Who makes you Drool debate

Before I get into it I want to note that everyone has been at pains to smile, thank, applaud and wave to eachother here. I'm

glad that we can rise above our differences and behave as gentlmen.
So, without fear of hurting anyones toes if I trod on them...

Khannie wrote: »

No it shouldn't and for a very good reason: Photos in the photography forum come from users computers so they need to be

hosted somehow anyway. Photos in threads like the drool one are hotlinked. Having a size requirement would mean I would

have to download the image, resize it, then have it hosted somewhere. That's 3 seconds of effort (hotlink) versus about 60

(download, resize, upload to image hosting site then hotlink) (edit: and potential copyright infringement).

I think the benefit of not having to moderate image size makes everyone feel better (less moderation ftw) for very little downside

(the occasional image that's a bit too big). I don't particularly like large images but they don't break my bandwidth limit either.

Point taken but people are posting very big images and then someone quotes that picture. You know it happens and I am

simply trying to find a way to stop that. Simplest way was to ask that posted pictures be small. Yeah I know, very arbitrary

but I would have clarified eventually, pherhaps by recommending a size limit similar to that of the photography forum...

Keep images under 800px on the longest side. If you want to post larger images, you should provide a link to them.

Try to keep to a maximum of 4 images to a thread, and link the others. Exceptions can be made, in cases of stories being told

with the photographs, etc. Please use common sense.

"I'm sure all of the gentlemen here would agree to report any NSFW stuff to make your life easier if necessary." Reported

posts are always appricated. Problem here is that whats NSFW for one is different to someone else.

The post that provoked my reaction (post, not the entire thread) was this...http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?

p=64763614&postcount=137 particulary the 3ed image. I felt that this was an image that was nudging what is acceptable

here in the wrong direction for the forum and I put in an in thread warning. No deletions, no infractions, no bannings. An

(admittadly rantish) warning in the thread was the limit of my over-zealous/heavy handed/over-moderation.
Wasn't that much as you suggested was a way of keeping the thread under control here:

I would say the overhead of re

-issuing the warning from time to time has a massive benefit (no nanny state staring you in the face every time you visit the

forum) for a relatively low cost (occasional need to reiterate yourself or remove offending posts).

I then signposted the warning specifically to direct posters to a warning. That is simply modding the thread. Your method of

handling it is different to mine. My wording in the thread might not have been choice but would it have been better if I simply

deleated the post and banned the poster with a cheery "Take a week off" comment? Is that a better form of moderation?

I really don't want to know that you're here as a moderator, only as a contributor (I don't mean that in a bad way, I just mean I'd

rather that 98% of your posts in the forum were as a contributor instead of as a moderator).

Yep, I'd love to have a forum that dosen't need moderation but you know that's a rare thing. I'd love to be a contribuator to the

forum as me-John, but I have to self edit 98% of my posts. I bite my tongue and withold posts because as a moderator I'm

trying to set a standard for posters. What you see are 98% 'be good your a mod' posts and 2% of me. :-)
But I do understand what you are getting at here and I think that most of the time we manage that. We keep a watching brief

but generally a quiet word or whisper in the PM ear makes things run smooth and seemlessly. It's just this thread.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

As for the thread itself. Well, I'm not a fan of it tbh. Don't get me wrong, I ain't no prude. SlyDice is in my subbed list for a

reason. I'm as much an admirer of the female form as you all, in fact possibly more. Its not about that at all. Its about suitability

in my eyes. I would hate for the forum to become the FHM of boards.ie. With a descent into that kind of territory. Its not man-

AH in my eyes either. After this thread, where do we draw a line on the threads that get posted.

This sums up my feelings about the forum and what I think it represents. I aim for broadsheet not tabloid and this drool thread

is tabloid. Perhaps thats what really should be put up for discussion here.

Mystik Monkey wrote:

I really feel very strongly about those "MOD NOTE POST BLAH BLAH" things. They set a horrible, nasty tone in what is

growing into a super forum.

To clear this up. I posted that in the thread title. I also don't like it, and never really do it. I'll explain why though, and it might

make you feel a little better dude.

I knew we as a Mod group were discussing the thread etc at the time. I issued the warning, and tbh, wanted to make sure that

no-one, particularly anyone new to the forum, didn't know it was there, and then went against it. It was specifically do to with

not arguing Mod decision in thread, so not actually to do with the thread content. I didn't want anyone to get a silly

warning/infraction etc over something we could have had sorted shortly after. You get me?

