Are Mods Helping or Hurting Your TN Experience
This has been a controversy for some time now. As watch guards, they are tasked with ensuring that members follow the rules. Is that what they do? Do they enforce the rules? Do they uphold the expected standards? Or to they make up the rules as they go, with their own set of standards? Do they moderate on their own whims and feelings?
Some may feel they are regulating the way they should. Others feel they act as Storm Troopers, banning, blocking and deleting content that THEY feel should be squashed, when the offenders had contributed dialog or media they felt was appropriate for the site, only to be frustrated by the oversight.
Undoubtedly, there is conduct at times that warrants being regulated. Oftentimes, it appears that their control extends outside of the realm of the rules and how they are interpreted.
A recent topic here; "I am sickened by the decline of this website" touched on and exposed some of these issues.
Some long time nudists here seem to be content with the level of moderation while many others are frustrated with the Mods stifling topics, content and media that express the attitudes of many nudists that hope for a more open minded approach to topics and content.
So, is the current level of moderation good or bad?
Lee, sorry for what I am about to do but I think the mixing of two very different topics is inevitable here.
The first one, mainly dealt with in the topic you refer to, is: is TN too prudish or too sexual? But are taxes too high or too low, too flat or too progressive? Is US launching too many or too few wars? Like most social dilemmas, there is no right or wrong answer and your opinion will depend on where you come from, on your experience and expectations... In short, on your narrative.
If you are older, woman and a "traditional" naturist who believes that fun nude time means gruning up a small hill you are more likely to have one position. If you are young, a guy and believe that nudism is fun also because you can party, admire and be admired, you may believe the opposite. Coming from a place where full frontal nudity is regular in prime-time TV on the government's channels, I can be topless on pretty much any beach and I am obliged to co-ed nudity in any nice spa, I have a tendency to be in the latter case, but I recognise that the first opinion is equally legitimate. TN has drawn some red lines and I am comfortable with them - except the mods aren't.
Because coming back to your second dilemma, whether the mods do too much or don't do enough, again people can have different and opposing but equally legitimate points of view. I have no experience in chatting and to the best of my knowledge none of my blurb has been censored but my pics have always respected the rules and still dozens - more likely hundreds- of them have been censored.
Because you have a number of rules which are clear and we have to accept them: no spread eagle, no erections, no openly sexual pics, no pic where the genitals are the main focus, partial face at least visible if genitals are visible. Fine. But then you have a last rule which negates all the other: Mods can delete any pic without explanation. That is as if the US Constitution had a last amendment reading "Regardless of all the other Articles, the Police has the right to kill whoever and however they see fit, they don't need to give any explanations and you can't complain about it".
And the lack of consistency is really hurtful. Now I don't complain about some erections I occasionally see - I know that mods can't check all pics, but when you approve individually after careful checking (I had to wait for a week or so for my group to be approved), groups like Naked pudenda or Labia lovers but consor a pic because my knees are not glued together but 2 inch apart this is an issue.
Being a bit libertarian, I would prefer that censorship intervenes only when there are complaints. And with a proper warning members would know what groups are about and not be exposed to pics and topics which they don't want to see. But I accept that many here want systematic censorship and in this case that last rule should be deleted and when a mod censors a pic she should click a button and at least you would know why the mod has (rightly or wrongly) deleted your pic. Of course, I don't expect that you could actually complain as this would be very time consuming for the admins, but at least this site would be less Kafkaesque.
Because, to answer your original question, from my point of view this site is silly and full of aberrations and the mods are hurting more than helping it - together with our experience.
I too can't disagree that some over sensorship is hurting the site, there are good rules here that some don't like too much, but those are the rules and mainly the rules are fine by me... the application of the rules and that there is no recourse against the action allows the mods to moderate as they see fit without any calling to account for their actions.
This mod-freedom is the bad thing as petty grievances can be played out by the mod, or their own prudish ideas can be pushed on to the rest of us.
A mod moderator would help, somewhere where issues can be raised without fear of further reprisals... otherwise we live here in a pretty undemocratic virtual space.
While in chat room, I saw the following post:
Hello, I am looking for young men between the ages of 19 and 35 to chat... with a video camera! send me a message!
This person was immediately banned!
Should this be a reason to ban someone?
Just curious about other's viewpoints.
If that was the extent of the message then wouldn't warrant a ban, but i often hear the mods see things we don't in the room so if it was followed by a pic of an erection then fair to ban, sadly we never or rarely get any explanation and neither would the offender.
Action without recourse or being held to account for those actions is not a great situation
Again, sorry to complicate things, but I see 3 different issues here.
1. Is the TN police acting upon their own initiative or initiative of members? I would prefer the latter, but I am not a snowflake and I do understand if some members want to be protected from the risk of seeing an erection or a lady with open legs or from reading a sexy story. I don't think any nudist has ever died from exposure to such atrocities but fine. Let's say the mods don't need to be prompted, they censor things because they like to.
2. Is the police acting to enforce the law or to show off their powers? And here the latter seems to be closer to the truth. They do not enforce the rules, they just censor what they don't like. They do have that "general competence clause" which protects them, but still, when they censor something which is not against the rules what they do is not against, but it's not in line with rules either. In legalese, it's not intra or propter legem, it's not contra legem, but praeter legem.
3. Can we block (let alone ignore) idiots? Crazily enough, no, and this is TN specific. So I created and moderated a very exclusive group. I close its forum to non members. So I'm safe from people I have blocked, right? Wrong. They can still see and react to any topic in my forum as long as a friend of theirs reacts to it! So yes, they can still see what I write and insult me if they so wish. And I can do nothing about it. Smart, right?
The current crew of moderators have done a reasonable job based upon my limited observations. One questionable ejection was Ms. Love2b; she was trying to make a point in chat and it was going poorly. She became more & more wound up and even more frustrated. It was just before explosion time and *poof* she was gone. Had she been a little loud-yes; had she been frazzled-yes; had she been really ugly-no. But the trajectory was clearly, clearly evident & a preemptive strike was prudent. Was it a perfect solution-no; did it fix anything-no; could it have been avoided-probably not. The ejection was probably the most practical solution in that specific real time event. Monday morning quarterbacking is just that & I doubt its consistency as well. I was in room also for Kaceys ejection, although I had no clue what happened. With her input from above, I understand her frustration. I wouldnt have had a clue about La Marseillaise without Googling it. Was that a political statement? I dont know but based on what I just read, I wouldve then asked about de Dietrich in retort. I have also been in chat several times when no mod was present but a rude, vulgar jerk was. It was a mess & resulted in upset folks, blocked participants, and great pandemonium in the room. Folks, the mods are still just volunteer members trying to make it work. I think they do ok. John
Please excuse me for not being cognizant of the particulars; I only caught part of the conversation and noticed you were gone. I dont doubt that a condescending tone was used but suspect a guy making a similar entrance wouldve been *messed with* in a similar fashion. That said, there exists a wide array of mods & their accompanying *social constructs* that will color responses. This online group has an extremely broad range of folks with backgrounds from all over the planet. Its sometimes/ often going to be problematic, thats the nature of the beast. I do enjoy reading your posts even though I am on the inverse side of the societal midpoint and think your points valid. I recommend *keep calm & carry on* as you add a lot to the conversation & challenge some of us to further use the old grey matter.