Did Sporky's hand slip on the ban-hammer?

VimFuego

but we're not all you, we're all different. If I met someone like that in the street I would probably walk away, if I had someone outside my house shouting wanker up at me all time, then that's harder to ignore. If you're gonna have rules (and it was the collective you who made these rules) then enforce them.

Wolftone

digitalscream said:

Paul_C said:

I'm not sure that's entirely true - previous experience in many forums suggests that there are always some folks who are either completely unaware that their behaviour is causing offence, or who genuinely don't understand why they might need to moderate their behaviour to keep the peace.

Whether it's here, at work, or in a band, people are by turns friendly, helpful, generous, spiteful, miserable arseholes.

From my own personal standpoint (stepping outside my "admin" role for a moment), I don't believe it's good (or even necessary) to "keep the peace" in a forum 100% of the time. This is The Internet - there are going to be arguments, and people will fall out. It happens on forums far bigger than this one, and on much smaller ones too; it's not realistic to think that it's all going to be unicorns and rainbows all the time.

What does matter is how people deal with discord like that; I'm not talking about admins or moderators (who, it's to be hoped, would not need to step in much at all). I'm talking about the people involved in the spat in the first place. Do they seek trouble? Or get angry and lash out? Or do they step away for a moment, calm down and realise that it really is just the Internet? Or maybe, just maybe, take the personal part of the argument out of the equation by having a chat by PM and sort things out on a one-to-one basis?

As I said, this is my personal view; this is not necessarily the view of all the admins.

I believe that the site is looking for sponsors/advertisers. My only observation on this is that advertisers would look carefully at the content of the site and it's value as a platform to it's advertising. An important aspect is the nature of the dialogue and general feel of the site. If there appears to be content that could potentially damage the advertiser by association, that advertising will not come.

I am not advocating massive censorship by any means but sensible moderation to ensure bad behavior doesn't reflect badly on the site and damage it commercially is worth considering. I do believe that the 'Speakers Corner' idea is a masterstroke but, in providing a platform for the 'ranters' (including me), the ranters should accept moderation in public areas with out question. 

Paul_C

digitalscream said:

VimFuego said:

I'm in agreement with Paul. It is not up to the injured party to walk away, the fault doesn't like with them it lies with the person doing the insulting.

It's not about stifling robust debate, if anything it's about encouraging it. How can you have debate if you have individuals who just resort to name calling and trolling whenever their viewpoint is challenged.

I dunno...again, not speaking as an admin, I can't help but think of what happens in the real world. If I came across somebody like that, who repeatedly gets on my nerves/makes me angry/etc, I wouldn't go running to an authority figure and say "make them stop, they're not being nice to me". I'd simply ignore them and/or limit the possibilities for them having contact with me. Hell, it'd make life much easier if I had an "ignore" button in real life

But if someone chooses the walk away / limit the possibility of encountering option, then they may decide to leave the forum altogether.

monquixote

Wolftone said:

I believe that the site is looking for sponsors/advertisers. My only observation on this is that advertisers would look carefully at the content of the site and it's value as a platform to it's advertising. An important aspect is the nature of the dialogue and general feel of the site. If there appears to be content that could potentially damage the advertiser by association, that advertising will not come.

I am not advocating massive censorship by any means but sensible moderation to ensure bad behavior doesn't reflect badly on the site and damage it commercially is worth considering. I do believe that the 'Speakers Corner' idea is a masterstroke but, in providing a platform for the 'ranters' (including me), the ranters should accept moderation in public areas with out question. 

We really haven't decided on our position on advertising and relationships with commercial entities yet (with the possible exception of small UK builders). 

We may decide to accept sponsorship, at some point, but it is equally likely that we might look to be funded by our members (certainly many members have already been extremely generous). 

One thing that for me is a line I will not cross is censorship of content to please advertisers. Members will always be free to criticise, or praise whichever brand they choose. If we restrict certain behaviours and content on the site it will be with an aim of making the site an enjoyable and happy place to be, not because it will delight the marketing director of Acme Widgets Inc.

