A word about forums

[john brenton]

Maybe this will be moved to off topic, don't know. Maybe I'll say something about woodworking to make it relevant to the forum...uhhhhh, "I was thinking about getting a wood handled bung tickler...any suggestions?" There you go.

There is a political forum that I continue to go on and argue in (the only forum I haven't been booted from), and there is kind of a constitution or a preamble, welcome letter, whatever you want to call it that greets you when you enter:

"Everyone is welcome and posters should feel free to share their honest experiences and truths. However, everyone is expected to behave as if you were a visitor in your neighbor's house.

Please always give the other person a break; don't interpret words too literally, since we all imply stuff we didn't intend to and have assumptions that we come to realize through honest discussion."

We all insult each other to no end regardless, but that doesn't make the greeting any less true.

[Prashun Patel]

That's why I like SMC. Very little controversial stuff here - mainly helpful people trying to help others learn and do.

[David Weaver]

I used to talk a lot on a board that was called "the bash board". It was such an eyebrow singeing forum that it got cancelled by the adminstrator of the server who hosted it and a whole bunch of other forums, and it got cancelled without even breaking any of the written rules. I guess they made a new one...these rules, and oh yeah "no bash board" on our server.

Folks on there generally were cordial with each other in a different way I guess, most of us got along pretty well.

I liked it a lot, but it wouldn't fly on a forum where there are kids reading or a for profit (maybe that's not the right term, but this forum generates revenue for itself, and is not an offshoot of a magazine or anything, that's what i mean by that) forum like this one where there are advertisers.

>>don't interpret words too literally<< this is exactly why i made the award comment in the other thread. No matter how many times you say it, someone is still going to do it. That's why we should have the award - sort of a vote button thing (vBulletin supports that, anyway). When you win the award, you're reminded to lighten up.

[Jim Koepke]

I belong to a BBS. For those who do not know, BBS is Bulletin Board Service and were around before the start of the internet. They are a dying bread, but a few Computer User Groups and others still have them. Many of them require membership to enter.

SMC and others are kind of the modern BBSes.

The most heated areas on the BBS I am a member of are those that get into politics. There are areas where I have posted about items here on SMC and some of the folks have come here to pay a visit.

I do enjoy the difference here. I can be a different person on the more passionate subjects. That is likely why SMC does not want to get in to the more passionate matter.

As it is, I can get passionate about cutting some dovetails, but it is not likely someone is going to get real heated in a discussion about whether we should cut pins or tails first. For that, it is what ever is more comfortable for the one doing the work.

There isn't likely going to be insulting monikers exchanged about filing a rip saw at 4 ppi compared to 8 ppi. Most of us are likely to have one of each and a few more.

We even remain civil when one person says 5 ppi to another's 4 tpi.

So, I know I had one thread disappear just at the mention of political people, maybe it is for the best that we keep those things that many of us find reasons to disagree out of a forum which is very agreeable.

just my 179709

jtk

[john brenton]

I had created a BSS forum and by the second day I had over 200 pages of porno spam on it. I just dumped it.

Anywho, I am...WAS...a part of the International Charango Association and in the forum we were always getting hushed when we'd talk politics. We eventually made such a stink about it that the moderators stopped moderating...well, in the course of talking the politics with these guys I realized how much I didn't like their views and we just started arguing all the time. Although we hate to admit it, moderation is necessary.



So, I know I had one thread disappear just at the mention of political people, maybe it is for the best that we keep those things that many of us find reasons to disagree out of a forum which is very agreeable.
179709

jtk

[Dave Anderson NH]

Moderating is often a thankless task, but a necessary one if a forum is going to survive and remain vibrant. Over the years I have personally been accused of being heavy handed, too lenient, playing favorites, and just about anything else you can imagine. Fortunately I have a thick skin and just mumble and curse the poster to myself to release the steam.;)

Posting on any kind of forum is a very public thing and folks sometimes forget that without the advantage of eye contact,the ability to interpret body language, and other means of discerning motives, attitude, and the level of seriousness, even the most carefully worded post is subject to a variety of interpretations. What seems innocuous can easily be misinterpreted by people who have: a different mother tongue, a different cultural orientation, a quick or careless reading of the post, preconceived notions about the poster of the message, and quite often and most dangerously, the current state of mind of the person reading the post.

