or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › Feedback › Content Moderator for Fireside Chat
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Content Moderator for Fireside Chat

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
It is my opinion that we need a content moderator for Fireside Chat to moderate objective things such as when someone is trolling, presenting flame-bait, hijacking a thread, and not backing up their posts when called to do so. I request this because the state of Fireside Chat is in shambles. It is in shambles because discussions rarely survive those things that a content moderator would regulate and presumably prevent.

This would be a new position in addition to the existing moderators, though the content moderator's power would be limited to the aforementioned issues. I think it's important that we improve the quality of discussions in Fireside Chat. I believe that a sure-fire way to do it is the way I have described. The current moderators are overburdened and ineffective at what a content moderator would be designed specifically to do.

You guys would iron out the details, but what do you think of the general idea of improving Fireside Chat that way?
post #2 of 34
yeah, but who would moderate content?

you want someone like me moderating liberal posts/ideas?

would you want Fran moderating the conservative side of things?

fireside is fireside. if someone can't back up their posts with links/content, then they're posts should be ignored.

if something appears to be a troll, ignore it.

if others seem to be falling for a troll, let them know why you feel that way, ask the person you feel is a troll to further explain their views. if they can't your vindicated. if they do the thread is back on track.

as for hijacking threads, it's annoying but a natural outgrowth of discussion. if it's bothersome, do your part to bring the topic back on track.

trying to moderate content/ideas is dangerous, IMO.

edit: i think the biggest problem is that every moderator is also a real person, and has their own viewpoints. keeping the two entirely seperate is virtually impossible.

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
post #3 of 34
Thread Starter 
That's not really what I said.

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #4 of 34
Well, it's been a long time since we had everyone screaming at us for over-moderating. This would solve that easy enough.
post #5 of 34
[quote]we need a content moderator for Fireside Chat to moderate objective things such as when someone is trolling, presenting flame-bait, hijacking a thread, and not backing up their posts when called to do so.<hr></blockquote>

this is what i'm referring to. the problem is that what i might see as trolling, someone else might not. my idea of flame-bait would not often be someone else's.

the hijacking would be a bit easier to stop, but as i said, it's often times a natural outgrowth of a discussion. at what point is it hijacking vs. discussion?
post #6 of 34
The problem with moderating the sort of partisan deathmatches that characterize FC is that, as alcimedes points out, it's hard to step in without appearing to take sides. That's just about the last thing I'd like to see happen to the moderators here. It's not possible, in an objective sense, to differentiate sloganeering and heated partisan rhetoric from trolling; nor is it possible to differentiate thread hijacking from an attempt to bring a discussion around to what someone feels is the real point. As Mandelbrot famously observed, the noise is an integral part of the signal. Any attempt to cut out the noise will necessarily cut some part of the signal as well. The signal-to-noise ratio of FC is sufficient to make this compromise unattractive (to understate).

The ideal solution would be for the membership to absolutely maintain a level of civility that identified trolls, and a level of restraint that left troll posts unanswered. Failing that, and assuming the current ferocity of the tempests in this teapot, the only other option for the administration is to nuke the forum from orbit.

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #7 of 34
I do not believe SPJ would open this thread. Fireside chat is a place for discussions where by not all people may agree. If one is to disagree with another person calling for the teacher in the class or the nanny is not what is needed.

Have a backbone of your own and state your opinions.

Simple

Don't get all wound up because somebody takes you to task.

with respect,

Fellowship

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #8 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>The problem with moderating the sort of partisan deathmatches that characterize FC is that, as alcimedes points out, it's hard to step in without appearing to take sides. That's just about the last thing I'd like to see happen to the moderators here. It's not possible, in an objective sense, to differentiate sloganeering and heated partisan rhetoric from trolling; nor is it possible to differentiate thread hijacking from an attempt to bring a discussion around to what someone feels is the real point. As Mandelbrot famously observed, the noise is an integral part of the signal. Any attempt to cut out the noise will necessarily cut some part of the signal as well. The signal-to-noise ratio of FC is sufficient to make this compromise unattractive (to understate).

