fetcheveryone

I think my main rule would be directly from Bill and Ted: 'Be excellent to each other'

I like the controversial threads being here. People disclose a great deal of their true personality by the way they post on them or react to them. And that's very useful on an internet site. Sometimes pleasing, sometimes disappointing, but always useful

One request like that every three months? I'd say do nothing.

I'm a bit of an old boot. I'm not a sexy girl. However, I am not offended by the thread, because I've never read it. Likewise other stuff that is of no interest to me. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice, as my old Nan used to say. I have no idea whether that is appropriate or relevant to this question.

Never seen the thread ........ but basically, what DW said

I think danny sums it up perfectly. I'm a bit 'old-fashioned' but I've never looked at 'that' thread so it doesn't offend me. If I see stuff I don't like, I don't go there and if I saw stuff that I thought needed moderating, I'd tell you. I suspect there are those who wouldn't tell you but they then have the choice to walk or stay put and lump it, don't they? If you're only getting one'complaint' every 3 months with 50,000 users, I don't think there's a problem. I think this site is very well moderated, both by you and its users and in my experience, it works far better than similar sites. So don't worry, OK?

What they all said ^^^^. You are never going to please all the people all the time. This site works in the main really well as it is and you are doing a fab job to keep it as it was when it was all fields round here :). The thread is meant to be a laugh but you will get some who do get offended and if that is the case you can deal as per your blog. There will always be a thread that people don't like even if it's not that one.

you're doing fine Lord Fetch and have the balance right between allowing free expression and removing downright offensive stuff. That thread is harmless and says a lot more about the people who post on it and the people who submit photos in the hopes of getting on it. I'm old and wobbly in places that shouldn't be wobbly and will never get my photo on there - this neither pleases nor displeases me - I seem to regard it with the same benign tolerance I extend to all other adolescents, as, in essence, it's very nature is adolescent

I agree with what DW said and would add my agreement with others that you have it all under control with the acknowledgement that you have that control and have the sanctions available if people get out of line.

From what I 've seen with a few threads, those posters that are too close to the mark soon get told off by us users and either comply or flounce.

That may be good or bad for the individual but leaves the rest of us content to carry on supporting, cajoling or generally taking the good-natured piss out of someone or some people with whom we have either a virtual or actual relationship and using the site for the overall benefit of our running/biking/swimming/whatever

I love the fact that this site isn't moderated to buggery. One such request every three months is actually pretty good. Etiquette wise, I just wish people would think before they type - if they're about to flame someone, would they actually say it face to face on the start line of a race in person? If not, it's probably best deleted.

oh i missed the blog debate about the thread! personally i dont find the thread offensive despite my gallery photo that i linked to the thread pretending to be offended by a comment left on it mentioning my name

How about "No bullying".

With respect to the photo re-use thing, I've got it. 3 levels of publication when you post a pic (not optional and explained):

Private (Nobody but you can see it)
Public (Displays in the gallery but can't be linked to/shared by other Fetchies)
Open (Displays in the gallery and can be linked to/shared by other Fetchies)

Half thought of while half drunk, but something along those lines.

I think it demonstrates two things perfectly - (1) the law of unintended consequences - this was not what either the forum or the gallery were designed for; and (2) what cocks men can be.
Two answers for the price of one Ian. (1) Ditch the thread - it would lead to disciplinary proceedings if this community was a workplace. Similarly the one about female newsreaders. And if the reason you're stopping yourself is because you're worried about being seen to be PC, then consider the lack of - to my knowledge - a 'There are some really Ugly Women on Fetch' thread. It's the same principle. Similarly, there isn't a 'There are some really Fast Women/Men on Fetch' thread. It's discriminatory, it's offensive, it inhibits fuller participation by some members and it cheapens the site.

(2) Alternatively, is there some way of voting on 'killing' a thread? Or perhaps stopping any new contributions until N people vote for it to continue? That might also stop some of the other flame war threads. Not entirely sure what mechanic would work, but there must be a 'Fetch' way of dealing with this.
And if you don't agree with any of the above, you could maybe make the 'Report this thread' link stand out more. It gets completely lost where it is.

Hello James, I borrowed the crotch of your tracksuit to illustrate a use for the Kit Bag earlier, hope you don't mind.

It must be better to ask people to censor themsleves rather than some draconian changing of the site as a whole. It is a public site and I think there is an element of risk as regards comments if you publish something. I have looked in there on the odd occasion and it is mostly ok, anyone who over steps the mark usually looks an arse, but if they do, I would just report it and a stern word would do, if it is worse remove them. The Joke thread, well that's another story.

