a note on moderation

Thank you for clarifying Wine Spectator's position on this subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Meyerson, Manager, WS Online:
Some members of the WS Forums have called for another member, Serge Birbrair, to be banned. I do not intend to take that action -- at least, not at present.

These Forums are public and free of charge. We welcome anyone who wishes to discuss wine and related topics. Many of Serge's posts have violated our Terms of Service and been deleted, but so have many posts made by other members.

I ask all of our members to maintain a civil tone. If you see a post that you find objectionable, please report it -- but please don't respond to it in the Forums. If you have decided that anything a particular member posts is objectionable, I ask you to avoid that member's threads. If that member posts in other threads, I ask you to skip over those posts.

Unfortunately, the software we currently use to support the Forums does not offer an "Ignore" feature, which would allow you to make all of a given member's posts invisible to you. We're looking into it, but I can't say at this time when we'd be able to add this feature. Until then, I urge each of you to exercise your own discretion.

Unbelievable.

WS has made an appropriate response to what has a whiff of schoolyard bullying around it.

Look, Serge isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he often has interesting things to say about wine. And just as often, he has moronic things to say about something that has no wine-related value - as do many, many members of these forums, including me.

I'd even note that in the last week or so he seems to have tapered off the snippity posts and stuck to wine, more or less.

Now let's all hold hand and ... "Kumbaya, m'lord, kumbaya..."

Squirrel

Thank you very much for addressing this topic. I appreciate it. It’s a shame you had to carve the time out of your day to do so.

You acknowledge that while many of Serge’s posts have violated the TOS, so have the posts of many other members. (I not so proudly include myself in that category.) When one particular member is so prolific, the issue of scale comes in to play. I suspect he’s run afoul of the TOS more than any other member by leaps and bounds. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, just something I was mulling over.

I also wonder a bit about resources. Does it get to the point where, although philosophically repugnant, it would perhaps be easier, more efficient, for Wine Spectator to ban specific member(s) rather than having their administrators respond to a (presumably) large volume of reported posts?

Nonetheless, I respect your request for a civil tone. Going forward, I myself will certainly try to exhibit only civil behavior. In terms of an “ignore” feature, such a feature would be cool, but we’d still have to wade through all the responses to a given objectionable post, or skip reading that particular thread – the latter a shame because there is often good info throughout. Because new members join daily, my concern is they won’t necessarily see this thread asking for our cooperation.

At the risk of sounding ingratiating, I love the forums and am grateful that you continue to offer us this opportunity to discuss and learn more about wine. Thank you. Cheers!

What is so unbelievable about it, you blood thirsty animal? There will be no public execution today, period. Go about your wine business, folks, nothing to see here.

Oh, skosh.... you are SO ingratiating!

I love the forums also, but when I say it, it sounds so daring and admirable.

quote:

I love the forums also, but when I say it, it sounds so daring and admirable.

That it does, Seaquam.

Watch out skosh, if Seaquam starts talking about love, it means he's completely nekked at the computer.

Me wuv you, gwunhausah

(And just for the record: NOT completely!)

i'm with wineismylife on this one, this post is a joke

Thank you Mr. Meyerson for making, from my point of view anyway, the correct decision for now regarding Serge Birbrair.

I know that if I were the moderator here, Serge is just one of several people who would be teetering on the edge of being banned. The fact is that the other people, who violate the terms of service just as much as Mr. Birbrair, do so in a way that seems to be much less objectionable to the members who post most often. But fair is fair, and no doubt this was taken into account.

And here's a suggestion: if you would like to make a HUGE positive difference here with little work, change the software to eliminate the display of post counts...

Mark

why mark, cuz yours is so little?

What on Earth have post counts got to do with anything?

Joe - fair

there is a reason to hang out at "the other place" and this post says it all.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Horvatich:

I know that if I were the moderator here, Serge is just one of several people who would be teetering on the edge of being banned.

Ha-ha! Not only you're not a moderator here, you're hardly a participant. Now this is hillarious!! Maybe you should apply for a moderator position over at you know who's board. I hear he's hiring new posters with small post count.

The message is clear; Wine Spectator is simply not interesting in having a serious discussion forum. Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

I'll still drop in from time to time to check on offline events. Otherwise, SeeYa!

ap·pease·ment [ ə pzmənt ]

2. grant of concessions: an attempt to stop complaints or reduce difficulties by making concessions.

Courtesy Expedia.com

Translation into modern English:

Weak.

PH

This is the third version of WS forums in which I've participated. There has never been a regular moderator; I understand that on very rare occasions in the past people have received warning messages. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been banned outright.

WS has been consistent in this regard. I neither defend nor condemn it. It 's just the way things are here.

Many people have participated for a while-- some longer than what we might call "a while"-- and some have left. Despite that, there has always been a fairly impressive number of people who participate quite regularly. Everyone learns very quickly how things work, and decides to remain or leave. Despite frequent and regular complaints, the truth is more people stay than go.

And that's the way it is. What motivation is there for WS to change?

PurpleHaze and WIML beat me to the punch!!!

Joe, WEAK, WEAK ,WEAK.

For you NOT to control your own board seems lazy to me. You want "others" to keep YOU up on all of Serge's hi-jacks. You talk of his violations. What else must he do? I have been copied on many of the e-mails your have received. Like others have said above, sounds like you are trying to stop the e-mails you have been receiving.

I am glad to see your post, but a very poor poor response. You, and you alone are now allowing one "person" to chase off sooooo many of your long time members. Joe, a bad business decission period.

Best of luck

Hello everyone.

From what I'm told, Mr. Meyerson is somewhat selective in who he bans. No one at all that I know personally of course. But that's what I've heard.

