Notice of Thread/Post Moderation

[Scarabin]

My observation is that there is a small "cadre" of posters whose nature is to be disruptive and look for particular topics to become enthusiastic about.

 

The frequent posters whose tone turns toward offensive or disruptive in particular threads are reacting to buttons pushed by the above.

 

Other regulars seem to target certain posters for personal shots regardless of the topic, and just respectfully disagree or question other posters.

 

IMO, only the "cadre" in that 1st paragraph should be of concern to the mods, other than the occasional deletion of a single post by an otherwise reasonable participant.

 

I would agree with your first point. Disagree with the other three. My approach is to expect posters to observe the normal tenets of civilised behaviour. I think there is a small coterie of posters who have taken to themselves the right to decide who and what may appear in topics concerning religion. Challenging newcomers and vilifying other posters is not acceptable behaviour in my book.

 

I agree that it is not pleasant to have one's "buttons" pressed but my observation is that these posters have been behaving badly ever since I first joined BBO, and only recently have other posters begun to "press their buttons".

 

Let me pose a question: If I vilify you, call you an idiot, uneducated, and unread, would you be solicitous about not pressing my buttons? And if I responded to your first ever post to BBO by asking: "why should I listen to you?", would it encourage you?

 

It may be that your cadre is the same as my coterie. It's difficult to be sure without naming names and I would not wish to do this. Whether we agree or disagree we can still have a rational,civilized discussion without rancor or abuse.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Scarabin

[GreenMan]

I am not sure however I would not argue against my own suggestion since removing the troublemakers would also remove the life from the discussions.

 

Well, we don't have to have "life" in our religion discussions and so on. That's not what this site is about, AFAIK. If someone pisses on me and tells me it's raining, I don't think "Wow, what a lively fellow, I must spend more time with him." And if someone goes around starting fights and TPTB are OK with that, then that's a sign I need to leave.

 

We do NOT have to tolerate bad behavior on principle. It's a question of what kind of place TPTB want this to be.

[Scarabin]

Well, we don't have to have "life" in our religion discussions and so on. That's not what this site is about, AFAIK. If someone pisses on me and tells me it's raining, I don't think "Wow, what a lively fellow, I must spend more time with him." And if someone goes around starting fights and TPTB are OK with that, then that's a sign I need to leave.

 

We do NOT have to tolerate bad behavior on principle. It's a question of what kind of place TPTB want this to be.

 

Agree 100%. And I am happy to rely on the Mods judgments. But I think there are at least 2 schools of thought on which posters would be banned?

:D

[Vampyr]

We do NOT have to tolerate bad behavior on principle. It's a question of what kind of place TPTB want this to be.

 

Bad behaviour in WC threads? There are a lot of controversial things discussed in the WC, and this is the forum that people don't have to read if they are afraid they will miss an important bridge problem or opportunity to contribute a bridge idea. Yes, there are instances of bad manners in bridge threads, and frequent perps, but if that is not what you are talking about, don't read the threads that annoy you.

 

If, on the other hand, you are talking about bridge threads, report the posts that you think are inappropriate. The mods are pretty good at what they do.

[GreenMan]

Bad behaviour in WC threads? There are a lot of controversial things discussed in the WC, and this is the forum that people don't have to read if they are afraid they will miss an important bridge problem or opportunity to contribute a bridge idea. Yes, there are instances of bad manners in bridge threads, and frequent perps, but if that is not what you are talking about, don't read the threads that annoy you.

 

If, on the other hand, you are talking about bridge threads, report the posts that you think are inappropriate. The mods are pretty good at what they do.

 

You understand one; you don't understand two.

[barmar]

Perhaps it could be applied on an honour basis since I think most posters (with possibly a single exception) would accept this, and there would always be the ultimate sanction of wider banning.

But the exception is presumably the one you'd like to see banned from a particular thread. What are we supposed to do, send him a message telling him to stop posting in thread X, or risk being banned?

 

That also means more work for the mods, since we'll have to read the thread to see if he's posting there. Or we could put them on moderator approval, meaning we'll have to read everything they try to post.

 

FYI, moderating the forums is not anyone's main job. It's something a couple of us (mainly Inquiry and myself) do as a background task.

[aguahombre]

I would agree with your first point. Disagree with the other three.

Since all the ideas you presented in that post are reasonable, it seems we only disagree about what I said. I was referring to normally objective posters having their buttons pushed by the trolls, and to regular posters who treat other regular posters with respect or disdain based on their perceived expertise rather than on the subject matter of the posts.

[Scarabin]

Since all the ideas you presented in that post are reasonable, it seems we only disagree about what I said. I was referring to normally objective posters having their buttons pushed by the trolls, and to regular posters who treat other regular posters with respect or distain based on their perceived expertise rather than on the subject matter of the posts.

 

Agree completely

 

:D

[Scarabin]

But the exception is presumably the one you'd like to see banned from a particular thread. What are we supposed to do, send him a message telling him to stop posting in thread X, or risk being banned?

 

That also means more work for the mods, since we'll have to read the thread to see if he's posting there. Or we could put them on moderator approval, meaning we'll have to read everything they try to post.

