# Bad modding



## kickcatcher (Mar 27, 2006)

Dear staff, 

I am not a natural whinge, but I would like to bring it to everyone's attention that there is some sub-parr moderating going on in the self-defence section. Shesulsa moved a popular thread to the less popular health section without leaving any link so contributors were not easily able to continue reading/posting on the thread without a tedious search of the board, indeed many may assume that the thread was deleted.  http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=515105&postcount=33

This is despite the thread being about self-defence. 

I personally suspect that she moved it in an attempt to kill it off, presumably because there is no justification for deleting it. She is clearly oposed to the sentiment of the original post, and has been playing the personal card, deleting illustrations etc. I voiced that opinion and she invited me to complain by PM. I'm not the type of person who goes around complaining - but her cocksure manner makes me suspect that she expects any such private complaint to fall on death ears. I have nothing to say that I can't say in public. She would benifit from complaints being dealt with in private, but I, the normal forum member, do not. It is therefore in the forum members' interest that concerns about moderating are recorded in public, so that the staff is unable to overlook them, and they can be viewed on merit rather than bias.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 27, 2006)

Kickcatcher,

Thank you for your concern.  This thread was reported by a user to the moderation staff, and after review, a decision was made by multiple staff members this was in fact a health issue, NOT a self-defence issue.

Shesulsa moved the thread at the direction of the moderation staff, not of her own decision.

If you have further questions regarding this action, Please PM and Admin on the board.

Thank You.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 27, 2006)

I have read thru the thread, and personally I don't see much that I would consider inappropriate.  

Moderators are also members, and engage in discussions like all the rest.  This means they can also get involved in arguments and disagreements in the ordinary course of discussion.  I suspect it can be difficult at times to keep the Moderator and Member roles completely separated, but I also suspect that the moderators do the best they can under the circumstances.  Given this, they occasionally have to make Moderator decisions, which is always a judgment call and falls in the "Grey" area.  

I suggest not letting this turn into a personal battle waged on the forum.  Lets move on and see if the original discussion can be saved and furthered.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 27, 2006)

On that thread, an illustration was removed with the text:


> **MODERATOR NOTE: IMAGES REMOVED TO COMPLY WITH IMAGE POSTING POLICY - G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA MT SENIOR MOD.**


What was deemed wrong with that image? It did not break copyright, it was hosted at tinypic and the people's identity was protected.


----------



## MJS (Mar 27, 2006)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26473

If you have any other questions sir, please feel free to contact a Senior staff member or Admin. to address your concerns.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 27, 2006)

For starters:



> It is not acceptable to link to an image on another site without the permission of the site owner. Doing so is a theft of bandwidth and a violation of another company or persons intellectual property. For more information on this you can refer to the Digital Millenium Act of 1998.


 
Secondly:



> When posting a link to an image, video, or sound file from another site, MartialTalk Policies still apply to the offsite content. It is the discretion of the Forum Administrators and Moderators to remove links if they are considered to be questionable in content or violate Forum Policies.


 
This includes: 



> Image size is restricted to a maximum size of 600x600 pixels and the file size is restricted to no more than 60KB. Any image over these 2 parameters may be modified or deleted.


 
Your Image was 78155 Bytes, and 656 x 920.  Both Violations of our image posting policy.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 27, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> It is not acceptable to link to an image on another site without the permission of the site owner. Doing so is a theft of bandwidth and a violation of another company or persons intellectual property. For more information on this you can refer to the Digital Millenium Act of 1998.


 It was hosted at tinypic, a site designed for hosting images for remote linking, and therefore I had permission of the site owner. You are clearly wrong on this point.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Your Image was 78155 Bytes, and 656 x 920. Both Violations of our image posting policy.


So if I resize the image I can post it again. Cool. will do. Thanks.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2006)

The thread in question appears to have been more an attempt initially to take a shot at certain martial arts notables, than a discussion of "self Defense". As it progressed into the health ramifications of obesity, it was moved after discussion by the staff.

As to the pictures in question, no, they may not be reposted.

Why?

Because despite the fact that they are hosted somewhere that allows linking, they are demeaning towards their subject given the topic.
Because despite the fact that they are hosted somewhere that allows linking, you most likely do not have the permission of the photographer, the site they were snagged from, and the subject to use them.
No, because we don't want those pics here.

However, if you can send us proof that the subjects have given you permission to redistribute their likenesses, as well as a copy of the model releases we will allow it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I have read thru the thread, and personally I don't see much that I would consider inappropriate.
> 
> Moderators are also members, and engage in discussions like all the rest.  This means they can also get involved in arguments and disagreements in the ordinary course of discussion.  I suspect it can be difficult at times to keep the Moderator and Member roles completely separated, but I also suspect that the moderators do the best they can under the circumstances.  Given this, they occasionally have to make Moderator decisions, which is always a judgment call and falls in the "Grey" area.
> 
> I suggest not letting this turn into a personal battle waged on the forum.  Lets move on and see if the original discussion can be saved and furthered.


Moderators are not allowed to moderate threads they are involved in, unless directed to do so by the steering board. This usually happens when an action needs to be taken, but others are not immediately available to do so.

The moderator actions in that thread, up to this time, were within our policies.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The thread in question appears to have been more an attempt initially to take a shot at certain martial arts notables, than a discussion of "self Defense". As it progressed into the health ramifications of obesity, it was moved after discussion by the staff.
> 
> As to the pictures in question, no, they may not be reposted.
> 
> ...


 
w00t!  Good show, Bob!


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The thread in question appears to have been more an attempt initially to take a shot at certain martial arts notables, than a discussion of "self Defense".