When I was a kid I was taught that the 3 things that were not discussed in polite mixed society were politics, sex, and religion. For obvious reasons, SMC bans all 3 topics and I believe it is fitting. None are germaine to woodworking, and all 3 conspire to cause dissension, raise passions to unacceptable levels, offend segments of our readers, and divide what should be a community based on commonality of interest. Sex talk and profanity is not appropriate on a forum like SMC which reaches all age groups. Religion has caused more wars and dissension than almost any topic in history. Politics is probably the most divisive since our group is comprised of people of almost every political persuasion and we are international in scope.

My personal rules and thoughts about posting are:

1) Never post when angry or upset about a previous post in a thread. Wait, cool down, and re-read to see if you misinterpreted the poster's meaning.

2) When responding to a post liable to misinterpretation or that you think is offensive ask first for clarification from the person who posted before responding to the original topic.

3) Respond politely, do not lower yourself to the other persons level. It does you no credit and makes you appear a hothead and/or a fool.

4) When posting on a thread be as courteous as you would if you were speaking with the poster in person.

5) READ YOUR POST CAREFULLY BEFORE POSTING IT TO SEE IF YOU WERE CLEAR, POLITE, AND WERE ON TOPIC.

6) Remember that even if you go back to edit a post you had second thoughts about, several people could have read the post in the intervening interval. Posts are like the spoken word in that once uttered they can not be taken back. You will have to live with and assume the consequences of your actions.

7) Strive not to be hurtful. There is a difference between an honest constructive criticism and an insult.

8) Sly inuendo is the coward's way.

[Dan Sheehan]

Dave: I know it's just a turn of phrase and you are not really fishing, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway: thank you. I should have said it before. I think you do a great job. These guidelines are well thought out and will be useful as I try to conduct myself with gentlemanly moderation here and elsewhere.

[David Weaver]

Over the years I have personally been accused of being heavy handed, too lenient, playing favorites, and just about anything else you can imagine.

I think it's impossible to be a moderator and not be accused of those things. Even if you did nothing at all to moderate, someone would accuse you of not using the moderator schwartz (like the spaceball schwartz) on their behalf to take their frustration out on someone else.

I think you do a good job, and you have good judgement about when to act and when not to.

[Dan Andrews]

I belonged to a very good automobile special interest site. For about 2 years things went well. First one new member, then a couple more began "attacking" other members. When our excellent moderator finaly banned someone the site management fired the moderator. Then the "bullies" had free reign and many of us older members began to drop out of participation and the site when I last visited was a useless mess of personal attacks.

Keep up the good work here Dave.

[Marv Werner]

Dave,

I tried my best to find something in your post to disagree with. I couldn't.

I might have to come back here and refer to your list of Personal Rules and Thoughts from time to time. I'm not very good at turning the other cheek more than once.

It's good to learn that SMC has at least one Moderator who has an awareness of the various problems that commonly occur in forums of this kind.

Thanks

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I have moderated multiple forums and am currently both a moderator and a low level administrator on another. When I recruit a new moderator, I always encourage moderation on their part. If they are unsure, they should discuss it on the moderator mailing list.

As it stands now, the primary job of a moderator for the sites which I moderate (related to OpenOffice) is SPAM control. The users are generally well behaved and polite. Same seems to be true here as well.

