[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Ming]

Just because people see his posts sometimes doesn't mean they don't wish he'd never return.

I don't argue that point... but I was arguing your opinon that half the members have him on ignore.

[loinburger]

The ignore feature doesn't work - the people most in need of being ignored are too likely to be quoted, and even if they're not then they're still able to destroy any thread they touch.

[Asher]

Just because people see his posts sometimes doesn't mean they don't wish he'd never return.

It's just like looking at a car wreck. You don't wish for them to happen, and they screw up your commute, but you can't help but look at them.

[Ming]

Just from looking at who responds to him and quotes what he posts, vs the people that claim he is on ignore, I would have to estimate that it is nowhere near half.

[Asher]

I say we start a poll thread.

[Ming]

At a point when you would reasonably expect over half of the OTF's regular population to have a particular poster on an ignore list, that should tell you the OTF's position on the person's presence.

Fixed... Most of the site's members that don't post in the OTF don't know or don't care about Ben's insane comments.

Plus, I seriously doubt that over half of the OTF posters have Ben on ignore.

[Asher]

At a point when you would reasonably expect over half of the site's regular population to have a particular poster on an ignore list, that should tell you the community's position on the person's presence.

[MikeH]

Also, I could have a discussion about how bad being dishonest really is, or how honest you really expect people to be on the internet. Short summary: not that bad, to be expected. But does make for something easy to get indignant about because people find it very hard to defend lying, despite us all doing it all the time.

[MikeH]

Can we get a serious discussion on if we should ban people who are constantly and incessantly and DISRUPTIVELY dishonest?

Ok.

My view: I think it's very dangerous if we make being stupid, having different views to the majority or trolling bannable offences. There'd be no-one left.

Being disruptive has much more scope for being something you could be banned for. That said, when the common calls were for you to be perma-banned for being disruptive I always came down on the side of not banning you. Ben causes his disruption in a different way, but the effects on the Off Topic are very similar. The only difference is that in the old days you'd be banned for a day or two or a week to cool off, and we're not doing that. TBH I think a lot of the more recent Asher Ben exchanges would have resulted in you being banned too

For instance, Ben is posting in threads again about how Obama is a muslim, etc. There's just no valid contribution to this site in any way, and every time he does **** like that (and he does it a LOT), it derails threads and provokes vicious attacks.

How do we define a "valid contribution to the site"? I think a lot of us who are pretty much only Off Topic regulars could be on shaky ground there. And again, lots of similarities with the continuous calls over the years to get you banned. That last sentence I've seen mirrored tons over the years in your direction, sure it's a different cause but it's the same effect in the end. And I've seen comments that people feel they can't put Ben on ignore and that kind of stuff. Why not? The blame for the disruption lies at least as much with the people who can't ignore him doesn't it? He's just another poster, he doesn't deserve the proportion of attention he gets from everyone.

Ben is a brilliant troll, whether it's intentionally or not. I have got sucked in by him in the past. Personally, I'd like Ben to either start to appreciate how offensive a lot of people find his views, and genuinely take that into account in his posting, or to stop trolling whichever it is he's doing. Either way the easiest way to kill any troll is not to respond.

Generally we wanted to give Off Topic posters some freedom, let people moderate themselves to a greater extent so we only need to step in on rare occasions. I think the vast majority of posters have responded really well to that, there are some notable exceptions and there are personality clashes, but I don't see that the Off Topic has major issues that need addressing at the moment. I know not all the other moderators necessarily agree with me on that, so I'm sure not all the posters do.

[Wezil]

According to Poly that is just another point of view. Lies don't exist.

[Asher]

Can we get a serious discussion on if we should ban people who are constantly and incessantly and DISRUPTIVELY dishonest?

For instance, Ben is posting in threads again about how Obama is a muslim, etc. There's just no valid contribution to this site in any way, and every time he does **** like that (and he does it a LOT), it derails threads and provokes vicious attacks.

[Japher]

Seriously Guynemer, we don't need to hear that kind of stuff.

[Drake Tungsten]

Stop trying to turn me on.

[Guynemer]

Guynemer for OT Mod!

I would've banned your ass so many times by now, you'd be on your ninth DL.

[Lorizael]

See, if I were mod, we wouldn't have these problems.

We know, dammit!