That's an unfounded acusation. What notables are you saying are obese? If the notables you have in mind are within the self-defence community, and are indeed obese, that merely makes thread even more relevant to the SD angle. The thread was unquestionably about the relationship between studying physical self-protection and the relative threat of ill-health due to lifestyle aspects, primarily obesity. Without the self-defence reference point, the thread is meaningless.



PS. From what I can tell, your understanding of copyright law might be off. You might want to look into "reasonable use". Bullshido have a several practicing lawyers and much experience of these legal issues in relation to forums, you could try asking them so that you can ensure that your policies are created from an informed position.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 27, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Dear staff,
> 
> I am not a natural whinge, but I would like to bring it to everyone's attention that there is some sub-parr moderating going on in the self-defence section. Shesulsa moved a popular thread to the less popular health section without leaving any link so contributors were not easily able to continue reading/posting on the thread without a tedious search of the board, indeed many may assume that the thread was deleted. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=515105&postcount=33
> 
> ...




KickCatcher,

Bob has answered your questions, but I have to ask. You told me in the thread that it was about the people beign able to defend themselves as in health, not in martial artls. 

Hence by your own words I think Health was a better place.

Peace
:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> That's an unfounded acusation. What notables are you saying are obese? If the notables you have in mind are within the self-defence community, and are indeed obese, that merely makes thread even more relevant to the SD angle. The thread was unquestionably about the relationship between studying physical self-protection and the relative threat of ill-health due to lifestyle aspects, primarily obesity. Without the self-defence reference point, the thread is meaningless.



The points can easily have been made without your posting minimally modified photos of various individuals, whose purpose was to use them as examples of "overweight" martial artists, in your opinion.  It is not the purpose of  -this- site to defame, insult, demean or otherwise hold up for public ridicule other people.   



> PS. From what I can tell, your understanding of copyright law might be off. You might want to look into "reasonable use". Bullshido have a several practicing lawyers and much experience of these legal issues in relation to forums, you could try asking them so that you can ensure that your policies are created from an informed position.



I have at least 3 practicing lawyers amongst my clients. I've also spoken to numerous photographers on this. Simply put, unless you are the copyright holder of those photos, or can present a license for their use, we will not allow them here. What other sites allow is their business.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 27, 2006)

Or, more simply put: MartialTalk is not Bullshido. A fact that many are quite happy over.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 27, 2006)

My 2 cents

My office maintains the webpage for the department in which I work. I however am not in that area. But I do know for a fact that a page was posted, briefly, and there were pictures on that page that were under a copyright of another person, outside of the department and they had been posted without permission of the copyright holder. Once this was discovered the pictures were removed. However, prior to there removal, the holder of the copyright became aware of the posting and has charged my department a rather hefty sum for there use for what amounted to a couple of days. And there is an entire legal staff in my department that responded with pay em.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 27, 2006)

Some users on boards don't care about the possible legal risks they put a site through by their selfish desire to do whatever they wish. In the legal arena, it's too often not who is right, but who has more money to spend in court. These same "defenders of freedom" never seem to be around when the cup is passed to defend a site they are on when the sharks come searching for blood.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I have at least 3 practicing lawyers amongst my clients. I've also spoken to numerous photographers on this. Simply put, unless you are the copyright holder of those photos, or can present a license for their use, we will not allow them here. What other sites allow is their business.


If copyright worked this way, you could upload pictures and make millions everytime they came up on google image search by suing google for copyright infringement. Funny how no-one has tried that isn't it Bob.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2006)

Really?
Hmm. I guess going to Google and typing in the words "google sued images" won't turn up anything then huh?

Oh look. 15 million hits. Google being sued for image use, Sony being sued over image use, etc.

Your use is not covered under "Fair Use" according to my legal advisers. 
It's also a "use" (little black bar) that is against the rules of several photography sites that I frequent. Based on those, we will not allow it, regardless of what you, or some other sites legal experts may allow elsewhere.

End
Of
Discussion.


----------



## swiftpete (Mar 28, 2006)

Just interested, I notice that kickcatcher is now classed as a 'banned user'. Has he been kicked off the forum for this?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2006)

He was banned for a number of reasons, this thread and the actions surrounding it were all contributing factors. We've received alot (over 50 in a week) of complaints concerning his posts recently.


----------



## Sapper6 (Mar 28, 2006)

swiftpete said:
			
		

> Just interested, I notice that kickcatcher is now classed as a 'banned user'. Has he been kicked off the forum for this?


 
maybe i'm wrong but, i don't think this thread was the reason he was banned.  there were a couple other threads that kickcatcher was involved in, that he stirred up things with mods, shesulsa in particular.  one of those threads was locked, in part, because he was making derogatory comments against members of MT as a whole.

as far as the whole picture posting policy thing goes, it doesn't really matter anyway as kickcatcher wasn't a supporting member of MT, and if you'll recall, i believe that this is a prerequisite to posting pictures.

there are plenty other forums on the web that kickcatcher can call home and fit in perfectly.  personally, i'd prefer that MT is not one of those.

cheers.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 28, 2006)

I believe he was banned for being just a plain nousense to the over all population of thei growth of this site. The people of this site has a certain image it is trying to keep, decussion is wonderful, dis-agreement is welcome as long as it is done with some sort of tact, but being just out right deviant is something I believe we do not need.
Just my nickel!!!
Terry


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 28, 2006)

I want to remind everyone that we shouldn't trash someone who is not here to defend himself/herself.  Firstly it's not polite, secondly it's disrespectful and thirdly it's not what we do at MartialTalk and regardless, this is what we're known for.  

Let's just leave sleeping dogs lie, eh?  Thanks all.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks, Shesulsa.  In concordance with that, if anyone has any further concerns, please PM them to a member of the Admin staff.  Thank you.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 28, 2006)

I'll keep my comments to myself


----------