 

FYI, moderating the forums is not anyone's main job. It's something a couple of us (mainly Inquiry and myself) do as a background task.

 

Actually my aim is not to ban anyone.

 

When Inquiry locked the religious moderation topic I applauded his decision and would have been happy to see several posters and religious topics banned out of hand since I felt the discussion was completely out of control. Then I found some sensible posters had actually enjoyed the discussions and I decided that banning posters (for life?) is too drastic for what may be a flaw in character.

 

I thought that a private warning that the moderator(s) considered the poster was overstepping reasonable limits might have a salutary effect. I did not envisage any formal follow-up other than that repeated warnings would result in a (temporary?) ban from a specific forum.

 

If I were a mod I'd be happier to give a warning rather than an immediate ban.

 

That's my suggestion FWIW.

 

:D

[Vampyr]

When Inquiry locked the religious moderation topic I applauded his decision and would have been happy to see several posters and religious topics banned out of hand since I felt the discussion was completely out of control. T

 

Did you consider that you had the choice not to continue reading?

[Scarabin]

Did you consider that you had the choice not to continue reading?

 

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye.

 

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

 

:D

[barmar]

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

There's a big difference between committing a crime and just being annoying.

 

While Inquiry may have done the locking, it was at my prompting. It's not just that the thread was not constructive, but that it seemed to be turning into personal insults.

[Vampyr]

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye.

 

Sorry? If you don't like what people are writing in a thread you are not reading, you consider it somehow your business?

 

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

 

Right. There is actually a difference between crime and internet forums. Still, if you feel that someone has been unduly rude and insulting to someone else, you are free to report the post. The mods can consider your objection and your reasons and decide. Then you don't have to worry about it anymore.

 

EDIT: Crossed barmar

[the hog]

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye.

 

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

 

:D

 

Oh come on, don't be silly! I was just reading this until I came across this post. There is a HUGE difference between committing a crime and behaving badly. Even in the former instance, "No", you don't have a duty to act. One might even argue that depending on the "crime", it is none of your business. For example, do you report people who are fare evaders? Do you complain to parking officers that someone has exceeded their meter time? In France, would you call a police officer because someone is wearing a burqua?

[Lurpoa]

Edited a post in watercooler .

Change: require user click in order to see posted image, rather than have images show inline

 

 

Very good decision !

Indeed annoying those big pictures on a small screen.

 

Besides, some are using big pictures in their signatures (MrACE, a picture of an ugly disgusting colored truck).

Is there a way to prohibit those pictures ?

 

Be the ♥ with you.

[GreenMan]

Sorry? If you don't like what people are writing in a thread you are not reading, you consider it somehow your business?

 

What business is it of yours what Scarabin thinks? :P If you don't like his posts, you can always stop reading them.

[Vampyr]

What business is it of yours what Scarabin thinks? :P If you don't like his posts, you can always stop reading them.

 

You're not that stupid, right? Scarabin would like to control what other people can read, not just him.

[GreenMan]

You're not that stupid, right? Scarabin would like to control what other people can read, not just him.

 

Even if that were true, he's not a moderator so he couldn't control what people read. So why object to anything he says instead of just ignoring it? You keep preaching personal responsibility to others, but you don't seem to want to deal with it yourself.

[Scarabin]

There's a big difference between committing a crime and just being annoying.

 

While Inquiry may have done the locking, it was at my prompting. It's not just that the thread was not constructive, but that it seemed to be turning into personal insults.

 

I think were missing the point here. I thought the website was/is designed to encourage feedback and, because mine is a serious suggestion, I expected a more positive(in the sense of encouraging feedback) response from a moderator. :unsure:

Edited October 25, 2013 by Scarabin

[gnasher]

I think were missing the point here. I thought the website was/is designed to encourage feedback and, because mine is a serious suggestion, I expected a more positive response from a moderator. :unsure:

I don't see why you expect a positive response just because you were serious in making your suggestion. If you make a serious suggestion that Barmar disagrees with, why shouldn't he say so?

[Scarabin]

I don't see why you expect a positive response just because you were serious in making your suggestion. If you make a serious suggestion that Barmar disagrees with, why shouldn't he say so?

 

Thanks.Positive in the sense of welcoming feedback, not discouraging it.

 

:D

[Vampyr]

Even if that were true, he's not a moderator so he couldn't control what people read. So why object to anything he says instead of just ignoring it? You keep preaching personal responsibility to others, but you don't seem to want to deal with it yourself.

 

WTF are you on about? Scarabin is asking the moderators to deal with his issues.

[Vampyr]

Thanks.Positive in the sense of welcoming feedback, not discouraging it.

 

The mods probably weren't aware that "welcoming feedback" meant "doing Scarabin's bidding". Shame on them.

[barmar]

I'd like to ask that we close this discussion. This thread is not meant for lengthy discussions, and has been veering way off topic.

[inquiry]

A post in the "4th suit or 4-card suit?" thread was deleted for violation of the TOS of the forum. A second post responding in kind to the deleted post was edited for the same violation.