The ideal solution would be for the membership to absolutely maintain a level of civility that identified trolls, and a level of restraint that left troll posts unanswered. Failing that, and assuming the current ferocity of the tempests in this teapot, the only other option for the administration is to nuke the forum from orbit.

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I love this writing! Great work and I love the quotes.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #9 of 34
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>I do not believe SPJ would open this thread. Fireside chat is a place for discussions where by not all people may agree. If one is to disagree with another person calling for the teacher in the class or the nanny is not what is needed.

Have a backbone of your own and state your opinions.

Simple

Don't get all wound up because somebody takes you to task.

with respect,

Fellowship

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Read: "I didn't read what SPJ wrote here, so I'll just flame away"
post #10 of 34
Thread Starter 
Amorph,

I see what you mean. What's interesting is that I also advocated the removal of Fireside Chat from its onset as member SJPSU. My reasons have changed since then, but I guess this is just my attempt to salvage what wreck more than 2/3 of Fireside Chat threads are.
post #11 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

Read: "I didn't read what SPJ wrote here, so I'll just flame away"</strong><hr></blockquote>

I read what you said.

What I would like to know is do you need a moderator in real life when you talk to people?

Is life just so unfair in every day life for you?

People that voice their opinions without a mod to "correct" them.

I hope you do not need a real life mod in your life just to make it fair.

It is just almost funny but it is really sad.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #12 of 34
Thread Starter 
That's pathetic. If you care to address how it responds my original post, be my guest.
post #13 of 34
As Amorph and Alcimedes said, it's hard to have a content moderator. Because
- it reducing the noise is reducing the signal
- no one is strictly neutral

And more important neutrality is not always the right opinion. I means if you consider a blurrian gauss , it 's not because you are in the middle that you hold the trust. Galileo was the only at his time to think that the earth was turning around the sun, he was in the extremetie of the gaussian blur of opinions about the subject. If you take a moderate people of this time, a perfect content moderator, he will have ban him, or say he was trolling. In others words it's not because you have a moderate opinion in every thing that you are right on everything. Sometimes extremist opinons are the good one, even if most of the times they aren't.

A perfect content moderator , will have to be above us, a sort of relation with a master and his student. Frankly i leave school or universities many years ago, it doesn't interest me to find this on FC.

Sorry we can only moderate the container in FC not the content.
post #14 of 34
Thread Starter 
Not really, Powerdoc. I'm sure you understand "content" to be something different than what I intended. And your expounding on that one aspect of the definition of the word is what makes your response somewhat misguided. I understand that it is difficult for moderators to maintain the guise of neutrality in enforcing rules against trolls, flamers, and hijackers. It was that aspect of "content" to which I referred, not deciding what topics to post. In fact you won't see any reference to discussable topics in my original post. Cool though.

(For the record, Galileo had credible evidence on his side, trolls presumably do not <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )
post #15 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Not really, Powerdoc. I'm sure you understand "content" to be something different than what I intended. And your expounding on that one aspect of the definition of the word is what makes your response somewhat misguided. I understand that it is difficult for moderators to maintain the guise of neutrality in enforcing rules against trolls, flamers, and hijackers. It was that aspect of "content" to which I referred, not deciding what topics to post. In fact you won't see any reference to discussable topics in my original post. Cool though.

(For the record, Galileo had credible evidence on his side, trolls presumably do not <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )</strong><hr></blockquote>
The word content is translate contenu in French. I never refer to what topics to post but to their content. So even if i speak like shit i have clearly understand what do you mean.

Spealing of Galileo even if he had credible evidence on his side, it's worth nothing if nobody is ready to see them. At his time he was considered to be a troll (translate it blasphemator).

The quality of FC or nearly others forums are based upon the quality of the members.