Oh, and John, a "bung tickler"? I had to hit Google to find that one.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Thanks for the vote of confidence folks. My personal philosophy on moderation is to exercise it in moderation. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously though, I believe in using as little moderation as possible since I do not think that my job includes being a censor. Having said that though, there are times when I ask someone via PM to edit or remove a post or simply to go go back and review what they have written. Simple things like bad language, direct personal insults, inappropriate links I usually handle via PM with the OP if time is available. Rarely, when I am pressed for time I just edit and delete the offending wording. In the case of new folks who have not bothered to read the Terms of Service I just note that what they did is prohibited and ask to to go back and read the TOS. As a matter of fact, I'll ask all of you now to go read the TOS. I'll venture to guess that a high estimate of members who have actually bothered to wade through the TOS is in the neighborhood of 40%. It would be an interesting poll....hmmm.

[Rich Purdum]

When I was a kid I was taught that the 3 things that were not discussed in polite mixed society were politics, sex, and religion.

Dave, I think our parents must have come from the same school, although I don't ever recall my mother mentioning sex as she probably thought proper ladies should never use the word. Until someone comes up with an automated filter to catch bad behavior, we're going to need folks like you who are willing to do the dirty work of moderating (IMHO).

[john brenton]

Here we go again...

[george wilson]

I just found it most "unusual" that you would post another "joke" handle,which was exactly how the problem on the previous thread problem was started.I also apologized for things getting out of hand on what has been called aptly the "monster thread". I also promise you that there was never any intentional slight in any other thread from me. I took David's post to include me,also. I don't have the energy to look up all my postings,so just accept my word,I did not intend to slight you.

I think that Dave is a very fair moderator.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks,

I am not Dave but I am a Moderator. I can assure you that no Moderator intentionally shows favoritism to any Member.....and no we aren't on the payroll of Grizzly, Oneida, Festool or Laguna.

It is worth considering that any individual's perception of something seen on a computer monitor...is just that "your perception" and without seeing the other person face-to-face, it's easy to misinterpret the meaning of what your are reading because you can't hear tone of voice, inflections in speech, facial expressions or body language.

Let's not wash dirty laundry or personal disagreements in public...please.

[Dave Anderson NH]

So that people know right up front. Public discussion of how a specific instance of moderating is handled is a violation of the Terms of Service and will get the offending post or posts deleted.

I would ask that people refrain from discussing the saw thread that was locked as it is both like beating a dead horse and will cause nothing but further ill feelings.

At times we all like to be a bit ironic, sarcastic, and make comments which are tongue in cheek or just outright humerous (in our own mind). If you intend to do that, please identify your intentions by using either one of the smileys or just outright stating that you are not serious. Too much ill will can be generated by posts which are misunderstood. In some cases, sublety is not our friend.

[David Weaver]

Dave, I'm having an awful time figuring out where the TOS is. Can you post a direct link to it or advise/instruct?

[Dave Anderson NH]

To Dave Weaver and all others:

The SMC Terms of Service are located on the bottom right hand corner of each page in the forums in white letter in the darker blue background.

My apologies to all for not making this clear.

[David Weaver]

Excellent - thanks! Right there in plain sight and I could never find it, too busy shuffling through menus at the top and posts in the Tech Service forum!

[Tom Vanzant]

Dan,
I saw a similar thing happen on a muzzle-loading site. After years of being a "traditional" site, the owner decided to add a "modern muzzle-loading" forum. All went well for about a year, then the sniping began. The trads could and did say just about whatever they wanted without any action from the moderator; but when one mod dared to comment about the bullying, the modern forums were dropped as "divisive". The mods are now quite at home on several other sites, and the trads are still bickering about cap and ball v. flint and ball, and whether you must wear buckskins while hunting to be a "true" trad. Of course, the possibles bags all contain cell phones and GPS now... go figure.
Dave, keep up the good work. Good moderators can make a site, bad ones or lazy ones can kill it.
Tom

[Johnny Kleso]

I hope Dave moderates this forum for a very long time...
I also hope this is the last post in this thread about rules..

[Montgomery Scott]

Ken,

I'm curious as to how you can assure us that SMC isn't "on the payroll" of the advertisers on SMC. Considering that multiple posts that are critical of some of the sponsors/advertisers have been deleted outright. It certainly appears to be collusion with the sponsors/advertisers of SMC to me.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Montgomery,

First there is no way I can assure you other than tell you that Moderators are invited, unpaid volunteers. If you don't want to believe me, there is no way you can be convinced.

