I respectfully cast my vote that this feature be turned off. It is getting ridiculous posts getting canceled for what can only be a very small number of thumbs down or whatever.
I suggest that there may be an “ignore user” feature like on other sites that users can select if a particular user causes them any mental anguish without affecting the rest of us.
I second this motion. I mean, a few weeks ago this thing censored Chief Hawkins and I still haven’t figured out why. And I mean, I get that some of us need to shut up with our opinions, but I think Hawkins has a bit more clout to say damn near anything he wants.
I responded to a post that was legit and was flagged for it. If it acceptable to be posted expect replies. For reals .
While we are on the topic, can we ban the “LOLs” and “I just saw that”’or “I agree” and “I know that area” there isn’t a prize for posting the most often. Can we also lose “a tanker just flew over my house. Must be headed that way.” “I can see it from my house” (include a picture of a column of smoke from 60 miles away) if you have more emojis than words in your post also. I also second the “ignore user” button.
And……this is what happens when the most active fire in the country in mid-August is in Hawaii.
At least the mods leave a link to see what was said that was so offensive - not fully censored like most social media.
I agree……!!!
Can we stop doing this while we are at it?
https://forums.wildfireintel.org/t/ca-ynp-red/22820/20?u=thebrushslasher
Wonder how many have ignored me over the years?
I don’t post much here anymore. Too much control over thoughts and speech. I posted some items on the Tamarack fire and it was messed with.
My gut feeling is that is widespread. We lost too many people and especially a lot of old guys from the previous site that never came back. This sort of site is small and has to reach a critical mass to operate effectively. And some of the restrictions placed behave like control rods too far in the critical mass. In my opinion.
I don’t agree. This forum is for putting out accurate information on a particular subject. The ability for users to hide information that may not be relevant is very important.
If you want to see what was said, it’s a simple mouse click away.
Seems like the issues here are mirroring the issues on other social media sites that had options where users could inhibit other users public voices. Most of those sites ended or severely limited those options. It’s good in concept to allow the group to help limit offensive conduct, but the system gets abused. Folks use it to publicly quiet perspectives they don’t like, or worse yet, self-servingly make their own voice ring louder by limiting others’ voices. Couple that with moderation heavy handed on critical thought, and information flow constricts.
I’m flagging you all, just to be a dick.
Seriously, though. The moderation on this site, for years, has kept it from being a total sh!tshow of politics and lameness. I think being able to flag bad posts for moderators to take a look at is a good feature, but there should be some sort of threshold for automatically blocking a post because a couple people don’t like it. And there should be some sort of penalty for flagrant flagging.
The thing I see on this forum is when a fire thread starts going off topic it starts off as something related to the incident then goes further to other incidents, things like catering issues or policies could go into its own thread but almost no one bothers to start a thread. Mods make threads when moving posts around but they almost never go anywhere beyond that because apparently scrolling to general discussion can be to hard at times
I don’t want to hear peoples agency politics in an active fire thread. When you start seeing political stuff people start getting chippy with each other. People like me see that and go well I guess I’m done with this place because that makes it no different than Twitter or Facebook.
I feel like we have fairly even handed moderation here and also you guys do a good job of self policing, the post reporting can put of hand but I can see how “now it can be monitored from hundreds of miles away” might be seen as a little inflammatory. The Link to the post I had an issue with really wasn’t a problem it was just wrong fire name and shouldn’t have been flagged. You can’t unflag posts unless a mod does it.
As one who has been sent to isolation for posting factual posts in the Q&D critical of Federal Fire Policy and associated actions I agree that the Q&D is agenda driven by one interest group. Ignorant or disrespectful content is specific to anything critical of Federal Fire agency, facts be damned. Censoring factual respectful debate that some one finds uncomfortable only makes problems worse.
Personally, I’d like this site, aptly maned Wildfire Intel to be just that.
No opinions, No “I would have done it this way”, No “Why didn’t I get ordered?”, . Just the facts.
Is it censorship? No, not if the stated objectives of the site actually reflect what the sites purpose and rules are. If I want opinion I can go to Wildfire Today or Fire Aviation. There are too many media sources that can supply plenty of opinion, policy discourse, coulda, woulda, shoulda, pablum that for once I’d just like the Jack Webb version.“Just the facts.”
Thanks.
That is a wonderful idea!
Watch duty is a great app for just the facts!
It is very frustrating to wade through so many posts about any pending orders, what strike teams are enroute and off topic posts just to get pertinent info on a fire. This site used to be great with lots of good info but has gotten drastically out of hand.
