Option for moderators to stop the bickering, without ending on topic discussion

1.3k · October 7, 2003

OK, so there's been a lot of bickering going on lately. It has caused the closing of many threads, past and present. How about an option for moderators to close the thread to the offending users, and leave it open for those who wish to continue discussing the topic at hand? I'm sure a lot of people would say, "Just start another thread." I think that would cause confusion, and the discussions would lose momentum. What are your thoughts?

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

9.4k · October 7, 2003

I think that would be too hard to develop, although I hate not being able to reply to a thread just because someone was getting out of hand

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Moderators have a difficult time as it is when things get hot.

To give them latitude to kick certain users out of a specific thread may seem like a great idea, but that would mean they'd have to kickout specific users, prompting more problems, more explanations, and more time wasting...

And then there's the issue of a whole bunch of folks 'attacking' a user while they are asleep (or not in the thread), and if the moderator kicks out those users, should they also have to kickout the 'victim', presuming they might reply at some time to the 'attacks'?

2.3k · October 7, 2003

I think it would just encourage people to use a sock puppet even more to get around it.

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

October 7, 2003

There has to be a certain "cut off" to a thread. By that I mean if it just ends up to be bickering between people the thread should be closed, if the people want to continue it there are other forums they can go to. The admins are busy enough without having to micro manage every user and try to determine if this one or that one should be blocked from which thread. It would be like me trying to monitor everyones e-mail in my company, theres no way to do it except to throw more people at it. So anyone here want to be an admin?

1.1k · October 7, 2003

Treat it like a "timeout".

Or a "cooling off" period.

Forum mod's would use the "That's Once" rule.

logscaler.

1.3k · October 7, 2003

Canadazuuk,

The forums are for the users. I believe the mods are sufficiently explaining why they close the threads that they do. Often the reason is so apparant that no explanation need be voiced, everyone can see why they get locked.

As to your question about being attacked while away...

I think it would be unjust to kick someone for being attacked, before they respond. (By "respond", I do not mean respond in kind.) Only willful, active attackers need be kicked.

There is some question as to what can be considered an attack, but that would be up to the mods, as it is currently.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Xitron:
There has to be a certain "cut off" to a thread. By that I mean if it just ends up to be bickering between people the thread should be closed, if the people want to continue it there are other forums they can go to. The admins are busy enough without having to micro manage every user and try to determine if this one or that one should be blocked from which thread. It would be like me trying to monitor everyones e-mail in my company, theres no way to do it except to throw more people at it. So anyone here want to be an admin?

You are correct about the threads that descend into a free for all. What about those that contain unanswered questions? Should a couple of people's grudges stifle discussion among others who have nothing to do with the feud? The obvious answer is no. What are some options for allowing valid on topic discussion to continue in an active thread, while at the same time stopping the attacks? I'm sure there is some solution, just not sure how to make it work.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.1k · October 7, 2003

It's a forum server. New topics are started every day. If an open question persists through the closing of one thread, open a new thread and post the open question again. If it's shut down immediately, then you know it was part of the problem. I did this after calling the thread-locking "gestapo-esque" or something like that...I reposted to a new thread the exact same question with the offensive word edited out and the thread went to its natural ends without lockdown.

Waste a few electrons, just repost open questions that were killed by abusive responses. I'm sure the mods are smart enough to recognize repeat offenders if they are intentionally trying to stifle certain conversations and have means at their disposal to handle this.

--

http://magazine.audubon.org/features0101/goodwood.html

1.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:
It's a forum server. New topics are started every day. If an open question persists through the closing of one thread, open a new thread and post the open question again. If it's shut down immediately, then you know it was part of the problem. I did this after calling the thread-locking "gestapo-esque" or something like that...I reposted to a new thread the exact same question with the offensive word edited out and the thread went to its natural ends without lockdown.

