[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[loinburger]

Because nobody answered my question. Please inform me of a more appropriate venue if there is one.

[Dinner]

I say we fire all the mods just out of principle.

[SlowwHand]

I say we fire you and the whine bag loinburger.

[Lorizael]

This is the appropriate thread, Loin. I haven't responded because I haven't been on. Additionally, you can PM a moderator or an admin if you have a complaint about a moderator. (If you'd PMed me, btw, I would have responded much more quickly.)

As far as my conduct goes, I can see how you would believe my conduct lacks neutrality. I can assure you, however, that is not the case. I am not public about which posters I like and dislike, but if my record of moderator actions were a measure, it would give you a very incorrect impression.

What you're seeing instead is my view that nothing we do here should be too serious, because this is just a forum for mindless discussions. We're only here for fun, and if a poster isn't having fun, I believe that poster should just take a break and enjoy the real world for a little while. When I get offended by something someone has said here, my most common response is to simply roll my eyes and go do something else.

However, I understand that others don't behave that way, and I understand that I shouldn't expect them to. So, if you believe that I was insulting you (it was not my intention to), then I apologize. The moderators are here to ensure that the forum remains a good experience for the posters, and if the posters are unhappy with the conduct of the moderators, something's wrong.

If posters believe my tone lacks the neutrality or non-hostility that it should have, then I'll be happy to take on a less obtrusive attitude.

That said, while my tone may have been inappropriate, my actions were not and I'll stand behind them. Rah displaying incredulity is perhaps insensitive but not against the rules. Loin attacking rah, however, is against the rules. If you have a problem with a poster's behavior, talk to the poster in private or PM a moderator. I've said this over and over again. Do not disrupt a thread because you have a personal issue with a poster.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lori is a terrible mod. First he was riding my ass for simply stating facts about one of the worst posters here and now he's taking rah's side in insulting the memory of loin's grandfather.

[-Jrabbit]

Lori is a terrible mod.

Wait; we have mods?

[Wezil]

I'm just tired of the "take it up privately" mantra.

It doesn't work as publicly or privately the mods will take no action. This has been demonstrated in spades since the new ownership took over.

[Lorizael]

I'm just tired of the "take it up privately" mantra.

It doesn't work as publicly or privately the mods will take no action. This has been demonstrated in spades since the new ownership took over.

I guarantee that if you PM me and I'm at my computer (which I am for the vast majority of the EST day), I'll respond very quickly.

[Wezil]

It's the "response" that is weak Lori.

"Don't do that again" gets pretty ineffectual after awhile.

[Lorizael]

I don't disagree.

There aren't a lot of viable options between a reprimand and a banning, and I'd really rather not ban posters if I don't have to. That's why my strategy of late has been to move offending posts into the closed thread forum.

If you have other suggestions, let's hear them.

[Wezil]

What's wrong with banning?

BK is a classic case. Ben should have been banned years ago. Instead, as posters, we are left with no option but to abuse him at every turn in hopes he will finally go away.

You sat here not too long ago and watched as he amended his sig line with a falsified quote that made another poster look like an absolute ******* (wrongly). Your response? You threatened me with a banning for complaining and made Ben change his sig line.

[Asher]

You know it's the right thing to do when the solution to every mod squabble is to ban Ben.

[Wezil]

I wish we could agree as a forum to completely ignore Ben. If nobody ever responded to his posts, quoted him, or posted in his threads I suspect he'd move on.

The problem with this approach is that he makes such inflammatory and false (lies) statements that he is hard to ignore. He can usually provoke someone.

He needs to be banned.

[Lorizael]

What's wrong with banning?

BK is a classic case. Ben should have been banned years ago. Instead, as posters, we are left with no option but to abuse him at every turn in hopes he will finally go away.

Ben's two largest problems are (a) having opinions that the majority of the board disagrees with and (b) lying about/misrepresenting certain facts.

I strongly believe that he should be allowed to have and express his opinions, no matter how offensive they may be.

But if others want to make the case that lying should not be tolerated in serious discussions, I'd be open to that argument. The difficulty, of course, is proving that a poster is, in fact, lying. And I'd rather not see threads descend into ugly fights about which poster said what about another poster.

You sat here not too long ago and watched as he amended his sig line with a falsified quote that made another poster look like an absolute ******* (wrongly). Your response? You threatened me with a banning for complaining and made Ben change his sig line.

That's not quite what the situation was. I'd like to have an open discussion, so please don't twist issues around to suit you.

[Wezil]

That's not quite what the situation was. I'd like to have an open discussion, so please don't twist issues around to suit you.

What was the situation then? If I'm misrepresenting the case (as you accuse me of) then please set the facts straight.

[Asher]

I think we can all agree that lying and misrepresentation shouldn't be permitted.

It would be retarded to have a rule like "if you lie, you're banned". It should be fairly easy for the admin to make a collective decision based on patterns of behaviour. Give a strong warning, then remedy the situation if they do not improve.

Some people are simply pathological liars and can't be helped by us, but they are destructive to the community and its discussions.

[loinburger]

FWIW, my take-away from these events is that I should not post anything in any way personal or serious on this forum, because it will be my fault if I am upset when somebody responds maliciously - Lori says we're not supposed to take insults personally/seriously (just walk way when rah calls you a liar and a madman, I suppose), and it will be much easier for me to do this if I don't post anything personal or serious. It's nothing but dickgirls from here on out, folks.

[Asher]

Hey, at least you tried.

