Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Bronco70]

...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.

This is always how we approach troublesome posting. Most first time offenses that could warrant an infraction - by the rulebook - are given just a warning or, frequently, a PM reminding the poster of the rules and a polite request to post within them. As has been stated, over and over again, 99% of posters don't have trouble with this system.

Your perception that the mod staff as somehow malicious or vindictive is a fabrication of your own mind. Okay, you've got your axe to grind. We get it. But you aren't presenting any reasonable arguments. Blaming the mods is the easy way. It takes no real thinking. I understand that personal responsibility ain't what it used to be, but even though it's not fashionable, it's still relevant.

 

[PearlWatson]

This is always how we approach troublesome posting. Most first time offenses that could warrant an infraction - by the rulebook - are given just a warning or, frequently, a PM reminding the poster of the rules and a polite request to post within them. As has been stated, over and over again, 99% of posters don't have trouble with this system.

Your perception that the mod staff as somehow malicious or vindictive is a fabrication of your own mind. Okay, you've got your axe to grind. We get it. But you aren't presenting any reasonable arguments. Blaming the mods is the easy way. It takes no real thinking. I understand that personal responsibility ain't what it used to be, but even though it's not fashionable, it's still relevant.

FWIW: Babe is one of the most reasonable people I've met on the internet, and yes the mods have been known to say some pretty vindictive/malicious things.
I'll leave it at that, because I'm not sure what backseat moderating is but I don't want to get an infraction for responding to a mods personal attack on babe.

 

[sirkickyass]

Babe: It is customary to receive even a single infraction or warning from the moderating team before complaining about the moderation. Feel free to draft all the posts you want in anticipation of that day, but until then your complaints are not yet ripe.

 

[The-Joker]

FWIW: Babe is one of the most reasonable people I've met on the internet, and yes the mods have been known to say some pretty vindictive/malicious things.
I'll leave it at that, because I'm not sure what backseat moderating is but I don't want to get an infraction for responding to a mods personal attack on babe.

Lol, delusion.

 

[sirkickyass]

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.

Name a single example where this has happened.

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.

All posters currently in discussion received MANY "warnings." In the case of Franklin, he had received SIX warnings all for inappropriate content violations. Sloanfeld had been banned on a previous incarnation of the board for essentially the same behavior so he had multiple bites at the apple already and plenty of experience dealing with moderators under a variety of aliases. Despite that he still had FOUR warnings in addition to the infraction regime prior to banishment. Two of Trout's three active infractions have been initiated by your compadre, so his specific case would be a little bit of talking out of both sides of your mouth if that's the basis of your complaint. In any event he's received FIVE warnings in this incarnation of the board.

Viny's leaving at present is entirely voluntary. He was not permanently banned and as of right now is not even on the precipice. In any event he too has received no fewer than FIVE warnings.

"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.

I guarantee there is a lot more actual trolling on this board than is actually given an infraction.

Sloanfeld, in many ways, was practically the definition of an internet troll. We took over a year to banish him. Hopper before him took a very long time to deal with and is, in both incarnations, the most notorious troll the board has ever had.

The reality is that the moderation on this board is weak rather than strong. If what you seek is a truly unmoderated board those areas exist and you are welcome to frequent them instead.

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,

I suspect Jason would literally roll around on the floor laughing at this.

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".

I encourage you to create such a venture.

 

[colton]

Hopper before him took a very long time to deal with and is, in both incarnations, the most notorious troll the board has ever had.

LostTacoVendor might disagree with you on that one. ;-)

 

[sirkickyass]

LostTacoVendor might disagree with you on that one. ;-)

LTV once contacted me to let me know that he thought Hopper was the most expert troll he had ever seen and that he begrudgingly respected him for it.

Also, and I believe this to be true, LTV was banned under an entirely different moderating system. I suspect he'd survive today.

 

[colton]

Also, and I believe this to be true, LTV was banned under an entirely different moderating system. I suspect he'd survive today.

LTV's final hours were among the vilest jazzfanz has ever seen. I didn't have ban access back then (I must have just been a regular moderator and banning took an admin with that version of the software) so all I could do was delete the posts one by one as he posted them. That went on for about an hour. I probably deleted 40-50 posts in that time. Would easily have merited an instant ban today.

Aside from that, you're probably right that he could have adapted to today's moderating system if he wanted to.

 

[sirkickyass]

LTV's final hours were among the vilest jazzfanz has ever seen. I didn't have ban access back then (I must have just been a regular moderator and banning took an admin with that version of the software) so all I could do was delete the posts one by one as he posted them. That went on for about an hour. I probably deleted 40-50 posts in that time. Would easily have merited an instant ban today.

Never saw those posts. Probably deleted beforehand.

Aside from that, you're probably right that he could have adapted to today's moderating system if he wanted to.

I believe he could play within the rules and I would like to have him back. His twitter feed is usually excellent.

 

[babe]

Name a single example where this has happened.



All posters currently in discussion received MANY "warnings." In the case of Franklin, he had received SIX warnings all for inappropriate content violations. Sloanfeld had been banned on a previous incarnation of the board for essentially the same behavior so he had multiple bites at the apple already and plenty of experience dealing with moderators under a variety of aliases. Despite that he still had FOUR warnings in addition to the infraction regime prior to banishment. Two of Trout's three active infractions have been initiated by your compadre, so his specific case would be a little bit of talking out of both sides of your mouth if that's the basis of your complaint. In any event he's received FIVE warnings in this incarnation of the board.

Viny's leaving at present is entirely voluntary. He was not permanently banned and as of right now is not even on the precipice. In any event he too has received no fewer than FIVE warnings.



I guarantee there is a lot more actual trolling on this board than is actually given an infraction.

Sloanfeld, in many ways, was practically the definition of an internet troll. We took over a year to banish him. Hopper before him took a very long time to deal with and is, in both incarnations, the most notorious troll the board has ever had.

The reality is that the moderation on this board is weak rather than strong. If what you seek is a truly unmoderated board those areas exist and you are welcome to frequent them instead.



I suspect Jason would literally roll around on the floor laughing at this.



I encourage you to create such a venture.

SirKicky, I actually appreciate this response because it contains elements of information otherwise unavailable to me. Which is why I usually talk to to other people.

Like I said in the other thread today, I sometimes listen to what other people say. And think about it for a while.

That said, I would support the mods if they decided to ignore the usual rules on banning and let Franklin come back under an appropriate alias if in fact it just wasn't possible to just change his handle to one, or otherwise if he made some sort of offering of hope that he was going to behave. I didn't see the inappropriate content referred to, and I wouldn't be just disbelieving that there might have been such postings. In that case, I guess despite his other good material posting I would go along with the ban.

That said, thanks for your "encouragement". Anybody care to actually help?

 

[gregbroncs]

I think these complaint threads are hilarious. In all my time on this board and the other one I have received 1 warning (not sure it was even a warning just an email from a moderator asking me to refrain). To earn that warning I had to pretty much intentionally troll one poster for the better part of a month. We both trolled each other continually for a week in that thread before we were both told to quit. I can't imagine what it would take to get an actual infraction.

 

[babe]

I think these complaint threads are hilarious. In all my time on this board and the other one I have received 1 warning (not sure it was even a warning just an email from a moderator asking me to refrain). To earn that warning I had to pretty much intentionally troll one poster for the better part of a month. We both trolled each other continually for a week in that thread before we were both told to quit. I can't imagine what it would take to get an actual infraction.

you might have a point here. This is definitely a much better place than where I came from.

Still, while I've been probing the realities in here, I've learned quite a bit about this place----even though I am in the habit of doubting most of the information proffered by anyone for whatever reason.