Warning: This forum operates on the principles of truth...

[drealm]

Warning: This forum operates on the principles of truth, free speech and freethought without politically correct censorship.

Winston what does this include or exclude?

Seeing as people are banned this cannot be entirely inclusive. I don't see a list of rules anywhere. In your own words can you describe what's going over the line?

[Winston]

It's all within reason. There aren't taboo topics. It's more like basic civil behavior. There is a thread of forum rules. Here it is:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

I'll sticky it.

[Rock]

It's all within reason. There aren't taboo topics. It's more like basic civil behavior. There is a thread of forum rules. Here it is:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

I'll sticky it.

OK, great that maybe this conversation will get re-started. Here's what's in the thread:

Although this is generally a free speech open forum, there are some basic common sense rules that we need to establish here.

1. No posting pictures with nudity in them, such as images of private parts fully exposed. Personally, I don't mind them, but they are not safe for those browsing this forum from work. Plus, such pictures get us blocked in certain countries and public library terminals.

2. No posting pictures of anything excessively obscene, graphically disturbing or revolting. We are not here to repel people or gross them out.

3. No unduly disruptive behavior that would cause us to lose other members.

4. No harassment or unnecessary hostility toward other members without valid cause.

5. No lying or presenting blatantly false information with an intent to deceive.

6. Posting links is permissible as long as they are useful and relevant to the discussion. No spam links by hired internet marketing contractors.

Any abuse or violation of the above may result in warnings, temporary or permanent bans, depending on the gravity of the situation.


1 seems very clear and unambiguous.

2 is pretty clear too. I guess you mean images like some of E_Irirzzary's former avatars, lol? But seriously, you mean photos you would see in places like rotten.com, correct? That's one thing I believe can be determined by a forum poll and majority vote when dealing with something in the gray zone. If it causes any problems with Google or your sponsors, it should go as well.

3 needs to be hashed out a lot more. I mean, as the rule stands, you could argue that zboy1's behavior caused us to loose Ghost so he should be banned too. Make things a lot clearer here. Maybe you should also include a fluid list of disallowed words.

4 is difficult because usually what happens is that someone gets offended by something said by another (often relatively innocuous or at least intended that way), he replies back with something a bit stronger, and before you know it, it escalates into a war of words, often with other members joining in and taking sides. This is why it's particularly important to issue warnings and temporary bans before kicking someone off for good. It's hard to avoid unjust subjectivity when you give a lone mod too much leeway to summarily ban posters without warning, it invokes his personal bias way too much.

With 5, it makes total sense once its been proven. Again, a warning followed by temp ban should be issued. But with chronic offenders like jboy who've been proven as frauds, they should definitely be outed cus what they post is deceitful. Funny thing is, I brought the jboy issue to zboy1's attention many months ago via PM. He totally ignored me and didn't do anything. I even offered to show proof.

6 is fine.

A big sticking point with the most recent round of bans was no warnings were given nor were specific infractions cited. And majority in this case favored not banning. It was basically a unilateral decision of one mod whose only justification was that he was getting complaint PMs. Even if there are a few members who wanted those guys gone, is that justice?

[Winston]

You are right Rock. 3 and 4 are in a gray area that is subject to interpretation. But words can do only so much. We could get more descriptive but that would still be subject to interpretation. That's why we need a person with good judgment to determine who is guilty of 3 and 4, and who started it as well.

Same goes for 5 as well. We need one who can evaluate evidence within reason as to whether a claim is false or not. There is no way to perfectly assess what's true and what's not. It's all within reason. That's why we need a person with good sound judgment.

The banning of those four could go either way. You could argue that they should be allowed free speech. But one could argue that they violated some of the above too. It's a matter of interpretation. You could build a case for either one.

Anyway, it's not like Zboy bans a lot of people. He only does this occasionally. So it's nothing to be concerned about yet. He is not the kind of guy who gets a power trip off of banning lots of people.

[Rock]

You are right Rock. 3 and 4 are in a gray area that is subject to interpretation. But words can do only so much. We could get more descriptive but that would still be subject to interpretation. That's why we need a person with good judgment to determine who is guilty of 3 and 4, and who started it as well.

Same goes for 5 as well. We need one who can evaluate evidence within reason as to whether a claim is false or not. There is no way to perfectly assess what's true and what's not. It's all within reason. That's why we need a person with good sound judgment.

The banning of those four could go either way. You could argue that they should be allowed free speech. But one could argue that they violated some of the above too. It's a matter of interpretation. You could build a case for either one.