I think that you expect too much from FC.
post #16 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>That's pathetic. If you care to address how it responds my original post, be my guest.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Kids, Suggestions is not Fireside Chat. So let's check this kind of crap at the door, lest there be consequences and repurcussions
post #17 of 34
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
I think that you expect too much from FC.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You nailed it. I certainly do. The following is from a conservative message board's rules. I think they're fairly what I am after:

[quote]1. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use Allied Conservatives.com to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violates any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material, article, or work without a link back to the source of the article or work, and to include the author and date of the article (if included in the article or work) in your post or reply. (There are spaces provided in the software for this purpose) You also agree not to circumvent the 100 word posting limit for copyrighted articles or works in any way. (The software snips copyrighted articles at 100 words to comply with Copyright Law)

2. Although we cannot always review the messages posted immediately and is not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we at Allied Conservatives.com reserve the right to delete any message, or member from this bulletin board for any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this BB (Allied Conservatives.com), Infopop. (the makers of the bulletin board software), and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). We at Allied Conservatives.com also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.

3. Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on Allied Conservatives.com, and will be deleted. If any of the above actions continues after warning to cease, it is grounds for revocation of posting privileges or banning from this site.

4. Absolutely NO FLAMING (personal attacks and the like), HATE SPEECH, THREATS, ADVOCACY or PROMOTING LAWLESSNESS/ILLEGAL DRUG USAGE, or RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION/RIDICULE, WILL BE TOLERATED on this site! Failure to abide by this rule WILL result in banning from this site.

*We will now allow more leeway in the tone of discussions and debate. The ACC Management team will not step into debates and discussions unless we observe blatant and excessive flaming, or if the topic has drifted beyond the point of no return. We are all adults here, and expect you all to behave like one. We ask that you use your mature discretion when it comes to your tone and your style of debate. More "colorful" language will be tolerated, but we ask that you do NOT abuse the leeway we offer by using excessive amounts of foul language. We have removed the software "censor" of certain words for use in debates and discussions.

5. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. However, this site strives for HONEST and TRUTHFUL debate, no matter what your point of view may be. If you are asked to provide VERIFIABLE proof of a claim, assertion, or statement, you are expected to provide it or face potential suspension or banning. In other words, trolling and baiting are not allowed! The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Allied Conservatives.com or any entity associated with Allied Conservatives.com. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.

6. Sending abusive, harassing, or threatening Private Messages at Allied Conservatives.com will result in the suspension of posting privileges or banning from this site and potential criminal prosecution.

*7. A private warning will be issued when a blatant offense to our rules is observed by a member of the management. A member will be given a 1 week suspension after the warning if the offense is repeated. After two suspensions, a member can be subject to banning by the ACC Management team.

8. You also agree to any changes in the rules or policies of this site/bulletin board without notice.

Other rules and policies that are invoked upon registration at this site may be found here. <hr></blockquote>

[ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #18 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>
The following is from a conservative message board's rules. I think they're fairly what I am after:
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No promoting of illegal drugs? And this is supposed to be a liberal board you're after? And no religious ridicule either? If Fireside Chat were a healthy man, you'd propose to chop its balls off.
post #19 of 34
While I agree with SPJ that fireside is unacceptable as it is now, I do also have other beefs with FC:

what I don't like is that several very interesting topics, who are not very "firesidy", are resting in FC.

(example <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000416" target="_blank">#1</a>, <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000389" target="_blank">#2</a>, <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000411" target="_blank">#3</a>, <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000418" target="_blank">#4</a>)

I don't like that topics who were before in AO are now created in FC due to non-moderating and lazy declaration of FC.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[edit: I hate that every goddamn topic which is posted in FC, gets ripped to shreds, even if it's a good one like #3 ]

[ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: Defiant ]</p>
post #20 of 34
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by der Kopf:
<strong>

No promoting of illegal drugs? And this is supposed to be a liberal board you're after? And no religious ridicule either? If Fireside Chat were a healthy man, you'd propose to chop its balls off.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Was that what I said in my original post, dk? Those rules are what I was getting at more or less, which means it generally followed as I described. It's an example that shows it can be done.