[Lorizael]

What was the situation then? If I'm misrepresenting the case (as you accuse me of) then please set the facts straight.

As soon as BK changed his sig, I began a PM conversation with him about it. At the conclusion of that conversation, he changed it. The thread itself had gone off topic and descended into personal attacks, so I announced that no more posts on the topic of the sig subject would be allowed. You continued to post in that vein, so I warned you not to do it again.

If the posters in that thread had simply alerted a moderator as to what was going on and then continued the original thread's discussion, I would have gotten BK to change his signature and no further action would have been required.

Realize that this whole mess took place in the span of 20 minutes. I can only act so fast, whereas you all can threadjack a thread in sixty seconds flat.

[Lorizael]

FWIW, my take-away from these events is that I should not post anything in any way personal or serious on this forum, because it will be my fault if I am upset when somebody responds maliciously - Lori says we're not supposed to take insults personally/seriously (just walk way when rah calls you a liar and a madman, I suppose), and it will be much easier for me to do this if I don't post anything personal or serious. It's nothing but dickgirls from here on out, folks.

You're more than welcome to post personal/serious content, but I think it's reasonable to say that you have to have a thick skin when you do. If a poster baits you or criticizes you, the best solution is to respond to them in a civil fashion so that the situation doesn't escalate any. Jumping immediately to personal attacks is just not the answer.

[loinburger]

You're more than welcome to post personal/serious content, but I think it's reasonable to say that you have to have a thick skin when you do.

Exactly. This is not a civil forum, ergo, dickgirls for all.

[Wezil]

As soon as BK changed his sig, I began a PM conversation with him about it. At the conclusion of that conversation, he changed it. The thread itself had gone off topic and descended into personal attacks, so I announced that no more posts on the topic of the sig subject would be allowed. You continued to post in that vein, so I warned you not to do it again.

You allowed the offending sig to continue being displayed while you negotiated with Ben to remove it. Grow a backbone. He should have been banned immediately.

If the posters in that thread had simply alerted a moderator as to what was going on and then continued the original thread's discussion, I would have gotten BK to change his signature and no further action would have been required.

You were alerted and you did nothing constructive.

Realize that this whole mess took place in the span of 20 minutes. I can only act so fast, whereas you all can threadjack a thread in sixty seconds flat.

I've been banned in less than 20 minutes for far less serious infractions.

[Lorizael]

Exactly. This is not a civil forum, ergo, dickgirls for all.

See. I don't like that.

I'm currently toying with the idea of branching the Off Topic off into a no-rules subforum and a main serious discussion forum. Of course, I have no power to do this, but I could certainly offer it as a suggestion to the admins. This is what I have in mind.

In the discussion forum, any topic would be allowed except for topics aimed directly at other posters. On topic threads would be moderated to ensure that the original thread topic is maintained (perhaps branching threads off if a new topic arises), and any posts in an topic thread that are intentionally personal, inflammatory, baiting, trolling, etc. would simply be deleted out of hand.

In the no-rules subforum, however, there would essentially be no moderation at all. Posters would be free to discuss and say whatever they wanted, and there would be no recourse or repercussions. Only strictly illegal behavior would be moderated.

In my mind, such a setup would allow posters to engage in serious discussion in the off topic without having to worry about personal attacks, trolls, accusations, or anything else. But it wouldn't stop those posters who want to engage in such behavior - either for fun or malice - from doing so.

[Lorizael]

You allowed the offending sig to continue being displayed while you negotiated with Ben to remove it. Grow a backbone. He should have been banned immediately.

I'm not in favor of immediately banning posters for anything. There's a lot that we allow that is iffy because posters are light-hearted about some subjects and incredibly serious about others and it's very hard to tell where that line is sometimes. So, I talked with him first to see what was going on.

You were alerted and you did nothing constructive.

The sig was removed and the thread got back on topic.

I've been banned in less than 20 minutes for far less serious infractions.

Infraction? Sigs with poster quotes, even misquoted poster quotes, are pretty common around here. I only had BK remove his sig because rah specifically said he was not okay with it. Otherwise, I'm not really sure what rule that violates.

[notyoueither]

That's a really, really bad idea.

xpost

[Lorizael]

That's a really, really bad idea.

Why do you think so, and what do you believe is the solution to a forum that behaves as this one does? The problem here is that there are times when posters think it's perfectly acceptable to engage in name-calling, attacks, and trolling, and other times when those same posters are very opposed to that idea. The difference depends on the subject and the posters involved.

To me, the solution is not to discriminate between subject and poster in that manner. I think it's better to have one forum in which serious discussion is expected (because that's clearly what some posters want) and one forum where insults and depravity are allowed (because that's clearly what some posters want as well).

[notyoueither]

You'd be creating a forum where people from other parts of the site would be attacked mercilessly, for one. I doubt that makes for a better community.

Also, there is little enough traffic in OT some days. Splitting it isn't going to help.

[Lorizael]

You'd be creating a forum where people from other parts of the site would be attacked mercilessly, for one. I doubt that makes for a better community.

It would need a warning and a disclaimer, yeah.

Also, there is little enough traffic in OT some days. Splitting it isn't going to help.

My hope would be that posters would feel encouraged to once again post serious discussion threads in the OT, knowing that they could do so without having to worry about the crap that often drags such threads down. But yes, that kind of growth would be slow and the OT is not exactly bustling right now.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think the idea is good Lori.

I think we should all just be adults, both about when someone else flames us and when we joke with others.

JM

[Lorizael]

I think we should all just be adults...

Yeah, but that's clearly not going to happen.