11-05-2005, 06:50 AM
Hello All,
I have talked to the moderators and recieved emails regarding some recent events (threads) and felt it better to post BFT's position on these issues rather then respond indvidually. Further the moderators have agreed not to lock this post or delete anyones replies (provided everyone vioces there comments following the format of not attacking indiviuals personally but focusing on the piont they are trying to make and obviously refrains from obscenisties) in the hope that knowing BFT's officail position on this matter and with everyone getting a last thread to say thier piece that hopefully this issue can be put to rest.
Let me first apologize for taking so long to reply to those of you who emailed but I did want to take some time and read the posts in question before replying. Further, based on the amount of email we recieved I felt it better to make our position public to answer any potentail questions down the road.
I will try to answer all the questions that were emailed to us regarding the matters at hand and shed some light on our position regarding moderator discreation within their perspective boards.
I do understand the nature of the posts that started this incident and did review them. That being said, I am not going to spend much time debating the issues that started the heated topic because it really is secondary to why users were banned.
For those of you who emailed and wanted to know our position. Our websites officail position on all issues regarding the following of state and fedral fish and game laws is, as it has always been, "we uniquevically support the compliance of all regulations".
One of the real issues at hand here is not the fact that anyone disagreed with the actions of the poster and not that they vioced thier opinions about this matter but how they vioced thier opinions.
In emails to me and on threads in question some users mantain that thier was no attacking and no profanity on the posts in question. For the record, that is inaccurate some of the replies were removed and some were locked but there was profanity and attacks being made on other users. I know the position of some people is "what you think isattacking, I think is comunicating". Well that is why this site has moderators. During the course of moderating a moderator issues warnings when posts are going towards being attacking or profane and when users choose to ignore those guidlines one of the potenatil consequences is being banned.
Some of you may or may not agree with where a moderator(s) draws the line and actually bans or repremands a user but our position on that subject from early on has been all opionions are welcome on this forums in thier appropriate board in a productive non threatining manner. The key words in that sentence are "in a productive non threatining manner". The whole reason these boards were intailly started was at the request of our users (back then this was an online tackle store) who had left other boards because they were regualrly insulted and berated when asking simple questions. The moderators of this board work extremely hard for no pay or reward but solely for the love of fishing and the outdoors to ensure this remains a productive format for anglers. We recogonize that different moderators have different opinions about how a board should be ran and encourage them to run the boards to fit thier own personalties so that the many hours they spend moderating are enjoyable, friendly and informative. In the case of the Utah moderators I can safely say that all of the moderaotrs combined since the launch of this site have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours ensuring that the 85,000+ posts in the Utah board are just that "enjoyable, friendly and informative". With as many users as the Utah forum has and with the amount of posts, it is clear that a mass majority like, are comfortable with or at the very least respect the resposbility a moderator has and "play by the rules".
Moderators and users, users and users, modertors and modertors, bft and modertors, and bft and users will all disagree on some things and that is o.k. even welcomed here but how we disagree is important. It is understandable that some users and moderators will feel very passinate about certain subjects but as in any large community we need to excercise restarint in how we vioce our disagreemnet. I know that your Utah moderators try to maintain the objectivness wheather they agree or disagree because they clearly understand that far more people benefit from a format that excercises some descreation to serve the many users that enjoy the "enjoyable, friendly and informative" format. As a company we also feel that is the most productive and informative format. It is true that this format is not for everyone and we relize we loose some users to the "anything goes" foramt but we decieded early we would trade quality posts for quantity.
The quality -vs- quanitiy posts has served this community well over the years and for a Forum with as many users as this one there is relitively little conflict because most users wheather they agree or disagree see the value in guidlines when posting. A great example of this is when PETA launched thier "Fishing Hurts" campaign we invited them to this board to debate the issue (they never replied so it never actually happend). My piont is that had we not been as comfartable as we are with the fact that our user base would represent fishing in a intelligent, respectful manner without the debate turning into a bashing session we would not have not been comforatble proposing the debate.
As friendly as the format is on BFT we still at any time have regularly over 100 non registered users using these forums. Some of these users have had bad expierences on other boards and are apprehensive to register. By governing how disagreements are handled on thier forums moderators are encouraging these users to give these boards a try. BFT supports and encourages moderators to keep this "enjoyable, friendly and informative" format as do MOST users.
