[ Return to quotes.skudd.com ]
Response From BlaxthosSubject: I am entirely unsatisfied.
From: "Tim, Guy who hates bash.org"
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:44:59 -0500
To: qdb@bash.orgAttention Bash.org Staff:
In light of numerous recent rejected submissions, I am hereby discontinuing my use of your site. While in the past I found it a place for mildly entertaining content, I no longer receive any joy from my visits there.
How, you may ask, could someone not find the "geek" humor found there? How could someone not find the sacreligious entries about extra-marital, homosexual activities funny? Well, up until now, I did find a fair number of the entries hilarious, and I shared them with friends and family. Thinking I could take part in the world of laughter, I submitted similar content as I encountered it, only to find later that it had been rejected.
Could it be that my content was not up to bash.org standards, whatever they may be? Or could it possibly be that I was the only one in the vast emptiness of cyberspace who found it funny? Or maybe it's just the over-zealous moderators who take charge in approving or rejecting the content...
Regardless of the source of the problem, I find it very appauling to see that something as funny as a Monty Python reference had been rejected, only to find it replaced with an approved entry about fornicating with a holy deity in the Christian religion. While I do consider myself a Christian, I believe in freedom of speech, thus I am not entirely opposed to your posting of such content. However, I am completely offended at the thought of such mindless content taking priority over "techno-humor".
My solution to this problem is simple. I will discontinue my use of your site, and I will encourage a certain few additional people to do so as well. Additionally, I would like to encourage you to submit your moderation guidelines to the public for open review, as it may potentially justify the rejection of my submitted comments.
I bid you good day, and wish you luck in maintaining such a popular site.
-Skudd
My Post-Incident CommentarySubject: Re: I am entirely unsatisfied.
From: Blaxthos <blaxthosATbashDOTorg>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:44:59 -0500
To: "Tim, Guy who hates bash.org"On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Tim, Guy who hates bash.org wrote:
Could it be that my content was not up to bash.org standards, whatever they may be? Or could it possibly be that I was the only one in the vast emptiness of cyberspace who found it funny? Or maybe it's just the over-zealous moderators who take charge in approving or rejecting the content...It is unfortunate that something as trivial as a few rejected quotes would be such a point of contention. The truth of the matter is that bash.org receives a very large volume of very bad quotes. One, this increases the likelihood that your quote may not get the full attention of the moderator who happens to get your quote (in a batch of many). Two, it indicates that a *LOT* of submissions generally aren't funny to a wide audience. We routinely get a lot of material that simply doesn't qualify (cliche, regurgitation of past material, inside jokes, very niche humor, and shit that just isn't funny, played out, etc).
that something as funny as a Monty Python reference had been rejected,Simple assocation or reference to Monty Python obviosuly wouldn't guarantee or qualify for inclusion -- if we approved every monty python joke the QDB qould get old very quickly indeed.
offended at the thought of such mindless content taking priority over "techno-humor".well. Additionally, I would like to encourage you to submit your moderation guidelines to the public for open review, as it may potentially justify the rejection of my submitted comments.As you may have realized, there are no absolutes in our approval guidelines. If you do some digging, you may be able to find some documentation we have released regarding the suitability of quotes (reference: mod application). However, at best we only have very strong suggestions we give to our mod staff (no URL's, inside jokes, self or bash-referencing quotes, timestamps, etc.), but even none of that is absolute. As I have mentioned in past public postings, the mods we select generally have that undefineable gift at being able to select what is bash.org material, and what is not.
Overall, we are extremely satisfied with the efforts of our moderators, and stand behind their decisions 100%. If you feel your quotes were of exceptional quailty, perhaps they were overlooked, and I suggest re-submitting them. (this does NOT mean flood the queue).
My solution to this problem is simple. I will discontinue my use of your site, and I will encourage a certain few additional people to do so asBoycott because you didn't get approved? Don't be silly...
/blaxthos
And in another message following this one...
p.s. - i don't generally take the time to reply to every piece of mail we get (a LOT), but it seems you took a lot of time and put some effort into explaining your reasoning. While I'll be honest and say that the loss of one (or even a hundred) users isn't going to make a huge deal, I do appreciate your taking the time to express your dissatisfaction and thought it worthy of consideration and a decent response.
I would first like to state, for the record, that I had no intention whatsoever in sending the message. I'm a blow-hard, by nature, and I just needed to vent. One of my faithful followers, teddy, found it necessary to forge a message to qdb@bash.org, appearing to be from me, using the content I posted on my blog. I never did authorize that it be sent.
Now that that's out of the way, let me explain why I said what I did. I respect bash.org and the level of popularity they have on the Internet. What I did find to be upsetting was the moderation practicies. Had some sort of guidlines for acceptable content been posted, the moderation policy, etc., I may have been able to avoid coming to this point. Harmony among communities on the Internet is a tough thing to accomplish, at times, and going toe-to-toe with an icon of geek culture is not something I really ever visualized myself doing.
I do give props to Blaxthos for responding to my 10-minute blab. Not many staff members of any big site would do that. However, I feel (s)he misunderstood what I was getting at, which was added reason for me to not send such a message.
Moderation of any sort of user-submitted content is difficult. I know, as I've been privy to moderating a handfull of fairly popular discussion forums. It is also very hard to determine if a posting is worth keeping or not, as other moderators may have an opinion differing from your's. This is the #1 reason I have planned the moderation for quotes.skudd.com the way I have: All moderators cast a vote, if all votes are negative entry gets deleted, otherwise, lead moderator/administrator approves entry for public display.
Such a task may be harrowing among the masses of entries a site, such as bash.org, would encounter. But with a staff as large as bash.org's, it should be relatively efficient, so long as all moderators keep up with the queue.
Why am I boycotting the site if I'm not opposed to the site itself? Personal reasons, mainly. I really only promote the site within a group of maybe 5 people, and I am fairly certain those people only visit when I give them a URL. The lack in activity from those 5 people, 6 including myself, should actually be considered a good thing by the admin of bash.org. We only burdened your servers infrequently, but you'll find another 6 users to fill in the gaps.
The creation of quotes.skudd.com really isn't intended to be as a bash.org-killer. Rather, it's intended for a place that I can submit quotes such that others may see them, without fear of the quotes getting lost or deleted from queue. Never once did I say to myself, "This is how I'll show 'em. I'll steal all of the QDB's traffic with my new toy. I'll do better." No, I said, "This will be much easier and my friends can use it too."
Bash.org will suffer no loss from this. I sincerely wish the staff the best of luck in maintaining the site, and I'm confident they will thrive even after this minor situation.
I do request that the bash.org staff, fans, and followers be realistic and mature about this. Submitting crap, like the following, is really juvinile and it will be deleted without question.
<theRat> check out his top quote
<theRat> jaja
<theRat> this is like a train wreck
<jestuh> haha
<theRat> you just cant turn away
It's a fair jab, and I consider the stakes even between bash.org and myself. It just won't be tolerated in the future.
If anyone has any concern about this, I'll be glad to harbor a mature, civil discussion about it. Should threats, harassment, or other attacks be attempted, though, I will see that it is dealt with swiftly and properly.