Missing Loungers Whom You Miss.

[Bruce Wayne]

I was a mod at another forum. I would personally like to see this entire lounge un moderated for a short period of say 48 to 72 hours just so you guys would see how bad it can really get.

Thanx!!!
Charlie

 

[Michaelshane]

I was a mod at another forum. I would personally like to see this entire lounge un moderated for a short period of say 48 to 72 hours just so you guys would see how bad it can really get.

Thanx!!!
Charlie

Do you think very many here are not on other forums that are not strictly moderated?I know how bad it can get.On the other hand I have had my posts censored on another forum.That is very frustrating.I was slandered,accused of dishonesty,and I was unable to defend myself.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm a moderator on a couple of forums and it isn't always so easy to seriously be moderate at all times. Just takes one person to turn a thread into disruption because they seem to feel so strongly about something and just must express it no matter how much turmoil it may cause. The real topic can be buried in disagreement with members begging for it to stop. Best to stop it quickly unless you want a forum resembling the wild west dominated mainly by a few.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I was a mod at another forum. I would personally like to see this entire lounge un moderated for a short period of say 48 to 72 hours just so you guys would see how bad it can really get.

Thanx!!!
Charlie

Just like our friends "The Other Forum"?

 

[Tomasso]

The Lounge is a moderated forum, and that is one of our strengths. With a decade under our belts, we know what and who we are, and what we are about.

Did you happen to see the thread "Optimo vs Vintage Silhouettes" before it was made to disappear. Where one of the bartenders unjustly rips an esteemed hatter (Optimo) in order to shill for another hatter (VS) , who just happens to be a fellow bartender (and sponsor affiliate?)

Another bartender then rushes in to hurl invective at a member (Me) who questions the wisdom of remote hat purchases in general; this again in defense of his friend, the hatter/bartender. He then goes on to lock the thread, but not before allowing the hatter/bartender the final word. I didn't respond to his taunts. I just assumed that he was baiting me so that he could have me banned.


As for MC's thoughts on the moderation; I'm just saying what he told me. And yes, he also had other reasons for leaving.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

^^It's certainly a concern on a moderated, and monetised, forum, like this. Once you have a set of sponsors and affiliates, it could potentially become difficult to allow serious criticism of those vendor's products, for fear of losing their $$. This is set to become a relatively serious issue here, I suspect, unless the bartenders are really on their toes.

You're example is a good, and longstandingly egregious, one (total lack of any criticism of some hatters, constructive or not - Art is not alone in this - and total ostracism of others. "He who shall not be named", feeling Glad all over).

 

[Spitfire]

Just for the record: I DID NOT start this one!

 

[Tomasso]

Just for the record: I DID NOT start this one!

lol

 

[Edward]

Boy, that Second Amendment, eh?

 

[Two Types]

Spitfire: "I do look in now and again, Smithy. But since the last scrap, I don't contribute much."

Was that the guns (or concealed weapons?) 'discussion'? I was rather perplexed by the way that was handled. Personally, I felt they 'No Politics' rule (which I wholeheartedly agree with) was not enforced in that instance. I could not understand why a perceived 'anti-gun' stance was viewed as political, whilst being pro-gun was considered non-political. At least that was how I percieved it.
I would have liked that issue to have been answered during the 'moderation' process.

Personally, although I understand why there are firearms threads, I'm not over-keen on having weapons on this forum.

Whilst I agree that the bartender system is necessary, I would prefer it if there were clear explanations of why certain contentious posts are removed. That way, it might avoid suspicions of bias and lead to greater clarity.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I think the bartenders have been better recently - editing posts, being clear about who was editing and why (I have been guilty of dirty jokes, for example), rather than simply deleting posts/threads.

p.s. I make no accusations that my concerns are being realised, simply that it is a clear issue to be guarded against. I think that in Nathan and Scott that we have reasonable and honest Head Bartenders who will indeed guard against this.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

^^It's certainly a concern on a moderated, and monetised, forum, like this. Once you have a set of sponsors and affiliates, it could potentially become difficult to allow serious criticism of those vendor's products, for fear of losing their $$. This is set to become a relatively serious issue here, I suspect, unless the bartenders are really on their toes.