And no I'm not after a liberal board in this thread. Nothing I have written comes close to saying that. Restrain yourself, please.
post #21 of 34
Thread Starter 
Defiant, though I agree with the rest of what you said, all except the LOTR thread belong in Fireside Chat. If you read closely, the face transplant thread is about the psychological affects, my wal-mart values thread is about sexual discrimination, and the fusion energy thread is politically controversial enough just being an energy topic.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #22 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Defiant, though I agree with the rest of what you said, all except the LOTR thread belong in Fireside Chat. If you read closely, the face transplant thread is about the psychological affects, my wal-mart values thread is about sexual discrimination, and the fusion energy thread is politically controversial enough just being an energy topic.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

yes LOTR belongs to Fireside Chat.
The others examples are correct : they should went to AO. I must admit that i move thread from AO to FC, but that we don't move topics from FC to AO very often.

Now, personaly i don't think that AO and FC should have a different management : differents subjects, but same guidelines for me.
post #23 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>...all except the LOTR thread belong in Fireside Chat.</strong><hr></blockquote>

why ?

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>If you read closely, the face transplant thread is about the psychological affects,</strong><hr></blockquote>

you have to fight about that ? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong> my wal-mart values thread is about sexual discrimination, </strong><hr></blockquote>

about that too ?

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>and the fusion energy thread is politically controversial enough just being an energy topic.</strong><hr></blockquote>



you're a fine man, SPJ, but I just do not agree on all your points.
post #24 of 34
Thread Starter 
Powerdoc you think this looks right, lol?:

Whatcha listenin to?
Turkey Day!
happy happy thoughts!
SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION!

I think I am right concerning where those 4 topics should go
post #25 of 34
I know I shouldn't make light of this thread, but this made me giggle:
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>1. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use Allied Conservatives.com to post any material which is knowingly false...</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a basis for rules here at AI, this would be a bad place to begin. We'd have to delete Future Hardware for a start.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #26 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I know I shouldn't make light of this thread, but this made me giggle:

As a basis for rules here at AI, this would be a bad place to begin. We'd have to delete Future Hardware for a start. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you refer to the word Allied Belle ?
post #27 of 34
Defiant , SPJ was joking or pulling your leg when he speak of the the 3 others threads.

LOTR cast of AI characters, was hidden but blattant flamewar. The people he appreciate where good characters, the others where evil. You can check if you want.
post #28 of 34
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I know I shouldn't make light of this thread, but this made me giggle:

As a basis for rules here at AI, this would be a bad place to begin. We'd have to delete Future Hardware for a start. </strong><hr></blockquote>

1. I am talking only about Fireside Chat
2. The nature of Future Hardware is mostly speculative, not deliberately wrong. There's quite a difference. Anyway, I never said the rules apply to that forum.

Like I said, it was just a general idea about where Fireside Chat could go and how to improve it. Right now the status quo sucks. You can disagree, but I don't really see you in there that often so I doubt you care. You should care because it's really not the place to haev even a discussion. People post claims without backing and refuse to support their statements when called upon. A moderator who would look at such transgressions could possibly weed out those who do so. Hmm. I'm just trying to improve things for everyone here- except those that cause trouble by trolling, flaming and hijacking. Is there anything we could do?
post #29 of 34
[quote]Like I said, it was just a general idea about where Fireside Chat could go and how to improve it. Right now the status quo sucks. You can disagree, but I don't really see you in there that often so I doubt you care. <hr></blockquote>

to be honest, moderators have less say in the matter than you'd like to think. sure, we can clean stuff up, but it's always after the fact. then top that off with the fact that none of us are paid to do this, it's something we do in our spare time. i'm not about to take up a crusade of cleaning out every crap post in Fireside Chat. lol, funny, i just had a ver FC comment to make, but i'll skip it.