I stay out of the threads that I think probably won't interest me. Wednesday lurkerthon is dangerous enough for me although I did wade into shoe-gate (in, of course, the shoes I wear for swimming ) Self moderation has got to be the best way for this site with the feedback option and reactive moderation from you as and when necessary. TBH I take the view that anything you post on the internet(not just here but FB etc) however private you think it might be can probably be seen by everyone - and if you don't want your mother (or anyone else) to see it - don't post it in the first place ... sorry - I'm starting to get a bit ranty I'll stop before I turn too punctuationy

We seem to have been here before... Surely it's down to common sense. If you are worried people might leer over your photos don't post them in a public gallery. If you think you might be offended by a thread, avoid it. Maybe havering an option to make photos buddy-only may help? BTW, any pics of the feorgeous Katie (yours, not mine!) to add to said thread?

Whilst that thread was amongst "consenting adults" it was fine. To trawl the gallery and highlight photos of unsuspecting postees could no doubt cause some offence, especially to those newer to the site. I have every confidience that you'll find the right approach to gently nudge things back on course.

Whilst that thread was amongst "consenting adults" it was fine. To trawl the gallery and highlight photos of unsuspecting postees could no doubt cause some offence, especially to those newer to the site. I have every confidience that you'll find the right approach to gently nudge things back on course.

I am of the opinion to just leave well alone. Let common sense prevail when posting on a forum. Should you decide to go the 'rules' route, as has been demonstrated by MSDG, you'll possibly end up with a document resembling Apple's T&C's.

It must be tough to moderate a site like this, and I think you do a very fair job of it, and have always been very impressed with that. I agree that this thread only shows up those who post on it, just like the 'things you want to say but can't' one. There will be nasty threads like those on here, I like the suggestion of not being able to link photos at will, if that's possible, but not sure how you let the owner link to their blog for example, but you're the computer whizz kid... I'd be happy to see those threads removed completely, personally.

As far as rules go, I'd have 3.

First, what McGoohan said: 'Be excellent to each other'
Second: 'Don't be a dick'
Third: 'If someone has offended you, assume it was an accident or that you misunderstood their post. Then write a long, offensive, flame-filled blog about it. And set it to Private.'

Nothing unreasonable. My gut feeling is that it's best to ask, rather than enforce. Busy til this afternoon, but I think I'll make a post and see what the outcome is.

I like Keefy's suggestion of a choice of public, open, private on pics.
Alternatively a notification that someone has 'used' your picture and where so you can monitor how its been used and comments on it would work.
Personally, I don't read the thread or any equivilent threads. I agree with Monki that they are distasteful and discriminatory but at the same time accept that the 'real' world is like that and don't want Fetch to become censored. I think it was v'rap that pointed out censorship would stop ppls characters showing through the same.

I would choose not to have my pic used on such a thread, so a notification system would give the option to read what has been written about a pic you posted and have it removed if it's not where or what you would like.

The 3 choice system might be less work for you Fetch esp as your 'baby' is now so big.

I like the idea of there being three options for gallery photographs

yeah me too - I have often wondered whether it was possible to have a pic appear in a thread or in your blog but NOT in the trawlable gallery. It does look like you WANT peeps to look/comment if you put it in the gallery - even if you put 'for blog' or similar on it. Has certainly stopped me using various images and stuff.

But you do a fabulous job of moderating the site anyway.

Think that Pestomum's comment / insinuation above is pretty insulting to Fetch, to be honest. Unless she knows a whole pile more than I do about how Fetch came to write this particular blog, at this particular time. Also a thought - but perhaps some people who aren't buddies have read the blog too(!). Call it a 'leaky clique' then, I guess.
On the subject itself - I can't see how anyone can categorically state that it's "harmless". Some perfectly normal, otherwise well-balanced folk, become reluctant to use the gallery for its original purpose. Some perfectly normal people don't like it if/when they appear there. It definitely is not without harm.
I *don't* think changes to photo-sharing options are the answer here, I actually think this is one of the good, and rare, examples when moderation would be a good thing. It's an oft-complained about thread.

Coincidence that the default profile pic no longer features ascii breasts?

It's not harmless, it has prevented people posting pictures in the gallery(or taking them down from there) and that shows that self-censorship hasn't worked. I wouldn't tolerate it in the real world and not sure why we expect people to tolerate it in this world.

