?

Please go to this website and read over it. It happens to be one of the best I've come across that explains what freedom of speech means.

First Amendment - Freedom of Speech

Here is cut and pasted what the first amendment says from that website

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here is the explanation of freedom of speech from that website.

quote:

Let’s examine the freedom-of-speech clause of the First Amendment. Contrary to what many people think, the free-speech guarantee operates only as a barrier to censorship by government officials, not on the right of private entities to refrain from publishing material they don’t like.

For example, consider a newspaper that publishes an article favoring a certain policy in the community. Imagine that opponents to that policy demand that the newspaper carry an article opposing the policy and that the newspaper refuses to do so.

Some people would undoubtedly cry, “Censorship!” and claim that the First Amendment was being violated. They would be wrong on both counts. Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty — the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect.

I'm not trying to come off as some know it all jerk but American rights are not a simple concept. It takes work and effort to maintain what we have and without education the government will take these away from us. The first step towards establishing a dictatorship is making the populace uneducated. Without education the people have to rely on the government for everything.

It seems to me Julie made a very sensible post about respecting the decision of the moderator.
Whether anyone considers it censorship or not, there are rules on these message boards that have worked, that have created and fostered a wonderful sense of participation and collegiality, along with lively discussion, and have led many to join and participate.
Whether we call it moderating or censorship, no one seems to object about removing posts focused on advertising.
If someone posted something pornographic, clearly everyone would likely demand those be moderated or censored.
Moderating is critical, as the above two examples illustrate.
Where it is difficult is when the posts are not at extremes.
This site has long been moderated so that negative or hurtful comments about amateur players were out of bounds. Recently, efforts to include more of a scouting of high school and college players was rejected.
Moderating is a difficult situation that involves balancing of interests, feelings and longer term goals on the site. Moderating is difficult because it evokes an immediate and visceral reaction from some.
Moderating on this site has been successful in effectively balancing what is best for the site, over the longer term. Heck, most of those who object to it continue to frequent and post.
Having posted on this site for many years with rz1, I am very confident and know there was absolutely no intent to offend on his part.
On the other hand, coming with the information fan posted, I can also appreciate why she responded as she did and felt the comment was hurtful.
Now RJM takes it on his own to re-post what had been removed, with the stated view he did not find the comment offensive.
I am not at all sure why, in the name of objecting to the rules on the site, and under the guise of objecting to "censorship," RJM found his views so important he would re-post what others, including fan, found hurtful and which our moderators chose to remove.
Someone needs to balance. The moderators and MN-Mom chose the balance on this issue. If it was not liked, why not PM them rather than re-post what had been deleted?
I really think some prior posts have it right. If the rules on this site are not to someone's liking, buy your own domain name, create your own website and create your own rules.
Otherwise, why not follow the ones that exist and accept that just like in baseball, someone needs to umpire. We cannot all be umpires. We may not like all the calls.
In the course of 9 innings however, umpires don't win or lose games by their calls. What they do is facilitate the game and allow it to be played fairly and within the framework of the rule book..just like the moderators try and do here.

.



.

Woody, I thought the picture of Blyleven was poignant....and hysterical.

quote:

Now RJM takes it on his own to re-post what had been removed, with the stated view he did not find the comment offensive.
I am not at all sure why, in the name of objecting to the rules on the site, and under the guise of objecting to "censorship," RJM found his views so important he would re-post what others, including fan, found hurtful and which our moderators chose to remove.

I made the post in the form where it can be debated as opposed to someone believing the original post was offensive. What's wrong with a debate on what's offensive if it's not aimed at anyone? I also stated a stereotype joke doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.

I'm not the parent of a young man who, 2 years ago, had a DIII as his best option, who worked his tail off through a year of JC, got offered a position at USC just as school started, and has a mother and father working as hard as they can possibly work to help him fulfill his dream.
Why not address your "debate" question to her and the moderators before assuming that because YOU didn't find it offensive, YOU would create the opportunity for a "debate."
I'm not into a "debate" because I don't think "fan" deserves or needs to have your views given credibility over hers and those of MN-Mom and the moderators.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
I made the post in the form where it can be debated as opposed to someone believing the original post was offensive. What's wrong with a debate on what's offensive if it's not aimed at anyone? I also stated a stereotype joke doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.

It's the equivalent of having a debate on the offensiveness of the "N" word, but to a lesser degree. The statement itself is offensive. It unfairly paints a whole group of people in a negative light.

Up until you brought that up, I had no idea that USC was considered that way. Using terminology like that around people, leaves a lasting, unsubstantiated, prejudicial and ugly impression. There is no connotation or context in which that can be taken either humorously or enlightening. Its whole intent is to bash and stereotype.

I don't see an intent to debate when I read that, it looks much more like intent to flame.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
Censorship is a form of morality judgement. Whose morality? Why is one sense of morality better than another?

That's not necessarily, or in the recent case here, true.

Let's say I own a website dedicated to the evolution of jazz from from Africa, to slave "call and reponse", to Louis Armstrong's "creation" of the swing shuffle to Miles Davis. Someone comes along and posts an example of 16th century harmony and its similarity to the Beach Boys. I delete the post as not being consistent with what I want on my site.

Nothing moral or immoral about the post or my decision.

Very basic. Owners of webites have every right to determine what they want on their websites. Participants in those websites have every right to determine whether or not to continue to participate.

quote:

It unfairly paints a whole group of people in a negative light.