Paul_C

well you won't be getting my money then.

digitalscream

Paul_C said:

But if someone chooses the walk away / limit the possibility of encountering option, then they may decide to leave the forum altogether.

That's not what I was suggesting. This is precisely why forums have "ignore" buttons in the first place. Refusing to use it, IMO, is simply saying that the person with the grievance wants everybody else to deal with their problem for them. Either that or they enjoy being offended.

monquixote

Paul_C said:

well you won't be getting my money then.

Stick your money, and your inferior quality widgets. 

VimFuego

the ignore function may work better if you also can't see the message when the ignored is quoted. Leastways, that's how it was last time I had someone on ignore. No point ignoring someone if you can still see what they say

digitalscream

VimFuego said:

the ignore function may work better if you also can't see the message when the ignored is quoted. Leastways, that's how it was last time I had someone on ignore. No point ignoring someone if you can still see what they say

Yup, that's something I spotted. It also doesn't help that you still get email notifications from the ignored user. All I can say is that I'm working on it....

bertie

CloudNine said:

CabbageCat said:

CloudNine said:

Does this qualify as a 'Flounce'? Or should a new (more spectacular) word be invented?

Remember the rhyme:

For a flounce to be flounced
It must first be announced
Without vocal to-do
It's a tacet "adieu"

I see, I see. So:

To clearly announce,

Is the key to the flounce,

And if not pronounced,

It should be denounced.

I think I understand now.

but only when there's an R in the month

ESBlonde

bertie said:

CloudNine said:

CabbageCat said:

CloudNine said:

Does this qualify as a 'Flounce'? Or should a new (more spectacular) word be invented?

Remember the rhyme:

For a flounce to be flounced
It must first be announced
Without vocal to-do
It's a tacet "adieu"

I see, I see. So:

To clearly announce,

Is the key to the flounce,

And if not pronounced,

It should be denounced.

I think I understand now.

but only when there's an R in the month

Is that to pacify the pirates?

Paul_C

digitalscream said:

Paul_C said:

But if someone chooses the walk away / limit the possibility of encountering option, then they may decide to leave the forum altogether.

That's not what I was suggesting. This is precisely why forums have "ignore" buttons in the first place. Refusing to use it, IMO, is simply saying that the person with the grievance wants everybody else to deal with their problem for them. Either that or they enjoy being offended.

I wasn't trying to twist your words in any way, just pointing out that while choosing to ignore someone is one choice, there are others.

UnclePsychosis

I think its all well and good saying "don't be a dick" and wanting the forum to self-police, but frankly if you want the forum to be a success then the mods actually have to be prepared to step in and moderate from time to time, regardless of whether or not the more vocal regulars would have a strop about it. 

There were a handful of people on MR who pretty much managed to single handedly ruin the OT section by just following each other round and consistently abusing each other on thread after thread after thread. Don't let it happen here, please. 

fatherjack

That's why there's Off Topic and Speakers' Corner - think of one as a family-friendly pub and the other as a spit-and-sawdust dive two streets back from Sheerness Docks...

Jalapeno

UnclePsychosis said:

I think its all well and good saying "don't be a dick" and wanting the forum to self-police, but frankly if you want the forum to be a success then the mods actually have to be prepared to step in and moderate from time to time, regardless of whether or not the more vocal regulars would have a strop about it. 

There were a handful of people on MR who pretty much managed to single handedly ruin the OT section by just following each other round and consistently abusing each other on thread after thread after thread. Don't let it happen here, please. 

What are you asking for an outbreak of Temporary Suspensions, fast and violent BanHammer action ?

Some are receptive to "A quiet word", others huffy in a "Come and see the violence inherent in the system" way, and some reply "Bollocks".

chillidoggy

Bollocks.

VimFuego

fuck the rules, let's embrace the chaos!!!!!

UnclePsychosis

I'm not asking for any specific moderation. Its up to the site owners to decide what actions to take. But they have to be prepared to actually take some kind of action against people who aren't capable of not breaching rule 1. 

holnrew

We're all dicks from time to time.

chillidoggy

Yes, but some are bigger dicks than others.