Anyway, it's not like Zboy bans a lot of people. He only does this occasionally. So it's nothing to be concerned about yet. He is not the kind of guy who gets a power trip off of banning lots of people.

Well if you wanna keep it loose, you should at the very minimum institute second and third chances. Those posters were not clear cut and dried cases. They deserved at least a warning or two. 3 strikes and your out would be simple and a lot more reasonable -

1. official public warning citing the infraction as specifically as possible

2. temp ban citing the second infraction as specifically as possible

3. permanent ban citing the final infraction as specifically as possible

As for zboy1, his banning style is unnerving. Because he'll do nothing for a long time then all of a sudden, boom boom boom, bans out of nowhere. That's actually worse cus it's so unpredictable and arbitrary.

Maybe you have a hard time finding free labor. But all you have to do to keep things somewhat in check is to implement a bit more structure. That would at least reduce mod's personal role in shaping HA.

[zboy1]

You are right Rock. 3 and 4 are in a gray area that is subject to interpretation. But words can do only so much. We could get more descriptive but that would still be subject to interpretation. That's why we need a person with good judgment to determine who is guilty of 3 and 4, and who started it as well.

Same goes for 5 as well. We need one who can evaluate evidence within reason as to whether a claim is false or not. There is no way to perfectly assess what's true and what's not. It's all within reason. That's why we need a person with good sound judgment.

The banning of those four could go either way. You could argue that they should be allowed free speech. But one could argue that they violated some of the above too. It's a matter of interpretation. You could build a case for either one.

Anyway, it's not like Zboy bans a lot of people. He only does this occasionally. So it's nothing to be concerned about yet. He is not the kind of guy who gets a power trip off of banning lots of people.

Well if you wanna keep it loose, you should at the very minimum institute second and third chances. Those posters were not clear cut and dried cases. They deserved at least a warning or two. 3 strikes and your out would be simple and a lot more reasonable -

1. official public warning citing the infraction as specifically as possible

2. temp ban citing the second infraction as specifically as possible

3. permanent ban citing the final infraction as specifically as possible

As for zboy1, his banning style is unnerving. Because he'll do nothing for a long time then all of a sudden, boom boom boom, bans out of nowhere. That's actually worse cus it's so unpredictable and arbitrary.

Maybe you have a hard time finding free labor. But all you have to do to keep things somewhat in check is to implement a bit more structure. That would at least reduce mod's personal role in shaping HA.

Rock, on most other forums, the mods ban whoever they want, no question asked. So, if you think I'm on some 'power trip,' go on other sites and then come back and tell me I'm so bad.

[E Irizarry R&B Singer]

.....2 is pretty clear too. I guess you mean images like some of E_Irirzzary's former avatars, lol? But seriously, you mean photos you would see in places like rotten.com, correct? That's one thing I believe can be determined by a forum poll and majority vote when dealing with something in the gray zone. If it causes any problems with Google or your sponsors, it should go as well......

[Rock]

You are right Rock. 3 and 4 are in a gray area that is subject to interpretation. But words can do only so much. We could get more descriptive but that would still be subject to interpretation. That's why we need a person with good judgment to determine who is guilty of 3 and 4, and who started it as well.

Same goes for 5 as well. We need one who can evaluate evidence within reason as to whether a claim is false or not. There is no way to perfectly assess what's true and what's not. It's all within reason. That's why we need a person with good sound judgment.

The banning of those four could go either way. You could argue that they should be allowed free speech. But one could argue that they violated some of the above too. It's a matter of interpretation. You could build a case for either one.

Anyway, it's not like Zboy bans a lot of people. He only does this occasionally. So it's nothing to be concerned about yet. He is not the kind of guy who gets a power trip off of banning lots of people.

Well if you wanna keep it loose, you should at the very minimum institute second and third chances. Those posters were not clear cut and dried cases. They deserved at least a warning or two. 3 strikes and your out would be simple and a lot more reasonable -

1. official public warning citing the infraction as specifically as possible

2. temp ban citing the second infraction as specifically as possible

3. permanent ban citing the final infraction as specifically as possible

As for zboy1, his banning style is unnerving. Because he'll do nothing for a long time then all of a sudden, boom boom boom, bans out of nowhere. That's actually worse cus it's so unpredictable and arbitrary.

Maybe you have a hard time finding free labor. But all you have to do to keep things somewhat in check is to implement a bit more structure. That would at least reduce mod's personal role in shaping HA.