That was the issue entirely. I have no problem with the thread, and I have no problem with the moderators removing it.I post here, and they moderate, its their job so that we have a site.
As well no hard feeling to original posters.

quote:

Up until you brought that up, I had no idea that USC was considered that way. Using terminology like that around people, leaves a lasting, unsubstantiated, prejudicial and ugly impression. There is no connotation or context in which that can be taken either humorously or enlightening. Its whole intent is to bash and stereotype.

You guys are all way over the top. I think you need to write a letter to the editor of the LA Times decrying 50,00 UCLA fans waving dollar bills at the USC fans at the USC-UCLA football game. It's a tradition that must be taken down in the name of political correctness.

I lived in California for twenty-two years. Most people in California see it as a joke regardless of which side of the fence they're on. After I graduated from the other school both my roommates were from USC. We only made jokes about it. I can remember one joking he would beat me to death with his wallet, then joke I went to the state school.

Go into any educated neighborhood in southern California. You will find graduates of both schools. The lines aren't socially divided down the middle over a stereotype joke. Most USC graduates I know laughed and reveled in it.

I guess I should be offended when USC grads tell me their cheerleaders are better looking. It's a very sexist statement. It condemns all the UCLA female students, female alumnus and more specifically a set of young women performing on the sidelines.

Maybe I should have been offended attending a state sponsored college when USC had a poster "Poverty Sucks" where the picture was dripping of wealth. Or maybe the people at USC had a sense of humor too.

Geezzzzz!!!!

The condemned aka "Dead man walking" should say his peace.

I used the acronym, that a google search identifies more than 2 million hits, I confess, but it was taken by some personally, whom I hope I can still call friend, the wrong way. My intent was to question the agenda and actions of the USC athletic department which IMHO is pompous, not the student population. Other schools can be called out, why not USC? This site discusses colleges and programs for opinions and experiences in regard to their kids futures, now the USC program is exempt in regard to those opinions?

I apologize again to those posters I may have inadvertently offended, but moderators are moderators because they can jump outside the box and look at the "real" intent of the post. I can see where the moderator may have seen something that a few posters may have taken personally but at the same time it was not about them, it was about the program.

As I explained in a pm to another poster, this moderator thread was about "shaking out the rug" and fleshing out the notion that opinions should be shared as long as no personal attacks were involved, and I don't think I personally attacked anyone, just made a comment about an institution. Sharing thoughts and ideas is how we learn and identify truth, lies, and opinions.

I had a point to make, but it was "moderated", erased, that does not seem fair.

It often happens on these forums that the original topic takes a turn, a few turns, even a u-turn now and then.

My point was this, the acronym that rz referred to is not a new one, he did not make it up or invent it. It has been around for years and years and there are plenty of others not fit to print here on this website, just as there are for just about every college, usually drummed up by their rivals.
In my opinion, it was not a personal attack. Lighten up a little, get a sense of humor, even ask your kids who attend, they have heard of it, or something worse. It comes with the territory.

Rz did not say "every single person that attends a certain (will not insert name of university, as I am fearful of being moderated or erased) university is sp*****".

Obviously the two posters that were originally offened did not fit into that catagory, so why be take it so seriously? I'll bet you a Coach handbag and a BMW there might be a few sp***** ones out of the 30,000 plus that attend

Just my two cents....baseball is almost here

We have two very devoted posters on opposite sides of a dilemma.
As I posted before, I have absolutely no doubt that rz1 did not intend to inflame/flame or personally attack any parent or student(student/athlete) at USC with his post.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt that fanofgame interpreted the comments as she stated and found, in her situation, the comments to be troubling.
So, what are we to do?
Nope, I don't think we tell fanofgame to toughen up, grin and bear it and the like.
I also don't view this as a situation where,despite his description, rz1 gets portrayed as the "Dead Man Walking."
What we have is a misunderstanding between posters(very devoted ones) living several thousand miles apart, with this site, and baseball, as their only common denominator.
I don't have a problem with the umpire(moderator) action on this one as I can easily see ways to discuss what some perceive as the arrogance of or issues within the USC athletic department, in other ways.
Since I wasn't too unhappy when Stanford went for 2 with a 48-21 lead, I might have a few things to contribute if that discussion gets its resurgence.

I know a half dozen parents who send their kids to USC and they themselves refer to it as univ of spoiled children. It's a very well know acronym. People need to have a little thicker skin than that if it offended someone.

Heck, I've had someone on this site...who shall remain nameless...tell me on several different posts I have my head up my @#$. Even posted pictures to that effect. No one ever gave him a hard time...never even removed the pictures of a guy with his head up his @#$. It's not that big a deal. Thicker skin people.

I will put this in simple terms because I am a simple person. Do you guys really want this site to be turned into another trash talking message board? Because without the moderators doing their job the way they do here that is exactly what almost every thread would turn into.

There are plenty of sites you can go to and can talk all the trash you want to talk. This is not one of them. When it becomes one of them then go at it. I wont see it because I will not be around.

We dont bash players on this site. And we dont bash schools. We have posters whos sons play at schools all over the country. They are very proud of the fact their child is at a certain school and has earned that opportunity. Posts like this one serve no useful purpose. Its called trash talking. Because its trash. Some dont mind and are quick to defend it. Until they are the target. Go figure.