Surely it stopped being funny years ago?

I generally avoid looking at threads that I am not interested in so can't say it has offended me - and anyway I haven't worked out how to upload photos to the gallery (so crap at IT am I;)) so not sure if I would appear as sexy or not? Anyway, aren't we all sexy on Fetch just by being on Fetch You are doing a great job Lord Fetch and people will just have to be mature and stay away from threads which they don't like - much like switching channels if you don't like what you are watching on TV!!!

Sprouty - as far as I'm aware, the default pic does indeed still feature ASCII breasts.

I think the idea of making a photo public (for threads, blogs, etc) without making it browsable in the gallery is best in the short term, and probably wouldn't be too onerous in terms of development time? If nothing else, while it might not be ideal (you'd probably be able to copy a photo link from a users blog onto e.g. the sexy girls thread), it does give a way for the user to provide some indication of their intent when uploading a photo, and others can be asked to honour that intent.

Hmm, thought I'd seen a few that just said "No image". I'll take your word for it though (and wasn't trying to take the comments off-topic, I'd just put 2+2 together and got 3.14)

If you want to sit in your pants at your computer looking at, or posting, pictures which titillate you, then, from my limited research in this area, I humbly suggest there are better alternatives elsewhere on the internet. While removing the thread may not change any behaviour patterns, it would at least mean it is moved to a more appropriate home.

It's irritating and disappointing not to be able to post a pic in case it is leered over. Buddies only pictures option would help. Men can be pervs anywhere not just the web but this place does feel like my running club and I don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable. The thread was a bit of fun at first but is just seedy now.

Seedy..... and has 110 'watchers'....

For me, the SGT is one of those meh but tolerable things. If I read it, it makes me mouthsick. Some women are clearly happy to be featured, some are not. It’s like Nuts magazine. Whether you see it as good thing, bad thing or thing, it’s there whether you look at it or not. The difference with Nuts etc. is that women elect to actually feature on the pages. Trawling the gallery looking for photos? Again, meh. I deliberately avoid posting photos which might possibly end up in there. IMO, posting photos of women running pushes the boundaries of etiquette. If we’re runners supporting runners, then is subjecting women to the uninvited, letchy remarks we routinely put up with from white van men et al really appropriate? Either way, it’s great we’re debating this and reflects the healthy state of this website. Fetch (both the man and the site) are bloody awesome.

I honestly don't understand how some people face the world in the morning?

The "on the hour" thread probably offends someone.

Surely now though the @There are some sexy blokes on Fetch' thread has to have the same treatment. Precedent has been set and all that...

Going to have to be careful it's not a slippery slope - I think the current "hands off" moderation works well for the vast majority of stuff, and it'd be a shame if that weren't allowed to carry on.

i like the idea of being able to put up a pic but for me to be the only one who can put it in threads/blogs.
and i think you do an excellent job of keeping everything tickety boo

I think the site works fab an you are fab to keep at this so well. Over moderation can be annoying to an is a slippery slope to losing the flow an ease of use.
The thread doesn't bother me personally an when I have popped in for a neb it's a bit funny really. I don't think that means it is ok tho - it does feel a bit odd to post stuff an wonder if it'll land there. I'm prolly just another jealous I've no been chosen

Pull it, and pull the other one, and stop both being created again.

Or pull neither.

But don't pull one and leave the other one there.

This from the bloke that started the "Ugly Munters" thread

I agree your management/parenting of this site is spot on Mr W. Generally I would say more features and more visibility, rather than control and rules, would be a good way to go.
1. Yes, more options on pics - private, public but not to be linked to or; fully usable.
2. More notifications of use. "User x posted a pic of yours in thread y."
3. Or approvals. "User x wants to post a pic of yours. Do you accept?" etc.
4. Ditto links to blogs (someone referring to a blog you've written could be a bit off too), so just any posting of a link to a pic or blog?
5. Like the voting idea one too. Just vote threads into the bin. "This thread should be a. Highlighted as Jolly Good or b. Consigned to the bin." Show current voting. More b's than a's = goes to bottom of page 29 of threads. More than 5x more b's than a's and thread is dead!

Errr... Happy Wednesday! :-)G

Hello Ian, You already have rules:

E.16 When using this website you shall not do any of the following things.

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, or invasive of another's privacy.

