Let me first preface this post by saying that I am not complaining about why one of my posts had an unacceptable title, as opposed to other similar ones. I just want a clarification from the mods and Geoff as to what DVDTalk's definition of acceptable words to be used in subjects? I'm interested in hearing other member's thoughts, as well.

March 10, I posted a discussion thread in Other titled "Why is use of the word 'vagina' so taboo nowadays? [Mature?]" or something along those lines. Literally, within a couple minutes, Bushdog had edited the subject, replacing "vagina" with "..." saying that that is not an appropriate word to use in the subject of a family site such as DVDTalk. If that word was slang of any sort, I could understand that, but it's not. I deleted the post without arguing about it further. Later that day, I did a search for that word in Other just to check something and saw a thread titled I saw the VAGINA MONOLOGUES!!!! from about a month earlier. So I asked Bushdog why that was acceptable, but mine wasn't. He said it was because that is the name of a play, and you would find that in a newspaper article/ad about the play, so it was acceptable. So, I re-posted my thread, this time with the subject "The Vagina Monologues" billboard taken off the highway - why?.

Yesterday I saw a thread on page 1 of Other titled I just saw boobies!!! (mature?) from 3/31.

I don't see how the word "boobies" (a slang term) can be acceptable to be used in a thread title, yet "vagina" (the "official" name for that part of the body - NOT slang) is not acceptable.

The bottom line is: can Geoff and/or the Other mods please clarify what words are and are not acceptable to be used in subjects of threads? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

I just did a search for "penis" in subjects of Other threads and found 4 threads with that term in their titles, including Giant disgusting penis (pic). How are those threads acceptable, but mine was not? Especially considering mine was meant to bring up a serious, thoughtful discussion - which the others did not.

Again, I'm not complaining about my original post on that subject having its subject changed, I just would like to see some consistency in the forum. Thanks again.

Dude you're wasting your time Geoff seems to be ignoring questions like these for some reason. I asked something similar last week even sent email and got nothing. Funny how one can ask about something they truely may not understand and get no response but complain about another person and you get all types of replies. Oh well I hope you have better luck than me.

Scott27, there is a consistent rule that is applied. I've altered wording of threads that have penis in the title too. If the context is inappropriate, I'll do it every time.

As for your 'Giant Disgusting Penis' example, it is a great example. . . of the fact that I am not on here 24/7 to look at every thread. I missed it, simple as that, it happens. I did the same search you did, and saw the other threads as well. Again, a case of a thread that was short-lived on the front page of the Other forum that I/we simply missed.

If this isn't a defining example of hilarious irony, then I don't know what is.

It is also an example of how it really is impossible for this place to be Moderated in (what I feel is) a meaningful and legit way. I don't want to point fingers at any of the Mods - they do their best. But the concept (as practiced here) of Modding is silly to me. I haven't seen one Mod - not one - use their powers (or fail to use them) in a way that consistently makes sense. Again, this isn't a criticism of them. I could not do a better job than they do. Nor do I resent their attempts to do their job. I just think that the whole system is deeply flawed. I really hope I am not making any enemies by saying this. The truth is that I *like* most of the Mods, as people/contributors. Anyway, scott, you may get an answer that lists specific rules/guidelines, but don't look forward to seeing the rules upheld all the time.

Caustic, I don't think your post should offend any of us.

But if your point is that "can the system enable perfect modderating?..with the answer being no"...who can argue with that? Of course it can't. In the above example, my perspective is a little different than Bushdogs.

The flaws are that none of us are on here 24/7 and none of us read every thread. We do rely upon users emailing us if they have a concern, and in that...the entire userbase shares some responsibility. I get a lot of emails (not all will I agree with) notifying me about something wrong, that I would not have otherwise seen.

The other flaw is that we are all different. There is no months of training or handbooks to follow. Maybe it would be a good idea to develop some written standards, but even then...so much of it is a grey area and new stuff comes up all the time. We all see things a little differently, so we have different takes on things.

So we agree the system is flawed. But what is the alternative? A crappy moderating system is still better than no system, right? I have been around boards/forums with no moderating, and they eventually deteriorate into juvenile name calling is my experience.

So, in that regard, I disagree that the moderating is not meaningful and legit as compared to any alternative.

Well thanks, randy. I generally think of you as one of the more reasonably level-headed Mods. And I wouldn't expect you to take offense. You seem like a mellow dude.

Well, I do think that the "system" can be improved. If your perspective is different from Bushdog's, then why (this really isn't calling him out) does he have what amounts to absolute power? The way that it is presented to us is that each individual Mod has total control of a situation. I have only been here for a couple of months, but I have yet to see (or hear of) an example where somehting a Mod did was reversed or changed or even admitted to be a mistake. When you admit that you all have different perspectives you highlight the need for a system where some sort of vote or other consensus is needed for certain things. It also really wouldn't hurt for Mods to sometimes say "I was wrong". If one Mod does something that upsets or confuses the members here and the other Mods might have done it differently, then what sort of protection for the members is there? I know it isn't life-and-death, but it is a concern.

