I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that O/T was a part of the forum when I joined in 2001. I don't know if it was there on Day 1 but it seems to have been there all along.
Even though I no longer post in O/T (as I got SO tired of being subjected to the endless political bickering), I wouldn't want to see that section of the forum eliminated. Creating O/T was a good idea as it helps to keep most of the non-tech discussion out of the tech threads. I don't think many of the non-original members realize that there was no O/T when PFF first started.
Tell yourself that if you wish, but over the years I've literally begged ex-members to return to PFF... but they'd had enough of the abuse in O/T. I've been here a long time, I know a lot of the members. I finally had enough of O/T myself at the end of last year, and if it wasn't for the fact that I still have and enjoy several Fieros, I would've left PFF as well. However, in my case I decided it might be more prudent simply to avoid the aggravation of O/T and focus instead on the tech forums. I've been very happy with my decision. If O/T changes due to the fallout from Google's guidelines, perhaps I'll return. In the meantime, the focus for all members is to help figure out how to satisfy Google that Cliff deserves to have ads and revenue returned to this site.
guess you older folks never learnt this.. sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,, Anyone that claims abuse, is only fooling themselves and has deeper issues And because I offered idea on fixes here, and you don't want o/t nuked and then starting fresh, you and your old members that lurk now, re rated me and a few others.. still doing all you can to boot anyone that doesn't go lock step with you..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 04-27-2016).]
guess you older folks never learnt this.. sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,, Anyone that claims abuse, is only fooling themselves and has deeper issues And because I offered idea on fixes here, and you don't want o/t nuked and then starting fresh, you and your old members that lurk now, re rated me and a few others.. still doing all you can to boot anyone that doesn't go lock step with you..
I've never understood this either, and I'm "older folk" in terms of age and membership. The ones who cry the loudest about the vitriol and 'abuse' in T/OT are the ones who keep engaging and then claim that T/OT is a bad place. If I see a topic that doesn't interest me, I don't open it. If an interesting discussion degrades into schoolyard insults, I leave it. If a topic outright offends me, I close the browser window and do something that matters. If people prove themselves to be racist or they offend me in some way, I just don't engage with them - same as I would do in person. What is to be gained by banging your head against the wall? There's way to much e-peen on the internet in general. It's an outrage mentality and it's not really 'discussion' at all - it's another form of anonymous bullying. You're not going to change someone's mind on a topic by stating over and over again how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. Some jump in just to be contrarian on any subject, like they WANT to argue - then they complain about the argument. It's like they can't stop themselves from replying.
I don't go on rating sprees over peoples' opinions - just their attitude. I think just about everyone I've ever rated negative is already banned.
Apologies for the OT rant. I'd like to see this place survive.
.......... I offered idea on fixes here, and you don't want o/t nuked and then starting fresh, you and your old members that lurk now, re rated me and a few others.. still doing all you can to boot anyone that doesn't go lock step with you..
I have seen a lot of sharp disagreements on PFF O/T without the ratings bar getting any serious movement. But one thing that never changes is the people who spend so much time focusing on their rating are usually those who already know that they challenge the boundaries between disagreement and pushing buttons. I can only rate someone negative 1 time and the only way to rate them negative again is to change it, then change it back. Once people have rated you with a negative the only way for you to get more negatives requires that you add to the list of people who felt inclined to do so.
Here is something to consider about the ratings system. how many ratings do you have. Can you name that many people who frequent the O/T section. Maybe the ratings have more to do with behavior than a particular forum or topic. I have seen more ratings result from the treatment of people than from a difference of opinion. I don't know how the rating system works but I wonder how many ratings were given by people who are banned, no longer participate or just plain forgot they rated anyone.
But apparently, the ratings system is not the reason google has pulled advertising. Hope we hear more about the progress on the recovery effort soon. I don't know how the community can come together without knowing what to focus on. So far the only thing I've done is to google my own username.
site:fiero.nl username
to find posts/replies I made or participated in. I'm simply editing words that border on violation of both PFF and Google. I don't know if it will help, but that is the permission given to members. If there is another way to help, share it please. Obviously, I can't edit archived posts/replies. Are those to be reported to Cliff?
