[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

That's a really, really bad idea.

xpost

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Asher]

Hey, at least you tried.

[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]

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.

[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.