Your job as editor possibly falls to applying the T&C judiciously. If someone complains to you (not on the thread) then that's a flag for action.

If you are thinking of otherways for people to flag something to you, then I'm sure you can work out wizzy buttons to do that.

Offence is in the mind of the offended, not of the offender, so you need to tap into the receiver, not the giver.
Unfortunately the majority of people will say nothing and shuffle off. I'm sure you can figure out browsing metrics for a thread to alert you to that kind of thing.

If that is one way that users on the website self select, then that's one way. If you apply the moderation, the effect will be to change the way that users self select to be or not to be on the website or which parts they use. Newtons 3rd I believe.

There is no right answer, all actions will change the way people chose to use the website, the question is which one are you more comfortable with and perhaps more importantly what actions will keep your manager happy.

If you try to introduce a new flagging mechanism for photos, postings, privacy settings etc you might feel better about it and get a better year end review, but ultimately you won't significantly change the type of person who finds the website usable and acceptable nor the bits of the website they chose to use because of a privacy setting here or a button there.

You have the "offended - tell me" facility - encourage people to use it instead of flame wars that drag the general level down, and simply apply the T&C that already apply (exactly as Ian Hislop said to the leveson inquiry).

telegraph.co.uk

How you apply the T&C - comment blocking, thread deletion, person deletion, IP address blocking all have different levels of impact and you need to figure out your response level all the way to "delete website" depending on the nature of complaint that you get.

Figuring out the shades of grey between doing nothing and stopping everything will be key to moderation.

And you probably want to stop people posting such long replys onto peoples blogs.

Good luck.

In addition to 'dollop's contribution, and building further on an idea somebody had way up there ^ - what business do any of us have reposting _other_ people's pictures from the gallery? I'm struggling to find a real genuine need for that. Post your own pics, yes; post others - no. I guess there are occasions when it's a group pic, or someone taking someone else's picture, but that's what tagging was invented for n'est-ce pas?

1 If someone is outright offensive and abusive in a post or thread it should be deleted and they should be sent a warning.

2 If someone is offended by a post or thread Which is not offensive or abusive per se - the reasonable man test is failed - then possibly a short note to the poster - sort of like telling your teenager to be a bit more considerate. Possibly also delete the post.

Specifically if a lady is offended by the posting of a pic - I would say its in cat 2.

However, I think it should be accompanied by deletion of the pic.

If said pic is accompanied by words to the effect of "I'd give er one" I would say its cat 1.

And if fetch becomes a place where men and women can't flirt and have banter for fear of offending "someone" it will be much poorer for it.

We'd never see Foxy again!

I'd say one complaint in 3 months is pretty good going personally and testimony that going all north Korean would throw the baby out with the bath water.

Just caught up with this blog. Very interesting debate.

As an Irishman I could get offended by the way you can't read more than a few pages on the Joke of the Day thread without reading some reference to "Paddy" and "Mick" being a bit thick in some way but I don't take offence because I don't personally feel the sentiment behind the jokes are meant to be derogatory, it's just "look I heard this joke, and I think you might find it funny" rather than an attempt to offend anyone.

That's my feeling on the "sexy girls" thread too. I don't feel the posters on there are setting out to offend anyone in particular, and if anything they seem to attract certain female posters who appear to want their photo added to the thread.

Having said that to my knowledge no-one has ever used a picture I've submitted in a way i've not liked on any thread and if they had I'm sure I may be upset by that so I can totally understand why people are offended.

If anything though it's a tribute to the grown up attitudes of the users of this site that people aren't offended more often. Take a 50k slice of any society and you're bound to reveal an element of chauvinism, bigotry or far worse so I don't think we're doing too badly.

Doing a fine job the way thing are Fetch. what I say is if you dont want people on the internet to see your photos, dont put them on the internet.

Crumbs, that took some catching up with.
My two-penny-worth.
1) Thank you for the way you run this site; there is a lot of wisdom applied that I'd like to recognise and applaud.
2) Three options for photos seems like a good idea; that way we also have some control over our own copyright.
3) Rules - the fewer the better, "If it doesn't say you can't then you can" seems to be a reasonable starting point.
Allow the threads and the 'banter' until someone complains then delete the offending comment (assuming the complaint isn't vexacious).

4) Maybe issue a warning to offenders, with 'three strikes and you're banned for a week' or similar, rather than getting too heavy too early.
5) If I don't like a thread I don't read it. If it's genuinely offensive, even at my advanced age, I can find the little button to say so.