Waste a few electrons, just repost open questions that were killed by abusive responses. I'm sure the mods are smart enough to recognize repeat offenders if they are intentionally trying to stifle certain conversations and have means at their disposal to handle this.

--

http://magazine.audubon.org/features0101/goodwood.html

Did you miss this in the opening post?

quote:
I'm sure a lot of people would say, "Just start another thread." I think that would cause confusion, and the discussions would lose momentum.

This thread is about finding a solution that allows threads to continue without breaking stride, while filtering out the bickering.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

October 7, 2003

Sometimes threads need to be closed by the moderator. The other night I was bored and started a thread about 10 words. The timing was not good, and there still was an active 8 word thread. It was closed immediately -- which at first pissed me off -- but shortly after, it struck me as a fair call.

1.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hikemeister:
Sometimes threads need to be closed by the moderator.

Indeed, they do. What of the ones that could continue were it not for a couple of off topic posts?

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.1k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
This thread is about finding a solution that allows threads to _continue_ without breaking stride, while filtering out the bickering.

I didn't miss it, and I also didn't miss "What are your thoughts?". My thoughts are that considering the way the forums are currently setup (using infopop) there is little chance that threads can be filtered as you suggest without a full-time mod who does nothing but read our tripe hourly (or even minutely) and blank out those that are off-topic, inflammatory, etc).

To do what you suggest would require a new forum system, such as slashcode, that allows for self-moderation, karma, and a whole lot of other goodies that prevent people who only troll from gaining any voice and people who post fairly getting a greater say....with personalized filters for everyone to choose from. (see http://slashdot.org for more)

Otherwise, learning how to repost a discussion while retaining as much "stride" as possible is your only solution here.

--

http://magazine.audubon.org/features0101/goodwood.html

October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:

quote:
Originally posted by hikemeister:
Sometimes threads need to be closed by the moderator.

Indeed, they do. What of the ones that could continue were it not for a couple of off topic posts?

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Understood -- I gave an extreme example.

1.3k · October 7, 2003

Well, between the lines, I have discovered that it is a limitation of the forum software. (Thank you, ju66l3r.) So there is a way to do it, only not with the current forum software.

Too bad.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.3k · October 7, 2003

You know in the real world, when someone is annoying we just ignore them, there is no way to turn them off unfortuately... It would seem that it would be easy enough to ignore someone here if they are acting foolishly instead of playing right into it.

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

1.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Doc-Dean:
You know in the real world, when someone is annoying we just ignore them, there is no way to turn them off unfortuately... It would seem that it would be easy enough to ignore someone here if they are acting foolishly instead of playing right into it.

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/30296_400.gif

And may no Admin bricks http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/19490_2600.gif fly your way

Good point. However some topics get closed, rather than individual posts ignored. Many time I have scrolled past the bull to get to the meat of the topic. People are capable of doing this. Too bad they get shut down for a few bad posts, though.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.1k · October 7, 2003

Not sure how the software they use here works, but the software I use allows you to "warn" users. Once you warn them, a little block shows up under their avatar. There's a max of 5 blocks, so you can only be warned 5 times. After that you are banned. The blocks are displayed for everyone to see.

I think sending warnings out like that would help deter the continousness. Sure people could throw up a sock puppet account, but the same goes with it. I know I can block by email and I can also block users with certain email accounts like yahoo and hotmail. It's an inconvienance for others that don't abuse the system, but if things got out of hand I'm sure the nice people would understand...

Brian

www.woodsters.com

October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
Not sure how the software they use here works, but the software I use allows you to "warn" users. Once you warn them, a little block shows up under their avatar. There's a max of 5 blocks, so you can only be warned 5 times. After that you are banned. The blocks are displayed for everyone to see.

I think sending warnings out like that would help deter the continousness. Sure people could throw up a sock puppet account, but the same goes with it. I know I can block by email and I can also block users with certain email accounts like yahoo and hotmail. It's an inconvienance for others that don't abuse the system, but if things got out of hand I'm sure the nice people would understand...