Rock, on most other forums, the mods ban whoever they want, no question asked. So, if you think I'm on some 'power trip,' go on other sites and then come back and tell me I'm so bad.

This isn't supposed to be like 'most other forums'. That's why I am here and not there.

The only other travel related site I've ever posted in is ISG. The owner and moderator there, Jackson, makes the rules very clear and whenever he deletes a post, he explains the reason(s) in small blue type citing the specific guideline(s) violated. And he seems to only ban people for certain things things which are the biggest no nos on his site (again this is spelled out in his guidelines). With most other repeat offenders, he segregates them to their own thread which other posters are allowed to post on as well or ignore altogether.

Jackson never claimed to embrace free speech the way 'management' at this forum has in the past. But at least his moderating style appears to be very clear, consistent, above board, and fair. You could learn a lot from someone like him if you were really serious about moderating in a professional and objective fashion.

[zboy1]

How long are you going to continue to attack me, Rock? You really want an online confrontation don't you? I gotten support from members like Mr. Peabody, Repatriate, Kai1275, TheAdventurer (aka Terrence), Davewe, NorthAmericanguy, Contrarian Expatriate, and other long-time members, so cool it...

You sure acting like an 'Internet tough guy' aren't you? I'm not going to bother wasting my time responding to your insults anymore...

[Rock]

How long are you going to continue to attack me, Rock? You really want an online confrontation don't you? I gotten support from members like Mr. Peabody, Repatriate, Kai1275, TheAdventurer (aka Terrence), Davewe, NorthAmericanguy, Contrarian Expatriate, and other long-time members, so cool it...

You sure acting like an 'Internet tough guy' aren't you? I'm not going to bother wasting my time responding to your insults anymore...

Fine, your responses haven't been productive or useful anyway. So I'm happy if you remain silent on this.

At this point, I've just been pushing for the type of forum I think would be better by outlining the problem as I see it (which your mod style is a part of) and suggesting detailed solutions. As soon as other people stop posting on those subjects and threads, I'll stop responding. But if the posts and threads stay alive, I WILL respond if I feel so inclined.

[Winston]

You are right Rock. 3 and 4 are in a gray area that is subject to interpretation. But words can do only so much. We could get more descriptive but that would still be subject to interpretation. That's why we need a person with good judgment to determine who is guilty of 3 and 4, and who started it as well.

Same goes for 5 as well. We need one who can evaluate evidence within reason as to whether a claim is false or not. There is no way to perfectly assess what's true and what's not. It's all within reason. That's why we need a person with good sound judgment.

The banning of those four could go either way. You could argue that they should be allowed free speech. But one could argue that they violated some of the above too. It's a matter of interpretation. You could build a case for either one.

Anyway, it's not like Zboy bans a lot of people. He only does this occasionally. So it's nothing to be concerned about yet. He is not the kind of guy who gets a power trip off of banning lots of people.

Well if you wanna keep it loose, you should at the very minimum institute second and third chances. Those posters were not clear cut and dried cases. They deserved at least a warning or two. 3 strikes and your out would be simple and a lot more reasonable -

1. official public warning citing the infraction as specifically as possible

2. temp ban citing the second infraction as specifically as possible

3. permanent ban citing the final infraction as specifically as possible

As for zboy1, his banning style is unnerving. Because he'll do nothing for a long time then all of a sudden, boom boom boom, bans out of nowhere. That's actually worse cus it's so unpredictable and arbitrary.

Maybe you have a hard time finding free labor. But all you have to do to keep things somewhat in check is to implement a bit more structure. That would at least reduce mod's personal role in shaping HA.

Ok that's a valid point. I believe that Zboy has issued warnings in the past to people before banning them. For some reason, he didn't this time. Did you ask him why? Why don't you ask him why in this thread? If you ask politely, he might explain why.

Perhaps they were banned for reasons other than behavior?

Why do you care about those four posters so much? It doesn't affect you in any way.

I can't analyze everything a moderator does. Unless there is a very good reason. I don't see a good reason yet. But your point that they weren't given warnings is legit.

If anyone wants to prove that those four were innocent, look over their posts and show us why. If a lot of users didn't like them, there must have been a reason.

[fschmidt]

The only other travel related site I've ever posted in is ISG.

What is ISG?

[Teal Lantern]

The only other travel related site I've ever posted in is ISG.

What is ISG?

Int'l s-x guide.
Lol @ "travel related"

[Rock]

You are right Rock. 3 and 4 are in a gray area that is subject to interpretation. But words can do only so much. We could get more descriptive but that would still be subject to interpretation. That's why we need a person with good judgment to determine who is guilty of 3 and 4, and who started it as well.