i think you want to fix things in the wrong direction though. rather than having some ruling body that dictates what will and will not stay in FC for everyone, you'd be better off holding the posters to higher standards. you're expecting a handful of people to police the acts of dozens. instead, why not just expect more from those that post?

if you make an effort to keep a thread civil, on-topic and factual, it can be done. if you're willing to degenerate into a flamefest it will happen every time.

you'll have to lead by example, not dictate terms.

it's hard work, but the only real solution.

quality posts tend to get quality replies. ignore trolls and respond to posts worth responding to.

trust me, you don't want the likes of groverat and i running through FC chat with billy clubs smacking down anyone we think is being an idiot, that would create a horrible atmosphere.
post #30 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>1. I am talking only about Fireside Chat
2. The nature of Future Hardware is mostly speculative, not deliberately wrong. There's quite a difference. Anyway, I never said the rules apply to that forum.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know, ShawnPatrickJoyce. I was just fooling.
[quote]<strong>Like I said, it was just a general idea about where Fireside Chat could go and how to improve it. Right now the status quo sucks. You can disagree, but I don't really see you in there that often so I doubt you care. You should care because it's really not the place to haev even a discussion. People post claims without backing and refuse to support their statements when called upon. A moderator who would look at such transgressions could possibly weed out those who do so. Hmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I read every current thread in that forum every day, but I tend not to post. Why? Because I realize that many people's opinions will be very different to my own, just as in the real world, and I don't care to waste my time beating my head against a brick wall to make my point be known. It's just like out there in the real world.

If you consider Fireside Chat such a wretched hive of scum and villainy, why do you bother participating, and why do you care so much that it be moderated with a firmer hand?

Are we supposed to check the claims made by all posters and delete those we consider untruthful? Lock or delete threads that cannot be proven?

Fireside Chat is full of individuals offering personal opinions on subjects. It's there to let AI's members discuss all the contentious stuff that doesn't really belong on an Apple-related forum anyway.

If you want reasoned, edited, and censored discussion about politics and religion then go to an appropriate site.
[quote]<strong>I'm just trying to improve things for everyone here- except those that cause trouble by trolling, flaming and hijacking. Is there anything we could do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I'm aware, Fireside Chat was created to solve this exact problem in Apple Outsider. I appreciate your sentiment, but as I say, this really isn't the forum for that kind of thing.

We basically have two choices - keep this stuff locked up in Fireside Chat and allow people to go unmoderated, or shut down Fireside Chat and just not let anyone discuss politics and religion on this forum.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #31 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>Defiant , SPJ was joking or pulling your leg when he speak of the the 3 others threads.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

if you say so, doc.

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>LOTR cast of AI characters, was hidden but blattant flamewar. The people he appreciate where good characters, the others where evil. You can check if you want.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah I've checked, but I didn't realise.
post #32 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
As far as I'm aware, Fireside Chat was created to solve this exact problem in Apple Outsider. I appreciate your sentiment, but as I say, this really isn't the forum for that kind of thing.

We basically have two choices - keep this stuff locked up in Fireside Chat and allow people to go unmoderated, or shut down Fireside Chat and just not let anyone discuss politics and religion on this forum.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I understand and agree with this statement. I think it would be a shame to shut out religious and political views because one person is upset at the conversation taking place.

I believe the moderators have done a great job with the forum and I give them credit for doing it as a service.

Peace and Happy Thanksgiving,

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #33 of 34
Thread Starter 
No one's advocating shutting down anyone's opinion, Fellowship. Though, Belle, I advocate improving Fireside Chat because I like posting in there, but it's just not as good as it could be- as evidenced by the ACC forum rules. Hmm.
post #34 of 34
Thread Starter 
Oh well. I like AppleOutsider better anyway.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Feedback
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › Feedback › Content Moderator for Fireside Chat