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 04-27-2016).]
I think the site could offer some type of memberships. We have alot of members, various levels of membership perhaps could help. Worst case scenario, "nuke" what needs to be nuked. I second that theres no way you or everyone on the site in their free time can delete every post thats inappropriate. There is just too much content... But, that being said... google employees don't just click through forum pages and look word for word to target what is in violation to them... bots do all the heavy lifting. Perhaps someone knows a programmer that can use google to target keywords (words that would most likely be in a post that violates googles rules) then, perhaps get moderators on this site that you trust. These moderators can review the content that was provided by searching for keywords and have the ability to delete or modify it. This would only fix *everything* if the site was nuked and it was like this from the beginning, but perhaps a phone call to google and speaking with a human being, that can review your site and listen to your plans and statements, would be able to help or bring some proposition to mind. Just my opinion. Id really hate to see this site go. I feel this site accounts for the majority of fiero enthusiasts left in the world
------------------ 87' GT 5 speed 😤 16 years old My IG for daily motivation: Alpha_Photos
Hey Cliff, since Google has code that filters through a site & identifies objectionable content, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine applying that code to filter incoming submissions.
A warning message could be provided to the poster much like the PIP oversize message. The poster could then alter the post to make it acceptable. That could prevent a disgruntled person from shutting PFF down, considering that they now know how.
Objectionable content could be blocked before it's on the site. Might as well accept the unavoidable censorship up-front.
Your thoughts?
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
That is one of the ideas I'm toying with. But it's hard to determine where blocking content based on common sense ends and censorship starts.
Anyone else have a comment on the incoming filter idea?
It's not uncommon for a person to go into a thread, reply with "I disagree" and get a response of "you are the single reason America is in the toilet you liberal yellow belly loser!!."
I guess the first person should have stayed out of the OT thread because the response should have been expected? Now going back in for more punishment? No, they would be best to leave the thread. That I agree. OT is not intended to be civil or fair.
Anywho, the question now is what Cliff can do to save the forum given the varying willingness to comply with some standards.
Edit: To be fair, sometimes the response is "you jack-booted Nazi skin-head thug. Look around you, your world is dying and your head is in the sand. Oh, all you see is sand."
An OT rumble ensues.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 04-27-2016).]
I don't recall seeing in this thread where Cliff said anything about the origins of O/T... maybe I missed it, but there is lots of speculations and recollections by members but none of that is canon.
So in other words, despite the fact that I witnessed first-hand the introduction of O/T maybe a year after PFF had been around, my word isn't good enough for you. Fine, I won't waste my time again trying to clarify anything for you.
I might be miss-remembering. But didn't Cliff have a data loss / crash back in 99 or 2000? Because my original screen name "krzwolff" stopped working. I had to resign up later when I start posting again. Anyway I seem to remember that being around the time OT got started. Again, I'm probably not remembering correctly, seeing as the that was 17 years ago.
There have been lots of people on here that helped me a lot at different times. Some really good people, but they either stopped coming on or might have even gotten banned because of stupid reasons. Not saying all were like that. I didn't exactly follow all discussions. But I know one great guy that I had met in Shreveport got banned due to one topic in OT mainly because someone had an opposing view, and that person had a longer history here and more "friends" than he did. His rating sank him from that one thread, or at least it seemed like it.
Anyone else have a comment on the incoming filter idea?
Unless such software already exists in open license form, the effort to create it would require a team the size of... Google. Their bots and algorithms are a form of AI, honed over millions of pages and billions of words, detecting phrases, and parsing content in ways we probably couldn't predict without thousands of hours of testing. I don't see it being viable unless Cliff is a coding god. How could he write code that detects if a link provided in a post goes to questionable content? Whatever filter you create, people will find a way around it. The time Cliff would spend creating such a thing would be better spent reading every single post himself.
If this is salvageable, the answer is us. We need to be better at self-policing. Cliff could put a "Report this post" flag so he could be easily alerted if something goes off, but how many would hit that button just because their feelings are hurt? WE have to make it worthwhile for Cliff to keep this thing going, not ask him to invest more time, money, and effort.
