Discussion for new forum policies

At one point we had a forum at our LGS and a nasty troll arrived who had serious social problems and at least one mental disorder. He baited, flamed and generally tried to cause chaos on the forums. He had puppet accounts and etc. Eventually I got tired of editing his posts daily so I decided to start replacing his flames with compliments to moderators and the members he was flaming. He would write that someone was a fool and I would replace it with great phrase for that member and apologies for his own rudeness.  I also disabled his edit abilities so when I edited a post it could never be deleted or changed. Within 10 days he gave up and moved on. It worked like a charm. wink Hint-Hint

Yea i did that in the past, but it didn’t work. The Troll just complained that we edited his posts and removed the flames so we could not do that anymore.

@Imperious:

At one point we had a forum at our LGS and a nasty troll arrived who had serious social problems and at least one mental disorder. He baited, flamed and generally tried to cause chaos on the forums. He had puppet accounts and etc. Eventually I got tired of editing his posts daily so I decided to start replacing his flames with compliments to moderators and the members he was flaming. He would write that someone was a fool and I would replace it with great phrase for that member and apologies for his own rudeness.  I also disabled his edit abilities so when I edited a post it could never be deleted or changed. Within 10 days he gave up and moved on. It worked like a charm. wink Hint-Hint

Yea i did that in the past, but it didn’t work. The Troll just complained that we edited his posts and removed the flames so we could not do that anymore.

I hear that.  Most of the moderators try to just remove the infracting text, but then the complaints start.  They’ll say they didnt say anything bad, and then it’s their word against ours.  Puts us in a position of proving a negative, which I am sure we’d be willing to deal with.  After all, MOST of the time it’s a specific in-DUH-vidual (copywrite: Scott Adams) and the long track record, coupled with 3 harried moderators trying to stay on top of it, is enough to perma-ban their account.

@Cmdr:

@djensen:

A better way to look at it is that this site is a business and the people who visit are customers. If you treat customers badly, they go away. If one customer becomes too unruly, other customers around the unruly one might go away.

If gangs of thugs visit your place of business, your customers go away too. Flamers are thugs. To be able to remove the weapons of thugs, makes the thugs go away. Editting posts was a prime example of minimalistic intervention to protect the good of all. Moving posts in their entirity was a prime example of kicking the thugs in the teeth and prying the weapons from their hands.

Edit: Missed a paragraph on my copy/paste.

In my vision of moderator-hood, a moderator should police with a minimal impact. For instance:

Original Post: Billy is a fckwd and I hope he dies, so we can pee on his grave!  Oh, and you should always use two infantry on your transports, tanks and artillery don’t help as much.
Editted Post: …you should always use two infantry on your transports, tanks and artillery don’t help as much.

The moderator left the meat of the post, but removed the flames and thus kept the discussion clean. Billy might never know he was flamed, if he didnt see the post before the edit. Further, the poster might never have been educated that there are times when artillery and armor might be a good piece of cargo for a transport, if the entire post is moved to the moderator forums.

I agree with your metaphor of disarming flamers like one would disarm a thug. I also agree with the overall direction of your post, and would take things one step further.

In the best-run forum of which I’m a member, personal attacks or other flames are never allowed. If anyone even starts heading in that direction, a moderator will post a polite but firm warning. Normally that will cause a person to back off. In the one case where that did not happen, the offending poster was given a temporary ban.

I’d seen these same people repeatedly attack each other in other fora. But (with a few rare exceptions) that did not happen in this forum. The moderators had drawn a very clear line, and never tolerated anyone’s crossing that line.

For whatever reason that hasn’t happened in this forum. Instead, moderators have sometimes allowed personal attacks, as long as they didn’t go too far, or as long as the person being attacked had expressed a view with which a moderator disagrees, or sometimes for other reasons. This creates a gray area. Once you create a gray area, you give people permission to push things, to see how far they can go before you push back.

Neither you nor any other moderator should have to take time out of your day to edit anyone’s posts, or move them to some black hole of “moderated post” status, or even to add messages about list moderation to the bottom of someone’s post. Or at least, you shouldn’t have to do that more than once or twice per poster. Anyone who crosses the line should be given one warning. And should be temporarily banned if that one warning is ignored.

This may seem harsh, but it’s the opposite. Once people realize the moderators are serious about enforcing civility standards, they’ll adapt. They’ll “get” that uncivil conduct isn’t the way things are done around here, and they’ll be okay with that. (The few that aren’t okay with that are probably not people you want in these fora anyway.)

Personal attacks are like weeds. Unless you take decisive action immediately, they will quickly spread.

Instead, moderators have sometimes allowed personal attacks, as long as they didn’t go too far, or as long as the person being attacked had expressed a view with which a moderator disagrees, or sometimes for other reasons.

Where is this thread Kurt? Would that be one of the five that were closed in Military History?

Was even the start of these attacks AFTER the thread got hijacked with off topic commentary?

Would these “attacks” that were “allowed” might be just that we didn’t get a “report to moderator” notice till AFTER some of these posts were made, then we went to work and closed the thread?

Could you be mistaken regarding the chain of events/facts?

Well here’s a thread you started,

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24768.30

which if we could read, encouraged, and allowed personal attacks for some time.

Surely there was no point in hitting “report to moderator”, as it was mostly a discussion between moderators and a specific user.

I’m also certain, that if we were allowed to peruse the plethera of threads in the quarantine section, we’d find MANY suitable examples of this behaviour.

Thus, no one is mistaken.

Actually,

Here’s a really good example, and total failure to moderate effectively.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27224.15

Kurt Godel gets called,

• one eyed
• a nazi apologist
• pathetic

Amongst a few other things…

Said same user (Lazarus), then uses the same berating tactics, in multipe threads. (Whether the rest of his content was right or wrong is irrelevant)

The Thread was closed, because Kurt tried to defense himself. He was accused of “going off topic” for that, And NO MENTION, whatsoever, was made, about the fact that the personal attacks, which were spread out over several threads at the time, were inappropriate/unwelcome.

It’s crap like that, that’s resulted in the community rejecting “charged” moderation, and wanting this discussion, so as to lead to positive, and permanent changes here at AA.org.

That said, Everyone should make themselves immediately aware, that if the “powers” held on this forum today, were the same as when that event occurred, this post in it’s entirety would be deleted. Hence, the difficulty people have faced in expressing truth, being heard, or even being able to defend themselves with fair arguement - such as in Kurt’s case.

It’s why Moderators should be chosen by thier peers then appointed per Djensens discretion.

I just love how after all the snide comments, and shots that are given, the closing remarks were:

And yet again Kurt turned another thread into book reports dealing with German policies of killing opposition/ Holocaust/ Extermination program.

Another thread closed because it now has nothing to do with the French holding out in 1940.

Garbage.

Actually,

---

Here’s a really good example, and total failure to moderate effectively.

---

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27224.15

Kurt Godel gets called,

• one eyed
• a nazi apologist
• pathetic

Amongst a few other things…

And nobody paid attention to that thread until somebody hit the “report to moderator”. Once that happened the thread was closed, so nobody “let” anybody say anything what ACTUALLY happened is nobody knew anything till we got word.

And yes he did turn that thread away from “French holding out” What was not clear about that?

Funny thing is after reading more closely that link i see YOU were also involved in going off topic and arguing with other posters. Why didn’t you hit “report to moderator”?
Now you comment on what happened but you didn’t attempt to do anything at the time?

Right. Blame others not yourself.

My last comment should actually read:

And yet again Kurt, Gargantua, and Lazarus involved in another off topic commentary where flames were posted.

Thread closed because it now has nothing to do with the French holding out in 1940.

The Thread was closed, because Kurt tried to defense himself. He was accused of “going off topic” for that, And NO MENTION, whatsoever, was made, about the fact that the personal attacks, which were spread out over several threads at the time, were inappropriate/unwelcome.

No wrong again. It was closed when we found out that it got off topic. Because a thread exists does not mean we are monitoring it, you don’t see any posts from me in those threads except at the end, when i was informed that it went off topic.

Yea and Lazarus was out of line too, but the person who derailed the discussion was Kurt, not Lazarus.

You probably need to get the facts straight.

The facts are right, And the moderation was wrong.

If anybody derailed the discussion, it was Lazarus, worse with his comments breaking the existing “rules/policy”, which drew no comment from you. (Unless you are suggesting you don’t even bother to read threads or portions of them before you arbitrarily close them) But the judgement was handed down on Kurt specifically.

Kurt did not attack those who’d attacked him. His defense was to point out what he saw as the flaws in their logic, while adhering to the list’s prohibition against personal attacks. Lazarus repeatedly violated the terms of service, while Kurt complied with them.

Ironically, the thread was off topic BEFORE Kurt had contributed his first post. It seems clear, that if anything, a snap judgement was made.; Again validating that community moderation is needed.

Case in point, the moderation served only to ADD to the harassment and beratement of a user.

…

More to the point it seems, that everytime the words “Kurt Godel” are seen in the thread, it is assumed by moderation that he is the culprit of all wrong doing.

The preconception has resulted in personal targetting.

That said, does anyone really care if/when a thread goes off topic?  With the odd exception, of when the thread maker requests a return to the original discussion?

@Gargantua:

That said, does anyone really care if/when a thread goes off topic?  With the odd exception, of when the thread maker requests a return to the original discussion?

Speaking only for myself, not really, unless it digresses into a flame war.

In regards to your example post, I was on vacation.  A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off.  So I missed that one.

If anybody derailed the discussion, it was Lazarus, worse with his comments breaking the existing “rules/policy”, which drew no comment from you. (Unless you are suggesting you don’t even bother to read threads or portions of them before you arbitrarily close them) But the judgement was handed down on Kurt specifically.

It was not a “judgement” ( another value added word to make a point?)  It was just a comment that the thread was closed because it was off topic. His name was only brought up because 4 other threads got closed where he was a key participant. They too got out of hand and i was alerted by “report to moderator”. After a few times you begin to find the common denominator and in 5 threads it was mostly him.

Kurt did not attack those who’d attacked him. His defense was to point out what he saw as the flaws in their logic, while adhering to the list’s prohibition against personal attacks. Lazarus repeatedly violated the terms of service, while Kurt complied with them.

The threads were closed for being off topic, which was in the description noted by the forum member who never posted in these threads. His intention was to notify me that a problem had occurred.

Ironically, the thread was off topic BEFORE Kurt had contributed his first post.  It seems clear, that if anything, a snap judgement was made.; Again validating that community moderation is needed.

It might have been but i didn’t know about that thread until i showed up to close it. I guess you can read anything if it can sustain a faulty argument. I responded when i am called. I just take care of the problem when i am informed. Sometimes i can find the problems because i read the threads just like anybody else.

You can’t blame anybody for not responding quickly enough.

Case in point, the moderation served only to ADD to the harassment and beratement of a user.

No not really. Harassment is more how you responded in the thread, which jumped up the discussion to another level. Moderation just closed the thread which you and others caused problems.

It’s not a matter of “missing” it.

“Report to Moderator” worked, and “Moderation” arrived.

Person A, then got blamed for one of the exerts of Person B, whilst Person B was free to continue his ill-standard in other threads.

For all we know, it was Kurt Godel who clicked “Report to Moderator”.  If he’d been able to comment to that effect, his coments would then most likely have been deleted as “flame” against moderation.  I know I’ve seen many of my threads and posts end up in this category.

A vicious cycle that’s stupid and needs to stop.

hat said, does anyone really care if/when a thread goes off topic?  With the odd exception, of when the thread maker requests a return to the original discussion?

Well this thread is off topic, and the cause came from you alone IMO.

They are part of the rules and for good reason. Most people who are interested in something want to click and find the topic being discussed. In off topic threads, it turns into a waste of time because it degenerated into flames, garbage, and children arguing about Wikipedia. The rules try to protect all people for their own good.

Person A, then got blamed for one of the exerts of Person B, whilst Person B was free to continue his ill-standard in other threads.

The comments rather than the reason why the thread was closed is what you incorrectly assign as the reason for action. The thread was closed for being off topic, not unlike this one. Again Kurts name was only brought up because recently 4 other threads got closed and in each case Kurt was actively involved. The person B would be who?

For all we know, it was Kurt Godel who clicked “Report to Moderator”. � If he’d been able to comment to that effect, his coments would then most likely have been deleted as “flame” against moderation. � I know I’ve seen many of my threads and posts end up in this category.

You assume too many things. You assume that person cares what kurt says because if they did, you would find that person actively engaged in threads where he posts. That might show that somebody was “against him” So basically you came up wrong again. :roll:  Perhaps if Lazarus was the moderator, it might be plausible but it isnt.

NO he didn’t do it. I know for a fact it was somebody who didn’t post in any of those threads. I have a number of people looking out and notifying me because they want decent forums.

Lets just stick with “forum policies here”, not another “leaving the forum thread” :mrgreen:

Yea and Lazarus was out of line too, but the person who derailed the discussion was Kurt, not Lazarus.

So lets see here… Being off topic is a worse ‘crime’ than flaming.

And even in this seperate thread NOW, almost a month later, you’re still point the finger at Kurt for the closed discussion, even though he didn’t join the discussion until AFTER it was already off topic.

Are you sure you don’t want to blame Kurt for this thread (in your INCORRECT opinion) of going off topic, aswell?

For the record IL, undeniably, This Thread IS on topic. The Topic is the rules and policies of this forum, which you personally break when you have powers, and which you abuse, as you fail to moderate properly. It’s why we’re having this discussion.

It’s so the public can come to a compromise with your disposition, and so that clear boundaries can be set for YOU, and so that users of this site are no longer harassed and belittled, by the likes of yourself.

For example in your post above:

children arguing about Wikipedia

You refer to users of the site being “children”. A disposition and comment trail I often see you post; And I have to admit that it’s disappointing behaviour and commentary to be seen coming from site moderation, another “Policy” which should be discussed, in this ON TOPIC thread.

I emplore anyone reading this to disagree if I’m wrong.

IL…

Just for the record, and -in your own words- The title of this thread is:

Re: Discussion for new forum policies

Well this thread is off topic, and the cause came from you alone IMO.

They are part of the rules and for good reason.

So by discussing forum Rules… and having you in turn discuss forum rules. We’ve gone off topic?

I guess you turned your posts into another flame war. I don’t care to respond to this “garbage”

Discussion for new forum policies so provide them, not bring up poor Kurt or the same issues as that thread.

I propose a policy of no moderation by Imperious Leader.

Can we call a vote?

Another flame?

Oh I mean it.

That’s a very dead-serious request, and I’m not alone.