Brian

Sounds like an interesting option but are they allowed back in after a cooling off period or is banned for life? If banned for life then I would think sockpuppets would become very common.

October 7, 2003

I think its a good idea. The moderators have to get a little bit more proactive - especially regarding personal attacks. Closing the thread to all because of one or two jerks, is not fair.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

2.7k · October 7, 2003

Off topic: I have been on a number of forums, and honestly, I don't think this site is that bad - I've seen much worse on professionally moderated boards...

---------------------

Don't hurt me. I'm new here.

2.1k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Greenback:
Sounds like an interesting option but are they allowed back in after a cooling off period or is banned for life? If banned for life then I would think sockpuppets would become very common.

http://www.keenpeople.com/stats/

Yes the sock puppets would become active, but as long as they play nice then it would probably be ok. But like I said, they wouldn't be able to return under the same email address. I can ban IP addresses, but many change each time they log on. The banning of the email address and up to free email accounts like ayhoo and hotmail makes it a little stronger. As far as possibly removing their warnings or dropping them down after a period of time, I'm not sure. I haven't played around with it too much and I've never had to warn anyone. But there are hacks (additions) that can be added and a warning level reducer might be one or I can inquire about having something like that made if it's not already available. I need to check that out.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

October 7, 2003

I agree it would not be fair to close a thread because of one or two people. What is the the second choice though? Are the Admins supposed to monitor all the users and their posts? No way that will happen, if a thread goes too off topic a admin should shut it down, not on a user basis but on a thread basis. Trying to monitor users is just insane and without a very large staff will never happen.

2.1k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Xitron:
I agree it would not be fair to close a thread because of one or two people. What is the the second choice though? Are the Admins supposed to monitor all the users and their posts? No way that will happen, if a thread goes too off topic a admin should shut it down, not on a user basis but on a thread basis. Trying to monitor users is just insane and without a very large staff will never happen.

Honestly, yes there should be a monitor/moderator here as much as possible if not all the time. I think it would depend on the activity of the board. They have those little yellow triangles for people to use to advise them of things. My softare calls it 'report this post to a moderator' where it will in turn send a private message to the moderator(s) of that forum. Even if the moderator is not on the message board at the time, it will send an email to them advising of the private message. I don't believe that a thread should be shut down if it goes way off topic, perhaps a moderator can verbally warn people on the thread to go back on topic or start another thread with the off topic basis and continue it there. Trying to monitor the users is what is needed. That's what the power of volunteers can do for you. It's funny, you could ask the biggest jerk to be a moderator and once they don that moderator cap, they are a totally different person. There are thousands and thousands of users and there is no reason that they should try and stretch a few of the approvers to the moderating area. Get some volunteers to do the moderating. It would be easy to set up a schedule. Give the moderators a free premium membership and tshirt for their loyalty and trouble....

Brian

www.woodsters.com

9.4k · October 7, 2003

Xitron, that's why so many are complaining already. The admins have started cracking down on the bickering by closing threads. It isn't a perfect system, but they have to do something.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

9.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
It's funny, you could ask the biggest jerk to be a moderator and once they don that moderator cap, they are a totally different person...Give the moderators a free premium membership and tshirt for their loyalty and trouble....

Thanks for nominating me, but I'm holding out until they make a t-shirt with a plain geocaching logo.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.3k · October 7, 2003

The fact is, if a moderator has the time to close a thread, then they have the time to warn people (if the software allowed it). I don't think the forums need more moderators. I think the existing moderators need more software tools at their disposal.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.6k · October 7, 2003

ie: work smarter, not harder...

1.1k · October 8, 2003

I have been up about 16 hours now and I have moved around 3,000 tons of rock so please bear with me.

On the right side of your topic post, there is this little, tiny, small yellow triangle.

When scrolled across, it says something like "Report this post."