I appreciate the post from Joe Meyerson. Atleast we know what to expect from WS.

##

I doubt Serge will ever post on this board again, as I hear he's been taken into custody on similar charges.

Bye Bye Sergie. Ta ta, nobody wants your drugs here Louie.

Dr. Zuess and Yaskudnik - Serge "clones"

quote:

Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
As much as I had problems with a certain poster that appears to have been banned, that poster never stooped to the level of vulgar, profane and un-civil posts as we are currently faced with.

I'm die'n here. Just crack me up. I gotta believe that no matter how it's veiled, there is some type of compliment or scant suggestion of respect in that statement. Even if not, I'm gonna take it as if there is. LOL. Thank you.

##

Moderating this site has got to be difficult. Serge has heard the response and his posting has been toned down. Even the inane posts of the kitchen wizard have ebbed a bit. I think the site is heading in the right direction with a bit of a nudge.

Who is the kitchen wizard ?

Bella Donna.

Btw, I confirm GreenDrazi's findings.

I agree with Joe Meyerson.

Provided that a poster is civil and remains within the bounds of the TOS that poster should be allowed to continue posting.

I for one have found that ignoring Serge's non wine related posts isn't that difficult. For me the bickering and name calling that happens whenever Serge pops up on a thread is more off putting, simply because it dramatically increases the number of BS posts I have to read before coming across wine related material.

Iceman,

Thanks for letting us know that a poster can be banned. With this knowledge, it’s fair to say that Joe has fired-off a warning shot and if it’s not heeded, another poster may soon be banned.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Meyerson, Manager, WS Online:

If you have decided that anything a particular member posts is objectionable, I ask you to avoid that member's threads. If that member posts in other threads, I ask you to skip over those posts.

...each of you to exercise your own discretion.

Duh.

What's the big deal? It's the internet, the wild frontier guys. Deal with it. You want censorship so that you don't have to deal with the hassle of spending about .005 second scrolling past the posts of guys you don't respect?

Actually, there are only about 6-8 posters here that have anything I am interested in reading. One is Eric. Don't leave. Just scroll down.

On this site, post counts and the ability to contribute meaningful conversation seem to be independent events. The replies to my previous post in this thread are great examples of this.

To answer the question, post counts are a deterrent to newbies, many of whom actually believe there is a correlation between post counts and wine knowledge. (Actually, on a more moderated board, there probably would be some correlation...) Without post counts, everyone here would be on equal footing, with only a person's online personality separating them from everyone else.

With the current state of this site, it seems the only new people becoming active posters are people the site doesn't want or need. If one really wants to see this site grow in a positive fashion, one should make the site conducive for lurkers to feel comfortable to post without ridicule or repurcussions. That is not the state of this site today.

The banning of Serge Birbrair will do nothing to help this situation. I'm offering a suggestion to help newbies to feel comfortable posting. If anyone else has constructive suggestions, I'm sure the folks at WS are watching this thread...

Mark

I'm ignoring this post.

GA

OK GD. Hold on just a little bit. The "demise", so to speak of MTH was a joint effort of a number of posters. Do not even try to suggest that it was the solo hand of one guy that caused it. That was a team effort. As for the recipes, I just happen to know that that same guy, along with being a public school teacher, is a master chef with 3 years (summer sessions) of the Culinary Institute of America under his apron (and let me tell you, it's a tite apron). There are a number of CWM and participants of the CDP that can attest to his abilities, I'm told. I don't remember him ever claiming those recipes to be his, just that they were sure fire. There was also a lot of political garbage being spewed from the other side too. Now whereas I can't possibly speak for him, I'm sure he would welcome an off-line with anyone interested that was in his extended neighborhood.

##

BTW, ..... which 2 posts did you report? I'm really curious. LOL.

quote:

On this site, post counts and the ability to contribute meaningful conversation seem to be independent events. The replies to my previous post in this thread are great examples of this.

To answer the question, post counts are a deterrent to newbies, many of whom actually believe there is a correlation between post counts and wine knowledge. (Actually, on a more moderated board, there probably would be some correlation...) Without post counts, everyone here would be on equal footing, with only a person's online personality separating them from everyone else.

With the current state of this site, it seems the only new people becoming active posters are people the site doesn't want or need. If one really wants to see this site grow in a positive fashion, one should make the site conducive for lurkers to feel comfortable to post without ridicule or repurcussions. That is not the state of this site today.

The banning of Serge Birbrair will do nothing to help this situation. I'm offering a suggestion to help newbies to feel comfortable posting. If anyone else has constructive suggestions, I'm sure the folks at WS are watching this thread...

I'm knee deep after reading that. What a bunch of BS Mark. The only new people who catch $hit from anyone are the spammers and clones. THAT ruins the site more than any of this crap you are saying and I'm happy to pile on to smack them down and will continue too.

When I was a new poster, I was met with nothing but friendly help and respect from almost everyone here. New people are always welcomed here. Maybe if you posted more than once every 6 months, you'd see.

iceman,
wasn't he in the service, army ,navy something like that!

Hi there. Long time no see. Sort of.

I have just a couple quick comments.

moderation = cost. I doubt that the value that WS get's out of these forums would pay for the cost of moderation.

This is not a real names board. What is to stop Sergey or anyone else from being banned and then signing up under a different name? The fact that Serge uses (what I presume is) his real name is unique enough. I had 3-4 different logins here at one time. (VM- I was Vino Moi)

Grow up and learn to ignore trolls. I expect zero responses after this post.**

**added for those slow of mind (Cuz this is a troll, dumbA$s!)

That you, Serge?