I only state that because I tire of being falsely accused. If you want to believe there is collusion, there is nothing that I can do to convince you otherwise. But....if you believe that you are wrong.

Posts are deleted because they violate the TOSs of this site.

[Montgomery Scott]

If SMC is not in the back pocket of the advertisers then tell me what content in the recent post from Dwight Makepeace that was critical of Laguna was in violation of the TOS.

[george wilson]

Ken,Dave,et.al are not running the forum. Do you not think it doesn't take time and money to run this forum? If Mr. Outten is getting a few dollars I have no problem with it,nor is it our business.

Every advertiser here would SOON be trashed by SOME unhappy guy if allowed to do so.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Montgomery, The short answer to your question is that Dwight Makepeace was a not the poster's real name which he shortsightedly admitted during an exchange of PMs about the thread with a moderator. That single sin is enough to get member reduced to guest status and to incur a permanent loss of posting priveleges at SMC. Our community and its credibility with advertisers AND members depends on an honest exchange of information and ideas. The use of a false name in itself undermines the poster's credibility and any and all complaints he made. Suffice to say that there were other valid reasons contained in several exchanges of PMs with the staff. I can not discuss the other reasons, again for reasons of confidential communications, all I can ask is for your trust.

For your edification and that of anyone reading this thread, it is against SMC policy and the Terms of Service to discuss the moderation of posts and threads on the forums. It is fine to PM a moderator and ask a question, or for that matter, several. We might or might not answer to your satisfaction. Legal issues and ethical ones of confidentiality often preclude a complete answer. PMs are private communications and their public airing by anyone including moderators is just not allowed. Similarly, we protect your email address from everyone unless you choose to make it public. Personal data is to be divulged only by the member at their option, and by no one else including the staff.

[Montgomery Scott]

George,

Are you implying that only people who are happy with the advertiser's products should be allowed to voice their opinion? From my persepective, if I suspect that an entity is biasing reports or excising statements critical of an advertiser's products to keep those ad dollars their credibility concerning reviews is gone. I know certain magaizinges that have been accused of that and as a result only the unwary will heed their reviews. Is this what you would like SMC to become?

There will always be detractors for any product and there is no reason to censor them. People can generally tell when someone has a legitimate gripe and when it is sour grapes, or exaggerated problems.

[Mark Maleski]

From my persepective, if I suspect that an entity is biasing reports or excising statements critical of an advertiser's products to keep those ad dollars their credibility concerning reviews is gone.

I believe SMC has been consistent about excising *unsubstantiated* negative claims (i.e., rumors) about manufacturers of all types, whether they're advertisers or not. This action is prescribed by the TOS. Seems you have very thin basis on which to accuse the moderators of "being in the back pocket of advertisers."

[Dave Anderson NH]

It is the Creek policy to allow free discussion and comments both positive and negative about suppliers for the edification of the membership. There are several things though that are not allowed.

1) Complaints against a vendor without the person posting first trying to resolve the issue with the manufacturer.

2) Rants, bashing, and personal attacks against vendor personnel or using profanity.

3) Complaints which are strictly opinion and which do not have either supporting documentation or alternately explain exactly what the problem is about. An example would be, "Company X makes nothing but junk and everything I bought from them has been trash."

[David Weaver]

MS - i hope you aren't reading any of the magazine reviews thinking they are unbiased. Even if they are not completely biased on something, they often are not forthright with how bad certain products really are, even when the merch in question is from someone who doesn't (yet) advertise with them.

I also wouldn't consider reviews on this site to be unbiased necessarily, the site advertises. It's a monetary reality that they probably wouldn't make ends meet without ad dollars, so you can't expect them to weigh in on the conservative side when it comes to keeping posts that bash advertisers, especially when the advertiser is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to speaking up on a forum at all - as soon as they would show up, they would be inundated with complainers while most of the folks happy with their service would run off. That is, you see the side of the complaintant first (albeit i have been that person sometimes, maybe not on here, but i have been that person), and you identify with their plight because you've been had before by a different retailer, and 95% of your decision about whether or not the retailer is guilty as charged is made.