As mentioned in one of the emails I recieved and regarding the matter of "squashing a hot post", there are many boards you can go that need the activity that badly. Our idea of a hot post doesn't include profanity or insults.
On the issue of first amendment, there are a few things I would like to say. First, statements made that are offensive, attacking or profane in my opinion are offensive to the first ammendament. Thousands have died for our right to excercise the first ammendament and making statements with no regard for how they affect other people marginalizes there sacrafice. If we can't even pause for a moment and make the small sacrafice of excerciseing some restaraint when talking to others how much respect do we really have for those who made the huge sacrafices to make the first ammendament possible? Lastly, on the first amendment people can say what ever you want but the REALLY BIG POINT THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T GET IS, "THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T OBLIGATE OUR COMPANY TO PUBLICIZE YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!"
I don't really like to go down this road but, in one email I recieved there was mention to the fact that if a user is banned there is nothing we can do (not from the actaul user that was banned in this instance but someone who had an opinion about how this was handled) and that user can get back on the forum and do whatever they want. It is true a resourcful person can get back on the forum after being banned but to the user that sent me this email "don't be niave". If a user interferes with the format of this forum in a harassing manner it takes a few clicks of the mouse, a couple phone calls, one email with a copy of posts, and about 2 days and that user would have far more trouble then they care to.
In closing, I would like to say that we have over 90 message boards with over 30 moderators in this forum and disagrements are welcome but respecting others is part of the format of these forums. You can be right in an argument and it still does not give you the right to be disrespectful and it won't be tolerated at these forums.
In the past when users have strongly disagreed with how a moderator runs a board I have made the suggestion to start another board in this forum with a simlair format to the board in question and if they feel so strongly that the board they are on is being poorly moderated then many of the users in that board will frequent thier board instead. The problem is that once you are banned BFT will not overrule a moderator and reinstate you, so its to late. If you are having problems with a moderator and feel you would like us to intervine please contact us before you are banned.
If you have been banned, I would encourage you to work it out with the moderator that banned you.
[signature]
I have talked to the moderators and recieved emails regarding some recent events (threads) and felt it better to post BFT's position on these issues rather then respond indvidually. Further the moderators have agreed not to lock this post or delete anyones replies (provided everyone vioces there comments following the format of not attacking indiviuals personally but focusing on the piont they are trying to make and obviously refrains from obscenisties) in the hope that knowing BFT's officail position on this matter and with everyone getting a last thread to say thier piece that hopefully this issue can be put to rest.
Let me first apologize for taking so long to reply to those of you who emailed but I did want to take some time and read the posts in question before replying. Further, based on the amount of email we recieved I felt it better to make our position public to answer any potentail questions down the road.
I will try to answer all the questions that were emailed to us regarding the matters at hand and shed some light on our position regarding moderator discreation within their perspective boards.
I do understand the nature of the posts that started this incident and did review them. That being said, I am not going to spend much time debating the issues that started the heated topic because it really is secondary to why users were banned.
For those of you who emailed and wanted to know our position. Our websites officail position on all issues regarding the following of state and fedral fish and game laws is, as it has always been, "we uniquevically support the compliance of all regulations".
One of the real issues at hand here is not the fact that anyone disagreed with the actions of the poster and not that they vioced thier opinions about this matter but how they vioced thier opinions.
In emails to me and on threads in question some users mantain that thier was no attacking and no profanity on the posts in question. For the record, that is inaccurate some of the replies were removed and some were locked but there was profanity and attacks being made on other users. I know the position of some people is "what you think isattacking, I think is comunicating". Well that is why this site has moderators. During the course of moderating a moderator issues warnings when posts are going towards being attacking or profane and when users choose to ignore those guidlines one of the potenatil consequences is being banned.