You're example is a good, and longstandingly egregious, one (total lack of any criticism of some hatters, constructive or not - Art is not alone in this - and total ostracism of others. "He who shall not be named", feeling Glad all over).

You're absolutely right about this. We want to avoid it. If somebody has honest, fair criticism of an affiliate, they are free to criticize. If it's patently unfair, or inside an affiliate thread, we'll reserve the right to delete it. Outside of affiliate threads, it's fair game, and we tell our affiliates this when they sign up.

Did you happen to see the thread "Optimo vs Vintage Silhouettes" before it was made to disappear. Where one of the bartenders unjustly rips an esteemed hatter (Optimo) in order to shill for another hatter (VS) , who just happens to be a fellow bartender (and sponsor affiliate?)

Another bartender then rushes in to hurl invective at a member (Me) who questions the wisdom of remote hat purchases in general; this again in defense of his friend, the hatter/bartender. He then goes on to lock the thread, but not before allowing the hatter/bartender the final word. I didn't respond to his taunts. I just assumed that he was baiting me so that he could have me banned.

A few things to clear up: Art is no longer a bartender. Hasn't been since he became a sponsor. Also, that thread is closed, but still visible. I just took a quick look over the thread, and I can't say that our guys really ripped into Optimo. JP had a poor experience with packaging. Andykev was justifably brash in his defense of ordering a hat via the phone, and it doesn't appear to be unjust. He explained that he has purchased hats from both Art and Optimo. Art's last response, in my opinion, is very measured and acknowledges your position on the issue.

Spitfire: "I do look in now and again, Smithy. But since the last scrap, I don't contribute much."

Was that the guns (or concealed weapons?) 'discussion'? I was rather perplexed by the way that was handled. Personally, I felt they 'No Politics' rule (which I wholeheartedly agree with) was not enforced in that instance. I could not understand why a perceived 'anti-gun' stance was viewed as political, whilst being pro-gun was considered non-political. At least that was how I percieved it.
I would have liked that issue to have been answered during the 'moderation' process.

Personally, although I understand why there are firearms threads, I'm not over-keen on having weapons on this forum.

Whilst I agree that the bartender system is necessary, I would prefer it if there were clear explanations of why certain contentious posts are removed. That way, it might avoid suspicions of bias and lead to greater clarity.

You're right, we'll endeavor to be more transparent about moderation. For the issue of weapons on the forum, I'll use an analogy. Say we have a PETA member join, and he starts replying to a "Show us your new Leather Jackets" thread about how it is unethical to be wearing leather, and people who wear Irwin jackets, whether new or vintage, have something wrong with them, and it should not be discussed on the board. We wouldn't allow the PETA member to do this. We would moderate the comments, and encourage them to avoid the leather jacket threads. It's a part of the vintage culture, and has a longstanding history on the Lounge. Same goes for the weapon threads.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

I think the bartenders have been better recently - editing posts, being clear about who was editing and why (I have been guilty of dirty jokes, for example), rather than simply deleting posts/threads.

p.s. I make no accusations that my concerns are being realised, simply that it is a clear issue to be guarded against. I think that in Nathan and Scott that we have reasonable and honest Head Bartenders who will indeed guard against this.

It's encouraging that you've noticed our transparency efforts. Also, I appreciate your note of confidence. It is indeed a concern, and not one we take lightly.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

The key to life is moderation.

 

[Blackjack]

They do a pretty good job at moderating here I think, at least they do they best they can. The people that get tossed usually deserve to get tossed, then there are those who get tossed, create yet another alias join up again so they can continue to be a pain in the rear to others.

 

[Tomasso]

then there are those who get tossed, create yet another alias join up again so they can continue to be a pain in the rear to others.

Who are these members, pray tell?

 

[Blackjack]

There's been a few over the years, I'd never actually rat someone out like that. But wouldn't you agree that those type of people really need to get a life?

 

[Tomasso]

There's been a few over the year.

I don't recall any. But I do know of a few members, in good standing , who have changed their FL moniker, for various reasons.

BTW, it's good to see you back. We thought we lost you a couple years ago when they wouldn't open that chat room you wanted.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

A certain Swan River Coloniser is a good, recent, notorious example.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

There was another one who was a major pot stirrer that I suspect had been here under at least three different names.