IME, what you can rely on is the advice from folks who have BTDT, and discussions of technique, and there is still a lot to gain from that. Would I expect that I could search through the history on this forum or any other forum linked to an ad source and get perfect information regarding tools? No, but some of it does survive and if something is really bad, you can usually get enough history to figure that out.

As far as people not using real names, I don't quite understand why anyone would insist on doing that when it is clearly stated that it's required as a minimum level of being allowed to function here.

I think the moderators do a good job given the constraints they are under.

[John Coloccia]

FWIW, I know for a fact that I've made negative comments about Laguna, Grizzly, Sawstop, ShopFox, Jet, Lie-Nielsen, Crown, Kunz, Rikon, Klemsia, Porter-Cable, Delta.....am i leaving anyone out? I'm sure I've made negative comments about more than those. There's a difference between an honest, "Here's how my tool is made" and ranting. If I get a chisel that has garbage for a blade, I'm going to come here and say, "You know what guys, it's a nice looking chisel but the blade's made out of cream cheese". Or, "I generally like my SawStop, but the original stock blade guard was an awful monstrosity (which it was, by the way)". That sort of seems different than the novelettes of customer service woe.

Mods: please correct me if I'm wrong, but would you consider this a rant?

"So I went back and forth a few times with Grizzly (or Laguna or whoever), and they said that my table was within their spec, but the table's out .05"! That's huge by any measure. They basically told me to go pound sand. What's my next step?"

or if someone is contemplating the same tool....

"Watch out, Carl. Check on the specs BEFORE you buy. They sent me a table that was WAY out and claimed it was within their specs. Unless you get it in writing, I would shop elsewhere."

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this the direction the TOS is trying to drive towards and not necessarily a "censoring"? Anyhow, I look forward to your thoughts.

[David Weaver]

I don't think I've seen a post like that deleted, though I don't remember following them.

I posted a couple of times about delta's widening spec and how my TS had some measurements that fit in the widened spec but wouldn't in an old spec, and they didn't get chunked.

The stuff that gets deleted fast is the drum beating grudge fest "i called X over there and they told me Y and then they did Z-Q*5 and called it the same".

[george wilson]

I think David has about covered it.

[Montgomery Scott]

MS - i hope you aren't reading any of the magazine reviews thinking they are unbiased. Even if they are not completely biased on something, they often are not forthright with how bad certain products really are, even when the merch in question is from someone who doesn't (yet) advertise with them.

I have cancelled all my magazine subscriptions so I'm not reading any of their reviews.

[Paul Incognito]

[QUOTE=Dave Anderson NH;1621483]The short answer to your question is that Dwight Makepeace was a not the poster's real name QUOTE]

Yea...not everyone gets to be Incognito on this forum.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
Paul

[David Weaver]

I have cancelled all my magazine subscriptions so I'm not reading any of their reviews.

Good man. (Publishers aren't going to like that response)

[Marv Werner]

I'd sure like to jump in on this one.....but I'm not one of the site officials and don't think it's my place to comment on such matters regarding Montgomery's issues.

I think I'll stick to direct woodworking related questions and issues.

It appears to me that Dave Anderson is doing the job exactly right without any interference and posturing from me.

[john brenton]

Most things in life are open to interpretation...or better yet...LEFT to interpretation. Common sense is a funny thing, but thank God for it. There is a difference between a grievance that edifies, and a rant that only seeks to criticize and bring down the company...the online revenge rant. The online revener rant feels good while you're writing it, but almost never get the response you want. Most people will question your abilities (which will piss you off beyond belief), or flat out deny it if they've dealt with the company themselves and had a good experience. I've done those rants before...it always backfires.