Would something like that work for informing moderators when a topic has gone bad?

And until that "flag" is sent, we could all just think nice thoughts and get along and let the moderators deal with real problems?

And yes, a personal attack should have a flag thrown, either by the person being attacked or someone else who happens to know the person being attacked is not online.

I would think most of the people reading and posting here are adult enough to understand that nothing of a personal matter needs aired on these public forums.

If you have a real problem with someone in here anywhere, Just report it, send them a private e-mail to stop their attacks and get on with your life.

Either that or hunt them down and pound the living crud from their bones. oops, a personal attack opinion. I need some sleep.

Later, logscaler.

21.9k · October 8, 2003

Moderating the General forum requires walking a fine tightrope between accusations of heavy-handed censorship and of tolerating anarchy. Somewhere in between is a happy medium where the moderators are trying to keep people pointed in a good direction, while still allowing some freedom to deviate from the beaten path.

We do have methods available in addition to locking threads and deleting or editing posts. For starters there are e-mail communications. I send many e-mails both to encourage someone to comply with the forum conduct guidelines, and also to thank people who make positive contributions to the forums. Those of you who have received either type of message know who you are.

There are also some other tools provided by InfoPop for moderators. They are used sparingly, hopefully only after other methods have been tried and have failed. And we haven't made a point of publicizing them.

Personally I would prefer that moderator activity remain in the background as much as possible. If someone breaks a forum rule, my goal is to steer them towards being a welcome member of the community rather than driving them away. Stating publicly that someone is one post away from being banned, or has been given a stern warning, seems to me like something that is more likely to turn them away from the forums than to correct their behavior.

I also don't believe that full-time, real time moderators are necessary. To the contrary, I would hope that with some respectful nudges in the right direction, that the forums can be self-moderating for the most part. We see this in threads every day. If the other users have done a good job in pointing out what is bad about a particular post, I don't need to add to it.

If you feel that a particular post constitutes a personal attack or otherwise violate the forum guidelines, but you do not feel comfortable stating this right in the forum thread, please do use the yellow triangle icon to report the post. The moderators do check for these reports several times a day. We're also here ourselves quite a bit.

Don't make me stop this car!

2.3k · October 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Greenback:
Sounds like an interesting option but are they allowed back in after a cooling off period or is banned for life? If banned for life then I would think sockpuppets would become very common.

So, who's going to be the Pete Rose of the Geocaching Forums??

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

1.3k · October 8, 2003

The reason I started this thread is because I leave for work, come home and look at a thread I started and it is locked. I had nothing to do with the behavior that caused it to get locked and felt like responding to some of the relevant posts in the thread. That option is no longer available to me or anyone else participating in the discussion. I don't think the thread needed locking, I thing a stern warning needed to be given to the offending parties. (publicly or privately)

For the record, I don't think it comes close to censorship, you can still read the thread. I just believe that locking a thread should be done only after the other options are exhausted. That was not the case with the thread I'm referring to. It got heated, then people brought a personal vendetta into it, then it was locked with no warning. Many questions remained unanswered. As I said before, starting yet another thread on the same topic could be confusing, breaks the continuity of the thread (for future readers as well), and any new thread would be just as susceptible to locking as the previous one. Let's ask questions first, and lock later, please.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.1k · October 8, 2003

quote:
So, who's going to be the Pete Rose of the Geocaching Forums??

That would be Lazyboy !!

2.7k · October 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Moderators have a difficult time as it is when things get hot.

To give them latitude to kick certain users out of a specific thread may seem like a great idea, but that would mean they'd have to kickout specific users, prompting more problems, more explanations, and more time wasting...

And then there's the issue of a whole bunch of folks 'attacking' a user while they are asleep (or not in the thread), and if the moderator kicks out those users, should they also have to kickout the 'victim', presuming they might reply at some time to the 'attacks'?

Good point

Option for moderators to stop the bickering, without ending on topic discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation