The amount of stuff said on this forum that wouldn't get said if the posters were on a live national interview is large.

FriscoKid said:

---

The Shank Ag said:

---

To be fair, Brandon has defended this board a ton when boundaries have been pushed by some posters. Compared to most other websites, this one is pretty free and open.

---

I agree with that and can understand why he doesn't want profs targeted. I have a bigger problem getting banned in the middle of the night for political reasons. Saying that a stupid vote for a stupid person led to the disaster in Afghanistan is hardly ban worthy. Neither is saying "shut up". I want this site to succeed because it's a wealth of information and generally a great news site. Bad moderation is driving away good posters and costing the company revenue from subscriptions. That's my frustration .

---

Consistent moderation is hard when you have to have multiple people doing it. What one person will let go, the other person might issue a ban for. That part irks me as well, but that's part of the human condition. Nobody is the exact same as somebody else, and to compile a list of exact rules/protocol to follow would be huge task. That thing would have to be a novel.

FriscoKid said:

---

The Shank Ag said:

---

To be fair, Brandon has defended this board a ton when boundaries have been pushed by some posters. Compared to most other websites, this one is pretty free and open.

---

I agree with that and can understand why he doesn't want profs targeted. I have a bigger problem getting banned in the middle of the night for political reasons. Saying that a stupid vote for a stupid person led to the disaster in Afghanistan is hardly ban worthy. Neither is saying "shut up". I want this site to succeed because it's a wealth of information and generally a great news site. Bad moderation is driving away good posters and costing the company revenue from subscriptions. That's my frustration .

---

When they have repeatedly said to stop doing that, just like they did with sorry your girl lost, what else is an option? It is obvious some posters do not believe that if the staff says stop posting that, they actually have to.

The Shank Ag said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

The Shank Ag said:

---

To be fair, Brandon has defended this board a ton when boundaries have been pushed by some posters. Compared to most other websites, this one is pretty free and open.

---

I agree with that and can understand why he doesn't want profs targeted. I have a bigger problem getting banned in the middle of the night for political reasons. Saying that a stupid vote for a stupid person led to the disaster in Afghanistan is hardly ban worthy. Neither is saying "shut up". I want this site to succeed because it's a wealth of information and generally a great news site. Bad moderation is driving away good posters and costing the company revenue from subscriptions. That's my frustration .

---

Consistent moderation is hard when you have to have multiple people doing it. What one person will let go, the other person might issue a ban for. That part irks me as well, but that's part of the human condition. Nobody is the exact same as somebody else, and to compile a list of exact rules/protocol to follow would be huge task. That thing would have to be a novel.

---

They have also said some people get more leeway than others based on how many times that poster has been previously banned

aggiemike02 said:

---

man, lots of ******* on this thread showing their true colors.

---

It takes a lot of balls to be a badass on the internet. /thuglife

FriscoKid said:

---

The Shank Ag said:

---

To be fair, Brandon has defended this board a ton when boundaries have been pushed by some posters. Compared to most other websites, this one is pretty free and open.

---

I agree with that and can understand why he doesn't want profs targeted. I have a bigger problem getting banned in the middle of the night for political reasons. Saying that a stupid vote for a stupid person led to the disaster in Afghanistan is hardly ban worthy. Neither is saying "shut up". I want this site to succeed because it's a wealth of information and generally a great news site. Bad moderation is driving away good posters and costing the company revenue from subscriptions. That's my frustration .

---

I get this completely. Definitely disagree with some of the modding choices but at the end of the day, I am not going to die if my post get deleted. Have had probably at least a dozen disappear with zero explanation and have caught two bans, both of which I have no idea why I explicitly did. But I just chalk it up to getting my peepee smacked and move on with life. Nothing we type here is gospel that will enlighten the future generations. I still think there is far more good conversation and input than not, so I can put up with a little wayward moderation from time to time.

Also helps I don't target posters with direct admonishments. I just don't care to interact with certain people anymore these days and don't allow those who would warrant a "STFU" to live in my head even long enough to type that out. Highly recommend others reach this zen like state. It's actually quite nice.

Another example was when Tanya called me a self-righteous ***** and the post was flagged multiple times and no ban was issued. Name calling was always a red line under all conditions. Especially such an ugly name like that. She was never banned. That's way worse than saying shut up. (In my untrained opinion)

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

suburban cowboy said:

---

I wouldn't consider raising awareness around tax-payer funded public educators who are intentionally breaking the law harassment. That's called accountability.

What an all-around disturbing response from the leader of TexAgs.

---

Last I will say, which probably will end in a ban, but feel it needs to be said. I'm sure Brandon is under a tremendous amount of stress and pressure in today's political climate.

However the response from him, I thought was tacky and completely unnecessary. A number of us have wanted nothing but transparent and clear guidance regarding moderation. That has not been the case, and in actuality his response indicates to me he probably isn't interested in our opinions on the matter.

I know for a fact that post on the moderation thread at the top of the page have been deleted. Not much transparency. That is fine, as he mentioned if we don't like it, we can go start our own message board. I have canceled my membership, and while I doubt my $5 is going to make any difference, it is the only voice any of us have.

---

Doing the same.

Texags and its leadership have chosen to tell us to GFY.

Right back atcha Brandon.

Got really tired of Billy's schtick abusing people in comment sections, waited around for Brandon to shed some light on moderation (which never came), and now Brandon can't find the testicles to be the epicenter of its members formalizing a response against A&M professors overreach.

---

well bye.gif

HammerHeadAg said:

---

aggiemike02 said:

---

man, lots of ******* on this thread showing their true colors.

---

It takes a lot of balls to be a badass on the internet. /thuglife

---

hahahaha.

Rendered Fat said:

---

I respect his rules and moderation policy

---

When posts do not break any STATED rules, but break this "mythical" mission statement Brandon mentioned, that is when there is a problem.

All I've done is ask where we can read this mission statement, but was told to go make my own site. Seemed to be a little silly response.

I only caught the first few pages of the professor thread - there was nothing there that violated any Terms of Agreement or any forum specific rules posted. It just went against this magical mission statement, apparently.

I digress. This is my last post - it's clear that the defense is coming in and will overwhelm this thread. Then it will be locked. I hope those that needed the names of the professors got them and are taking this off-board. When Aggies that are trying to earn degrees are targeted by professors (many of whom are not Aggies), it SHOULD be this boards goal to end that. No Aggie should feel harassed going to class.

Quote:

---

When Aggies that are trying to earn degrees are targeted by professors (many of whom are not Aggies), it SHOULD be this boards goal to end that. No Aggie should feel harassed going to class.

---

Agree 1000% with this too.

Tanya 93 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

The Shank Ag said:

---

To be fair, Brandon has defended this board a ton when boundaries have been pushed by some posters. Compared to most other websites, this one is pretty free and open.

---

I agree with that and can understand why he doesn't want profs targeted. I have a bigger problem getting banned in the middle of the night for political reasons. Saying that a stupid vote for a stupid person led to the disaster in Afghanistan is hardly ban worthy. Neither is saying "shut up". I want this site to succeed because it's a wealth of information and generally a great news site. Bad moderation is driving away good posters and costing the company revenue from subscriptions. That's my frustration .

---

When they have repeatedly said to stop doing that, just like they did with sorry your girl lost, what else is an option? It is obvious some posters do not believe that if the staff says stop posting that, they actually have to.

---

Except another thread was started a few days later that said the exact same thing. It stayed and no bans. That was the point in the inconsistent moderation comment. Calm down lady.

Hurricane Laura said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

The Shank Ag said:

---

To be fair, Brandon has defended this board a ton when boundaries have been pushed by some posters. Compared to most other websites, this one is pretty free and open.

---

I agree with that and can understand why he doesn't want profs targeted. I have a bigger problem getting banned in the middle of the night for political reasons. Saying that a stupid vote for a stupid person led to the disaster in Afghanistan is hardly ban worthy. Neither is saying "shut up". I want this site to succeed because it's a wealth of information and generally a great news site. Bad moderation is driving away good posters and costing the company revenue from subscriptions. That's my frustration .

---

When they have repeatedly said to stop doing that, just like they did with sorry your girl lost, what else is an option? It is obvious some posters do not believe that if the staff says stop posting that, they actually have to.

---

Except another thread was started a few days later that said the exact same thing. It stayed and no bans. That was the point in the inconsistent moderation comment. Calm down lady.

---

Staff has said bannings are more common and/or longer for people with a long ban history.
Have a nice rest of your day

Except that wasn't your argument. You just had your argument blown up and tried to redirect to something else. Don't like when someone actually engages your argument and points out the obvious problems with it?

Admit it. You argument didn't hold water.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

This might be a good time to start an off texags discord that has no affiliation with texags.

Then organize there free of moderation.

Brandon, I am sure you would welcome that solution as texags would have no implication nor ties to it besides being a muster point to bring people to said discord chat.

---

nerdery has a discord channel. Forumn 16 might as well

---

For real? Where's the nerdery discord at?!