Originally posted by TK: OT is not intended to be civil or fair.
Fair? No. But civil? Certainly is intended to be civil. It is in fact, the very first item on the list of Posting Rules.
Problem is, there are no one capable of enforcing those rules, except for Cliff, and as pointed out plenty times already, he's not got the time (and probably no desire either) to sift through all the trash to deal with it. This has of course lead to a very hostile environment, and lots of animosity across the entire forum, because the dumpster is overflowing.
Chill out Pat, I just said I didn't see where CLIFF stated the history of O/T. We all know that history can be told many ways and there are many sides to every story.
Frankly it's attitudes like yours that have poisoned PFF. Your tone and words are insulting. Next time I see your name on any thread I will be highly disinclined to help in any way. Congratulations for helping to destroy PFF.
Wow, interesting how you've conveniently twisted this whole exchange around. You completely dismiss what I have to say about whether or not O/T was here from the start of PFF (despite the fact I was a active member here prior to and when the creation of O/T occurred!)... and then you have the gall to criticize my attitude and contributions to the forum. Nice.
[EDIT] Thanks for the negs. Keep them coming!
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-27-2016).]
Fair? No. But civil? Certainly is intended to be civil. It is in fact, the very first item on the list of Posting Rules.
Problem is, there are no one capable of enforcing those rules, except for Cliff, and as pointed out plenty times already, he's not got the time (and probably no desire either) to sift through all the trash to deal with it. This has of course lead to a very hostile environment, and lots of animosity across the entire forum, because the dumpster is overflowing.
Yes, maybe (un)civil was a bad choice but being uncivil only gets you banned when people vote you off the island. Reality is different and deciding what is uncivil is a matter of opinion. In any "community" there are uncivil people.
I might be miss-remembering. But didn't Cliff have a data loss / crash back in 99 or 2000? Because my original screen name "krzwolff" stopped working. I had to resign up later when I start posting again. Anyway I seem to remember that being around the time OT got started. Again, I'm probably not remembering correctly, seeing as the that was 17 years ago.
...
I seem to recall something like that but I don't think our logins were lost. I registered in Aug 99 and somewhere in 2001 or 2002 jacked up my password and registered again under my initials.
Originally posted by TK: Yes, maybe (un)civil was a bad choice but being uncivil only gets you banned when people vote you off the island. Reality is different and deciding what is uncivil is a matter of opinion. In any "community" there are uncivil people.
It's not a matter of opinion when there is a written rule which clearly specifies where the line is drawn. Anything which meets or exceeds that line is clearly uncivil.
However, while that might account for general discussion, it doesn't account for content. However, several other of the posting rules do. So many of the threads and posts in O/T are in gross violations of the Terms of Use as stated in the rules:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this messageboard to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You grant this messageboard the right to modify your posts, remove offensive material, modify your post title to accurately reflect content, remove vulgar comments, remove insults, or delete any other content deemed inappropriate, all at my discretion.
It's not a matter of opinion when there is a written rule which clearly specifies where the line is drawn. Anything which meets or exceeds that line is clearly uncivil.
However, while that might account for general discussion, it doesn't account for content. However, several other of the posting rules do. So many of the threads and posts in O/T are in gross violations of the Terms of Use as stated in the rules:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this messageboard to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You grant this messageboard the right to modify your posts, remove offensive material, modify your post title to accurately reflect content, remove vulgar comments, remove insults, or delete any other content deemed inappropriate, all at my discretion.
No civil! Of course we do all of the other stuff too.
Seriously, I agree the rules say to not do that stuff and we ignore them at every turn. My point is that OT isn't where you can expect anyone to adhere to those rules.
I'm only making a point, not trying to start an argument.
Originally posted by TK: No civil! Of course we do all of the other stuff too.
Seriously, I agree the rules say to not do that stuff and we ignore them at every turn. My point is that OT isn't where you can expect anyone to adhere to those rules.
I'm only making a point, not trying to start an argument.
And I'm also making a point.
My point is that OT is where you should expect anyone to adhere to those rules, just as you should expect them to anywhere else on this site, as they are placed prominently at the top of OT just as they are in here. Also, that the problem is not limited to OT, even if that's where it most prominently exists. The people who constantly break those rules in OT, are also breaking them in GFC and Tech as well, not to mention the Mall.
Originally posted by Gary W: Unless such software already exists in open license form, the effort to create it would require a team the size of... Google.
It seems logical that the resources Google has to respond to advertising customers' website issues could be minimal if their clients used incoming submission filters. If they can find objectionable material in websites 'after the fact', maybe they have an incoming submission filter system. It seems like a good solution to me...
My point is that OT is where you should expect anyone to adhere to those rules, just as you should expect them to anywhere else on this site, as they are placed prominently at the top of OT just as they are in here. Also, that the problem is not limited to OT, even if that's where it most prominently exists. The people who constantly break those rules in OT, are also breaking them in GFC and Tech as well, not to mention the Mall.
Yes, I too expected it and it didn't happen. I think you and I are saying the same thing in different ways. Since the forum is self moderated it would go on and on before enough negs were mustered to throw the offender out - if ever. That's not a way to enforce the rules because many people were fine with it.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 04-27-2016).]
I can only rate someone negative 1 time and the only way to rate them negative again is to change it, then change it back.
Yes and No. Yes you can only give one negative that shows numerically. However, with the addition of little triangle on your bar, you can re-submit your negative again and while it won't cause the numerical value to change it will nudge that arrow to the left. Once the arrow gets to far to the left your banned. On the same token though, someone can re-submit a positive rating and nudge that little arrowhead back to the right like I did for him. This can be done every unspecified number of days according to Cliff and your nudge will eventually fall away after another unspecified number of days. Cliff implemented the ability to do that because people were "hiding" behind their green bars because it would have taken so many negatives to ban them they could pretty much post whatever they wanted if nobody sent a comment about it to Cliff. Prior to that if I recall correctly you had to reach a certain percentage of red to green to be banned. So if we assume you needed 75% of your ratings to be negative to get banned and you've got 300 positive ratings and 150 negatives you'd need another 300 negatives to get you banned. That's just not going to happen on a forum with a smaller number of active members especially when you consider how many of them had already submitted a rating. Witness Uhlanistan (sp) who's derogatory rants went unchecked for so many years until Cliff added the arrowhead and he was banned within months of it.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-27-2016).]
Yes and No. Yes you can only give one negative that shows numerically. However, with the addition of little triangle on your bar, you can re-submit your negative again and while it won't cause the numerical value to change it will nudge that arrow to the left.
Originally posted by TK: Yes, I too expected it and it didn't happen. I think you and I are saying the same thing in different ways. Since the forum is self moderated it would go on and on before enough negs were mustered to throw the offender out - if ever. That's not a way to enforce the rules because many people were fine with it.
Yes. And part of the problem is that some of the worst offenders in this respect, have a lot of green. So while the ratings system was a good idea in theory, but in practice it's also self-defeating.
Give us the ability to flag individual posts, and make the number low to get one nuked. When a post gets deleted, then Cliff can review and reinstate if he feels it has merit.
Yes. And part of the problem is that some of the worst offenders in this respect, have a lot of green. So while the ratings system was a good idea in theory, but in practice it's also self-defeating.
I'm sorry for the lack of updates but I have been extremely busy this past week. I don't know which deity I pee'd off but it seems like everything that could go wrong, has these past few days. For instance, I also got a cease and desist letter from whatsapp for my whatsappview.com site. And that's just one of many things that has been taking up my time.
Back on topic. I have written a program which allows me to only view the media of a specific thread. I can then mark any image that might be against Google's policies and the program will then delete that image from the thread. It will then search for more occurrences of the same images in other threads and will delete them from there as well. Of course it's still nearly impossible to rid the forum from every offending image this way, but hopefully this (in combination with the planned "report this post" option) will be enough to please Google.
I would also like to thank everybody that has made a donation the past week. It really helps a lot because it buys me time to clean up the forum. And all the people who have sent me PM's with suspect threads: thank you too!
And even though I'm unable to thank you all personally right now, I really do appreciate the combined effort.
And that's just one of many things that has been taking up my time.
