[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[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.

[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]

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.

[Asher]

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

[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.