It is most definitely not something I will be making a habit of, mostly because I agree with your own thoughts on it. That

includes whatever thread (if any) comes from this discussion.

To clear up MM's clear up I did re-edit the title and put in a signpost to my warning. I still feel this is a useful tool for modding.

It's only used on one thread out of the first 5 pages, perhaps more I didn't bother looking any further. I take your point Khanne

about it spoiling the view and giving the impression that the forum is over modded. I will be more circumspect and use it

spareingly if at all. (Just re-read that and it comes across as pompous - I don't mean that to sound condecending in any way.

deadhead13 wrote: »

Within the parameters of the forum charter the posters ultimately dictate what direction a

forum takes. The thread in question has had 150 posts and 11,000 views . I'm not particularlly excerised about whether it stays

or goes, but would vote for it to stay on the grounds of - if a you dislike the contents of a thread you always have the option of

not entering it.

The problem with your voting as you do is that the thread remains in existance - and with less moderation then it currently

receives. It set's a precident. It opens the doors for other similar threads. Is that really how you want the forum to go?

Khannie wrote: »

As I said, I don't really care about the thread. I care about the precedent that's being set by it. That you're standing up to

defend that precedent (despite the moderator in question admitting that he was going off on one) is a very bad sign to me (and

others who have said that it is "pathetic" and that removal of it would call into question the very existence of tGC!!).
[\quote]
The precident being set by the thread is foremost in my mind. The precident being set within the thread is another issue. The

thread is setting the wrong precident for the forum. Within the thread I stand by my decision to warn posters that the images

were now byond acceptable for the thread. I set a limit of acceptability. The idea of the warning ws to prevent the quality of the

photographs slipping any further.

Khannie wrote: »

I should add that I take your point about it sending out the wrong message. I think it's far more important not to be over-

moderated though. We're in a lose-lose scenario now. I think the greater good is served by leaving the thread in place.

My warning said that I WOULD close the thread IF the quality of the images didn't improve. A warning. How and when did a

warning become over moderation? The issue here is that my standard of acceptability is different to yours. What you see as

acceptable I see as getting close enough to NSFW to warrent a wake up call.

Khannie wrote: »

The mod who wrote the post in question doesn't even think that. Did you miss some stuff maybe?

Not so. I said I ranted but that I stand by my decision to make the warning.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I think one of the goals of this forum is to get men to have open discussions about their lives. To maybe talk about issues in their lives, things that affect them, their attitudes towards certain things etc., while at the same time it being a place they can banter and chat in a relaxed environment.

I think the drool thread attracts guys who mightn't come here otherwise, and exposes them to the other, discussion threads we have here. I think this is positive.

However if guys come here, look at the thread and see strict, prudish moderation, it's going to give them a bad image of this place, and they won't stick around.

No thread is better than a very restricted thread, IMHO.

I see the same as you but from the other side of the coin. I see people coming here to post serious or health questions and they are greeted with "Who makes you drool" on the front page. That would detere me from posting a thread about erectile dysfunction or should the pension age be raised. It trivialises the forum.

Khannie wrote: »

I think the confusion lies in what OG said about being eager to close the drool thread

That is my personal view. Other mods have said that they dislike the thread. I have always said I will close it if it gets out of hand. I would close it now if I could.






My take:
There are three issues going on here.
1: Over moderation of a thread
2: Should the thread exist in the first place.
3: What does tGC represent?

First, overmoderation. No one has been banned. No one has been infracted. No one has had posts deleated by me. When

the posted pictures became more risque then earlier I issued a warning. That my warning was rantish is not in dispute. That

does not mean that my warning was incorrect. I have explaned why I issued a warning. So it's about my perception of whats

acceptable. If anyone has a gripe with where I draw the line or define the standard them make that THAT the discussion but

over modding? Don't think so.

Should the thread exist? I say no and I've always said that yet the thread exists. I believe it sets the wrong image for the

forum. I think that the we, the mods made a mistake in letting the thread go ahead. However, as a number of users want the

thread we have been trying to work out how best to allow the thread to exist and were in discussion about it.

The above also ties into the fundamenal issue, one that is really the crux of the matter for me. What is tGC about, where is it

going, what is it's reason for existance. Thats what I want to hear from the members of the forum. Is my view of where the

forum should be going radically different from yours? A tits and ass thread dosen't fit in what I want this place to be, I have

enough of that elsewhere.


Every time I come in to post this there are 6 more posts in the thread. I'll go through the rest of them later.