What's new

Can't We All Just Get Along?

How often do you report other posters to the Mods?

  • Always

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Sometimes

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Seldom

    Votes: 9 23.7%
  • Never

    Votes: 23 60.5%
  • Only when I run out of cheese

    Votes: 4 10.5%

  • Total voters
    38
I've never reported a single poster. It's the internet people, I don't know you and you don't know me. Of course I'm going to say stuff to get a reaction out of people, because that's how I am in real life. Do I always mean it? Of course not, and my friends know that. I'm a sarcastic *******. You want people to be polite to each other and agree on everything, but that's just not realistic. You want to ban me for being vocal about my opinions? Fine, go for it. Can't see how that's tolerant either though.

I think we're all pretty tolerant - the mods specifically and the board in general, but it's a matter of style and degree. Does your response attack the person or that person's opinion? Do you disagree in a way that is reasonably civil and respectful, or do you go off on an epithet-filled rant? Would you say in person what you'd write on the message board? Would you say it out loud in a public place, perhaps to a colleague in your office for example?

I'll be upfront here, one of my peeves is when poster A reports harassing posts (or PM's or rep comments) from poster B, and the mods determine that the behavior has crossed the line and is unacceptable and warns poster B about the behavior, but the harassment persists, so an infraction is issued. If the harassment continues after that point, I for one have very little sympathy or tolerance for the offending poster.

This is also one of those situations where it's difficult to draw an absolute line in the sand, as it depends to a large degree on the tolerance of each individual on the board. Some things are unquestionably unacceptable, but many things fall into a gray area, and this is where context can make a difference. And every little insult is not a vehement personal attack - - but a pattern of little insults can built up to become a personal attack.




oh, and telling another poster that they should kill themselves, whether it's naming them personally or naming a group of people they belong to is generally not an acceptable thing to say...
even if you're just quoting some famous comedian...


just sayin'
 
And the "can't we all just get along" thread has degraded into an argument. Oh sweet irony!!
 
If you boys don't stop it this instant you're each going to your separate time-out corner. And no ice cream after dinner either. Now BEHAVE!!!!


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
So can we like vote people back in? Losing franklin is pretty sucky. Also where has vinyl and trout been? Some of the best posters on this site are disapearing. And As much sloanfail annoyed the **** out me, he still provided color.
 
Trout's just in the penalty box. He'll be back. We couldn't get rid of him even if we tried.
Vinyl is still throwing a temper tantrum.
 
So can we like vote people back in? Losing franklin is pretty sucky. Also where has vinyl and trout been? Some of the best posters on this site are disapearing. And As much sloanfail annoyed the **** out me, he still provided color.

So can we like vote people back in? Losing franklin is pretty sucky. Also where has vinyl and trout been? Some of the best posters on this site are disapearing. And As much sloanfail annoyed the **** out me, he still provided color.

I agree.

Neat trick in "moderating": to get fed up with the rules risk-takers who think they can "walk the line" near the edge of banishment. Hit'em with several infractions from somewhere way back in the past, all at once. It's a "judgment call" alright, with motive.

The reason some posters might think they can post death wishes , or deliberate lies/libel/slanders or mere hate drivel, with no consequences might go back to their history of being tolerated for previous abuses. A good moderator/group of moderators, will just realize the truth of what they have done and it's consequences and start working on making things better, perhaps having some discussions with those who have tried to push the limits somehow. "Hey bud, we want to make this place better. From now on when you do this we will give you an infraction for it". Might get a postitive result. Might keep an otherwise interesting poster in the lineup.

"Trolling" as explained here is a pretty loose cannon. Anything anyone says can be "trolling" if it's judged as just being said to provoke others somehow. In some cases, the things people say are intended to provoke thought. I guess someone who thinks they have no need for further thought is gonna feel like shutting down a lot of other folks.

Going back looking for infractions in cases where somebody's opinions are rubbing the moderators the wrong way just looks vindictive. It puts a chill on thinking folks, and diminishes the value of place like this.

Well, there's more than one way to look at all this. If the ownership of this forum wants to "produce" a product that is serving a particular agenda, that's a "value" which a free market might find much in demand. . . . . from the ownership perspective.

But from the participant perspective, when you see a lot of that production going on, and if you can see a need for a real forum, and finance the creation of such a place, as long as this is in fact a free country with freedom of speech and freedom of belief, what you are seeing is called an "opportunity".
 
For what it's worth, all reported posts are handled in the EXACT same way: the moderators vote on options (ignore/warning/infraction), and when three or more moderators agree on an outcome, action is taken (or not taken, if the moderators all voted for ignore). And your idea of telling a poster, "Hey bud, we want to make this place better. From now on when you do this we will give you an infraction for it" is already done; it's what we call a "warning".
 
Back
Top