Some of you may or may not agree with where a moderator(s) draws the line and actually bans or repremands a user but our position on that subject from early on has been all opionions are welcome on this forums in thier appropriate board in a productive non threatining manner. The key words in that sentence are "in a productive non threatining manner". The whole reason these boards were intailly started was at the request of our users (back then this was an online tackle store) who had left other boards because they were regualrly insulted and berated when asking simple questions. The moderators of this board work extremely hard for no pay or reward but solely for the love of fishing and the outdoors to ensure this remains a productive format for anglers. We recogonize that different moderators have different opinions about how a board should be ran and encourage them to run the boards to fit thier own personalties so that the many hours they spend moderating are enjoyable, friendly and informative. In the case of the Utah moderators I can safely say that all of the moderaotrs combined since the launch of this site have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours ensuring that the 85,000+ posts in the Utah board are just that "enjoyable, friendly and informative". With as many users as the Utah forum has and with the amount of posts, it is clear that a mass majority like, are comfortable with or at the very least respect the resposbility a moderator has and "play by the rules".
Moderators and users, users and users, modertors and modertors, bft and modertors, and bft and users will all disagree on some things and that is o.k. even welcomed here but how we disagree is important. It is understandable that some users and moderators will feel very passinate about certain subjects but as in any large community we need to excercise restarint in how we vioce our disagreemnet. I know that your Utah moderators try to maintain the objectivness wheather they agree or disagree because they clearly understand that far more people benefit from a format that excercises some descreation to serve the many users that enjoy the "enjoyable, friendly and informative" format. As a company we also feel that is the most productive and informative format. It is true that this format is not for everyone and we relize we loose some users to the "anything goes" foramt but we decieded early we would trade quality posts for quantity.
The quality -vs- quanitiy posts has served this community well over the years and for a Forum with as many users as this one there is relitively little conflict because most users wheather they agree or disagree see the value in guidlines when posting. A great example of this is when PETA launched thier "Fishing Hurts" campaign we invited them to this board to debate the issue (they never replied so it never actually happend). My piont is that had we not been as comfartable as we are with the fact that our user base would represent fishing in a intelligent, respectful manner without the debate turning into a bashing session we would not have not been comforatble proposing the debate.
As friendly as the format is on BFT we still at any time have regularly over 100 non registered users using these forums. Some of these users have had bad expierences on other boards and are apprehensive to register. By governing how disagreements are handled on thier forums moderators are encouraging these users to give these boards a try. BFT supports and encourages moderators to keep this "enjoyable, friendly and informative" format as do MOST users.
As mentioned in one of the emails I recieved and regarding the matter of "squashing a hot post", there are many boards you can go that need the activity that badly. Our idea of a hot post doesn't include profanity or insults.
On the issue of first amendment, there are a few things I would like to say. First, statements made that are offensive, attacking or profane in my opinion are offensive to the first ammendament. Thousands have died for our right to excercise the first ammendament and making statements with no regard for how they affect other people marginalizes there sacrafice. If we can't even pause for a moment and make the small sacrafice of excerciseing some restaraint when talking to others how much respect do we really have for those who made the huge sacrafices to make the first ammendament possible? Lastly, on the first amendment people can say what ever you want but the REALLY BIG POINT THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T GET IS, "THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T OBLIGATE OUR COMPANY TO PUBLICIZE YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!"
I don't really like to go down this road but, in one email I recieved there was mention to the fact that if a user is banned there is nothing we can do (not from the actaul user that was banned in this instance but someone who had an opinion about how this was handled) and that user can get back on the forum and do whatever they want. It is true a resourcful person can get back on the forum after being banned but to the user that sent me this email "don't be niave". If a user interferes with the format of this forum in a harassing manner it takes a few clicks of the mouse, a couple phone calls, one email with a copy of posts, and about 2 days and that user would have far more trouble then they care to.
In closing, I would like to say that we have over 90 message boards with over 30 moderators in this forum and disagrements are welcome but respecting others is part of the format of these forums. You can be right in an argument and it still does not give you the right to be disrespectful and it won't be tolerated at these forums.
In the past when users have strongly disagreed with how a moderator runs a board I have made the suggestion to start another board in this forum with a simlair format to the board in question and if they feel so strongly that the board they are on is being poorly moderated then many of the users in that board will frequent thier board instead. The problem is that once you are banned BFT will not overrule a moderator and reinstate you, so its to late. If you are having problems with a moderator and feel you would like us to intervine please contact us before you are banned.
If you have been banned, I would encourage you to work it out with the moderator that banned you.
[signature]
]