Well, I think that if a handful of members e-mail the mods asking that a thread title be changed or something, then the mods can change the thread title and say in a post that it was done because some people really were offended. Of course we have a shared responsibility to ourselves and each other in this forum. But Mods have tools, they have powers. I have seen Modding here that comes perilously close to "I am offended and I am closing/changing/deleting".

There should absolutely be written guidlines for Mods. It is unthinkable to me that there are none. Again, the way this comes off is that you guys all float around like Lone Rangers, not communicating with each other. I know better, of course. I know that you guys talk all the time. But the gray area where new things come up need to be addressed as they come up, and what would be the harm in having threads where the Mods asked members for our opinions? I think most of us are pretty civillized and could come up with a good set of rules that we would like our Moderators to enforce.

Yes, we agree that the system is flawed. And crappy Modding is not *necessarily* better than none. I actually have a lot of suggestions (arrogant, huh?) as to how ours could be better. God, this post is taking forever. I am getting swamped with calls and stuff at work. You have my word that I will continue this discussion tomorrow, if it interests you. Let me for now say that I didn't mean to portray Moderation as meaningless or illegitimate. I just wanted to call attention to some of the flaws in *our* system.

To be continued...

Just a short note, it's not that there are no written rules, there are. It's the legal disclaimer/rules of the forum that is at the bottom of every page of the forum: http://www.dvdtalk.com/legal.html .

We are also all ultimately accountable to Geoff, the site owner.

But the interpretation and application of the rules leaves room for some interpretation and use of personal judgement by the individual moderator. This is the unwritten part, and it really just requires time and practice to find the best fit for the forum you moderate.

Also, each forum has it's own "tone" and special set of rules that have been adopted to address the specific needs of each forum.

Since these are usually moderator generated, they are also mostly taught through enforcement, rather than being specifically posted because moderators don't have the ability to make a permanent change to the posted forum rules.

Part of the problem with putting up more rules in writing would be figuring out how to personalize them for each forum, and also getting this on Geoff's "to do" list. And in truth, given the length of this list and the fact that the forums have done fairly well with the basic rules that have been around since the site began, I can understand it not being made a priority.

But we've always been very open to member feedback. We do this, after all, to make the forums more enjoyable for the members of the forum. So if you have suggestions and/or ideas, please share them with us.

-David

Well, part of the reason we're mods is because we've shown sound judgement in the past. Mistakes are infrequent. But when they occur, we own up to them. I was too hard on a member just the other day and made a very public apology for it. Moderators do apologize.

As for your concern, it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Take the vagina example. I am going to pull 'vagina' from a thread title if I think it is not contextually appropriate. Randy might not. I'm very sensitive to workday cubicle dwellers who could get in some crap if they got caught with stuff on their screen. What harm is there in having it censored? Who really suffers? Or, take the other side, is it the end of the world if it is unchanged? This isn't surgery here.

Bannings and Suspensions are another matter. Aside from cut and dried cases where someone is a returning banned member (and thus rebanned), I cannot think of any serious administrative action that has taken place without moderators consulting with one another.

If you have any specific issues you are welcome to discuss them. Otherwise it seems like not that big a deal.

Perhaps not in the past couple of months, but I've seen quite a few closed threads, primarily in the Other forum, re-opened after discussion with a mod or with Geoff.

The only change I would suggest -- and <i>please</i> don't take this personally -- is that Bushdog would handle criticism with a little more tact and not resort to sarcasm or condescending comments so quickly. From a couple of recent threads in Forum Feedback:

That last one in particular bothered me because I <i>do</i> enjoy and care about DVD Talk, as I thought my numerous posts in Forum Feedback would indicate. None of the posts that these were in response to were insulting or excessively harsh in any way. Let me say again that this isn't meant as any sort of personal attack, but I personally don't find messages such as those quotes above to be befitting a moderator. YMMV.

-Adam
<small>I knooooow I'm going to get a harsh reply or e-mail to this message. I already regret posting it.</small>

"I knooooow I'm going to get a harsh reply or e-mail to this message. I already regret posting it."

You could always delete it if you were really sorry.

If people aren't big boys and girls who cannot take well deserved criticism then that is too bad. I am not your Mommy or Daddy, I am not here to love and support you. I'm here to make sure rules are followed.

And if you wonder why I make a sarcastic comment about someone making a public event of calling a mod to task then read what you wrote above. Is that really appropriate for a group consumption?

Try not to be so sensitive.

FYI: Sarcasm and condescension are not effective moderation techniques. They're rude and obnoxious. Just some well-deserved criticism aimed your direction.

-Matt

Thanks for your opinion. If you wish to continue please feel free to do so through email.

To anyone above who posted, sorry, I'm going to have to close it. I was eagar to contunue the dialogue but once the peanut gallery steps in, it is time to shut it down.

Feel free to email me if you care to discuss.

Closing.