Same goes for 5 as well. We need one who can evaluate evidence within reason as to whether a claim is false or not. There is no way to perfectly assess what's true and what's not. It's all within reason. That's why we need a person with good sound judgment.

The banning of those four could go either way. You could argue that they should be allowed free speech. But one could argue that they violated some of the above too. It's a matter of interpretation. You could build a case for either one.

Anyway, it's not like Zboy bans a lot of people. He only does this occasionally. So it's nothing to be concerned about yet. He is not the kind of guy who gets a power trip off of banning lots of people.

Well if you wanna keep it loose, you should at the very minimum institute second and third chances. Those posters were not clear cut and dried cases. They deserved at least a warning or two. 3 strikes and your out would be simple and a lot more reasonable -

1. official public warning citing the infraction as specifically as possible

2. temp ban citing the second infraction as specifically as possible

3. permanent ban citing the final infraction as specifically as possible

As for zboy1, his banning style is unnerving. Because he'll do nothing for a long time then all of a sudden, boom boom boom, bans out of nowhere. That's actually worse cus it's so unpredictable and arbitrary.

Maybe you have a hard time finding free labor. But all you have to do to keep things somewhat in check is to implement a bit more structure. That would at least reduce mod's personal role in shaping HA.

Ok that's a valid point. I believe that Zboy has issued warnings in the past to people before banning them. For some reason, he didn't this time. Did you ask him why? Why don't you ask him why in this thread? If you ask politely, he might explain why.

Perhaps they were banned for reasons other than behavior?

Why do you care about those four posters so much? It doesn't affect you in any way.

I can't analyze everything a moderator does. Unless there is a very good reason. I don't see a good reason yet. But your point that they weren't given warnings is legit.

If anyone wants to prove that those four were innocent, look over their posts and show us why. If a lot of users didn't like them, there must have been a reason.

You're a fan of the bigger picture right? Well it's not about those four specific posters but rather the general actions executed by this forum's only acting moderator - bogus public vote followed by across the board permanent bans with no warnings or justification other than vague references to PM complaints. I really hope that kind of thing doesn't happen again here. That's my reason for suggesting at least a mandatory warning system be implemented for non-spammers.

As for those particular posters, I do believe at minimum, one or two of them contributed valuable content in recent past. The one who sticks out most in my mind is ThePrimeBait. One area this forum lacks in it's collective knowledge base is specific insights and detailed information on the Arab world and middle east including the types of women there. He seemed to have a lot to offer in that regard. I thought some of his other stuff was interesting too. It sure beats "Oh how American girls suck so bad" or "The economy is going to crash on (fill in the date)" or even "Oh gee, look at these hot Chinese women to die for" lol. So I resent his summary dismissal. Perhaps he could have been managed. Perhaps he could have been warned not to do whatever he did (I still don't know what that was) to break the forum's guidelines. He and the others banned this round deserved a second chance I believe. Didn't you once say, "everyone deserves a second chance"? Doesn't that apply to them too?

And you make an interesting point when you say, " Perhaps they were banned for reasons other than behavior?" So what else besides 'bad behavior' (going against forum guidelines) would be a reasonable and fair grounds for banning them? Doesn't that smack of subjectivity?

I'm not asking you to micro manage your mod(s). But if you could just take a bit of time to implement some simple and I believe reasonable due process restraints on them such as a 3 strike rule along with clear publicly stated rational for each strike, that would be most appreciated, at least by me.

[Rock]

The only other travel related site I've ever posted in is ISG.

What is ISG?

Int'l s-x guide.
Lol @ "travel related"

Yep, that's the one. Ask DJfourmoney. He's on there too under the same user name. I've got 29 posts there spread over many years (last of which is 3.5 years ago) but under Taiwan Laowai.

It's focused on P4P but has a lot of great general supplemental information for travelers to exotic countries and it's probably the most comprehensive source out there for such info. Wanna visit North Korea? It's been posted on. Wanna try maybe Fiji? It's there.

Hotspots are covered in great depth with sub-forums on living there, meeting regular girls, investing, etc. Perhaps the best covered country is Argentina (it has it's own separate area of the website) because the American owner Jackson happens to be based there. But there's tons of stuff on Brazil, Colombia, Thailand, Phils, DR, and even China. And some of the longer-term frequent posters on a given country are great contacts to cultivate if you wanna learn more about that spot and visit or relocate there.