We all know the woodworking magazines are full of product placement and sponsored reviews...but as long as the product is truly that good then what's the big deal? I've never heard anyone here say that their Lie-Nielsons or Veritas haven't lived up to their expectations. I've never seen a woodworking magazine say that an item was complete crap from a crap company, but then again I've never seen them review a Kunz round bottom spoke shave. Thanks for talking me off that cliff, Dave:D

[David Weaver]

Yeah, all you guys should use the ignore button like I do. It makes you look like a nicer person and someone who is good at avoiding conflict :)

[Dan Hintz]

Before you wonder if a thread you are about to post will be deleted, think for a moment about the intent of the post:


If the intent is to truly review an item, with both its good and bad points, then your post is more than likely safe.
If your intent is to attack the manufacturer/distributor (regardless of the facts and your ability to prove them) in an attempt to get satisfaction (be it getting them to resolve your issue, or simply personal satisfaction at seeing them squirm in the spotlight), then your post will more than likely be removed from public consumption.
If your intent is to warn others about a potential issue (be it with an actual item, customer service, whatever), tread lightly... your post may or may not survive the culling process. The decision will be based upon your perceived intent, as well as the post's ability to offer a useful service and/or advice to others.

I do not always agree with the decisions made by the powers that be (both moderators and Keith), but when appropriate, I usually approach Keith directly with my thoughts/concerns. Maybe he agrees with my view, maybe he doesn't, but at least I'm given the forum (private as it may be) to voice my concerns. Overall, I agree that the rules as they stand are designed to protect the overall interest of the board members, even though specific instances may make it appear otherwise.

These thread issues segue into another (increasingly) common problem...

Overall the members here have been very friendly towards each other, if not at least civil when tempers run warm. Lately, however, I have noticed a distinct lack of even basic civility... some brought on by a misunderstanding that quickly got out of control, some brought on by downright snarkiness that wasn't called for in the worst of cases. I make a mental note of who seems to often react this way without prior provocation, and I choose to steer clear of these few people whenever possible. Some of us (myself included) are very opinionated, but not all of those same people know how to remove emotion from a discussion and rely instead on the merits of the argument, and this is usually the spark to the tinder.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to see the snarks awaiting a chance to pounce on the same people over and over again, seemingly for no other purpose than to proclaim how wrong the other person is compared to themselves... I am simply not impressed with that kind of narcissism, and it needs to be curbed. If I see someone pulling that kind of stuff, even if they're a good friend, I will do my best to step in and cool it down. All too often I see friends of the snark jumping on the bandwagon, simply because they're friends, and that lumps everyone into two teams, those that support the snark and those that are enemies. That is never good for a long-lasting community spirit...

[John Coloccia]

Lately, however, I have noticed a distinct lack of even basic civility...

And I have to say that this is absolutely the most civil and respectful forum I've ever belonged to. Before I post something, I always think if I can say it with a smile, just talking to one of my friends. I come here to learn and enjoy myself :)

[John Shuk]

I simply try to appreciate what The Outtens have made available to all of us. The benefits of the Creek far outweigh any petty irritation I may feel about a given situation. I have learned more about life here than I ever will about wood. I think the way that the Creek is run makes that possible.
I also believe that our mods approach moderation with far more consideration and fairness than most people do their PAYING jobs.

[Will Blick]

Dave Anderson has done a great job as moderator... being a moderator is like being a judge, some are better than others...

However, at the risk of my post being deleted (sometimes honesty hurts), I have witnessed what I consider rash or unfair intervention from other moderators, and I think mods often overlook how frustrating it can be ...makes some of the posters drift away, unfortunately usually the knowledgeable ones..... but SMC is big enough now, so it's of no concern if they loose a measly annual fee of $6.

Now, putting things in perspective, I certainly understand these are unpaid positions, and mods often are just doing the best they can... and SMC is a relatively free site, which is run well from admin standpoint.... I get it... but nonetheless, nit picking and favoritism can be annoying...

[Dan Hintz]

Sheesh, here we go again! :rolleyes: