Originally posted by AmauroteI think the problem with this might be that you couldn't keep the vitriol in the unmodded forums. At least with clan forums if people are at each other's throats all the time they can be separated - if we had open access unmoderated forums they would keep going and going, and I don't believe they would then stop when they saw the other person posting in the moderated forums.
I really don't have any strong opinions on these individual cases, because I've been away, but I've always thought a combination of moderated and unmoderated fora would be the best solution to this kind of controversy: As long as an unmoderated forum is clearly marked as such, it isn't going to hurt subscription to the site.
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhat else doesn't work is what was going on in the Forum Wars forum. Users were talking about users from RHP who would never participate in such a forum. So, you have an anything goes forum and they will use that to attack users who would never post in such a place. You just go to that forum to read all the dirt on any user at RHP.
I think the problem with this might be that you couldn't keep the vitriol in the unmodded forums. At least with clan forums if people are at each other's throats all the time they can be separated - if we had open access unmoderated forums they would keep going and going, and I don't believe they would then stop when they saw the other person posting in the moderated forums.
Not fair at all, and Russ did have an anything goes forum at one point. He was smart to close it down. This was before my time, but as a mod I was able to read some of it and it wasn't pretty. Russ was wise to erase the whole thing at some point, it is all gone I would hope.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakI don't think this would be a problem: the number of people responsible for most of the bile on this site is statistically minuscule. Cut them out of the moderated forums for good and the problem would cease. As for what someone posts about someone else in an unmoderated place, I don't see what the big deal is - it's just girly stuff that shouldn't worry a grown-up.
I think the problem with this might be that you couldn't keep the vitriol in the unmodded forums. At least with clan forums if people are at each other's throats all the time they can be separated - if we had open access unmoderated forums they would keep going and going, and I don't believe they would then stop when they saw the other person posting in the moderated forums.
Originally posted by Nordlysif I ban someone it's usually after they have been warned for similar posts that have been removed. What do I think a ban achieves? If a user has ignored a warning or two then the next step is a ban to get their attention that if they continue to post in what has been deemed an antisocial way (cheating accusations, racism...) then their right to post will be removed for a period. If they still persist (which is actually pretty rare) a longer ban will follow.
I still disagree with the banning system, and always will, unless someone can give me some sort of explanation what these bans are supposed to be good for. Deleting the thread and asking stocken not to repeat this would have been just as effective and would have caused a lot less trouble for everyone involved.
Bans can also give the mods time to clear up a mess without the posters in question creating more. They can also give users time to cool off after getting into heated arguments/slagging matches.
Except in rare cases (eg. when the user is brand new and obviously just here to spam) I always accompany a ban with a PM explaining why. Although users will often know what they did to get banned they won't always, or maybe won't understand why it was ban worthy, so I agree that explanations are needed. This said, giving explanations does result in insults and demands for further explanations that we don't always have time to give further answers to. A very few users even go so far as to lie about the circumstances leading up to the ban in order to stir bad feeling towards the mod in question. So I can understand why some mods may shy away from giving explanations every time.
I hope this explains my thoughts
BF
Originally posted by Phlabibitso I can't read it now? Sounds like it would have been interesting as an example of what happens when fora are left unmodded.
This was before my time, but as a mod I was able to read some of it and it wasn't pretty. Russ was wise to erase the whole thing at some point, it is all gone I would hope.
P-
Originally posted by belgianfreakThanks, you have explained that before, and I can understand those kinds of bans. What I don't understand are bans for something you haven't done before (or something you have done before without getting any feedback that it was not accepted), without a warning or explanation, when there is no danger of spamming or flame wars. If there is a danger of spamming or continued flaming, I understand that an immediate ban can be necessary, not as punishment, but as a precaution. Such a ban could be lifted once the moderator has explained it and given a warning not to repeat that behaviour. If the user doesn't stop after being warned, a ban seems appropriate.
if I ban someone it's usually after they have been warned for similar posts that have been removed. What do I think a ban achieves? If a user has ignored a warning or two then the next step is a ban to get their attention that if they continue to post in what has been deemed an antisocial way (cheating accusations, racism...) then their right to post wi ...[text shortened]... ds may shy away from giving explanations every time.
I hope this explains my thoughts
BF
I also understand that it can be difficult for moderators to take the insults and demands by users who break the rules. Having been a moderator on an email list myself, I know how difficult it can be. But I see it as part of the job. If the moderators go into hiding, it becomes a system based on secrecy and fear. And if only some moderators work in secrecy, the moderators who are more open will have to deal with the stuff the others are responsible for, but aren't willing to deal with.
Originally posted by NordlysI guess I give people too much credit and think they should know better. I was off the forums until I heard back from Russ yesterday, and would have got this all out in the open last evening if I wasn't sick as a dog.
Thanks, you have explained that before, and I can understand those kinds of bans. What I don't understand are bans for something you haven't done before (or something you have done before without getting any feedback that it was not accepted), without a warning or explanation, when there is no danger of spamming or flame wars. If there is a danger of spammin ...[text shortened]... have to deal with the stuff the others are responsible for, but aren't willing to deal with.
I think many users who do get a ban know exactly why but just want to take the piss. Again, perhaps I'm giving users to much credit for having some reasoning skills.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitWell, at least you did give an explanation in the end, and you lifted those bans which had been given without a good reason. As for the reasoning skills, you have to take into account that people come from different cultures and backgrounds. The "but everyone knows you don't say ..." approach simply doesn't work. Even the moderators don't always agree with each other what's acceptable and what isn't, so what do you expect?
I guess I give people too much credit and think they should know better. I was off the forums until I heard back from Russ yesterday, and would have got this all out in the open last evening if I wasn't sick as a dog.
I think many users who do get a ban know exactly why but just want to take the piss. Again, perhaps I'm giving users to much credit for having some reasoning skills.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitYesterday I waited for some feedback from Russ, and talked with a couple good RHP friends.
Yesterday I waited for some feedback from Russ, and talked with a couple good RHP friends.
My reasoning for Stocken was I felt he designed his "I love RN" Thread to cause trouble with users who do not get along with RN, I still feel that is the case, but as a friend says it is very hard to prove, and may actually not be true at all.
Some of the other tter, as Stocken says... I still think he said these things to get a rise.
P-
My reasoning for Stocken was I felt he designed his "I love RN" Thread to cause trouble with users who do not get along with RN, I still feel that is the case, but as a friend says it is very hard to prove, and may actually not be true at all.
Other than Rook Rack, if that is the case, then why were the only ones banned the ones who at least claimed to support Red night? That theory of yours is backwards in the actions you took in my opinion.
Some of the other users I banned for another reason, and I am not going to get into that.
Why does that not surprise me?
Every time something comes up about 'the clean the forum bunch' normal posters become hurtful and say things they normaly would not say. I don't think the forums have gotten any better, as Stocken says... I still think he said these things to get a rise.
I am unfortunately starting to agree with you on this matter. 😞 I am hearing it was part of a payoff to a gambling bet. Is that allowed under the TOS rules. I really don't know? I was thinking it wasn't.
2 edits
Originally posted by cashthetrash[/b]quote marks please?...
[b]Yesterday I waited for some feedback from Russ, and talked with a couple good RHP friends.
[b]My reasoning for Stocken was I felt he designed his "I love RN" Thread to cause trouble with users who do not get along with RN, I still feel that is the case, but as a friend says it is very hard to prove, and may actually not be true at all.
bet. Is that allowed under the TOS rules. I really don't know? I was thinking it wasn't.[/b]
thanks 😛
EDIT: it's been sorted. panic is averted!
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrash[/b]Lol, someone lost a bet you think. That's actually half believable. I know one thing, Stocken was less than truethful in the thread... and the thread caused a lot of trouble.
[b]Yesterday I waited for some feedback from Russ, and talked with a couple good RHP friends.
My reasoning for Stocken was I felt he designed his "I love RN" Thread to cause trouble with users who do not get along with RN, I still feel that is the case, but as a friend says it is very hard to prove, and may actually not be true at all.[ bet. Is that allowed under the TOS rules. I really don't know? I was thinking it wasn't.
That was my reasoning when I 'went into action'. Yes, I waited for feedback, and had myself banned because frankly I really wasn't sure I did the right thing.
P-
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by PhlabibitPlease. "The thread caused a lot of trouble."??
Lol, someone lost a bet you think. That's actually half believable. I know one thing, Stocken was less than truethful in the thread... and the thread caused a lot of trouble.
That was my reasoning when I 'went into action'. Yes, I waited for feedback, and had myself banned because frankly I really wasn't sure I did the right thing.
P-[/b]
Two people were at each others' throats, RN and Rookrack. Period. It could/would have happened in any thread, just as it does here each and every day.
Originally posted by PhlabibitIt is true Phlabby,
Lol, someone lost a bet you think. That's actually half believable. I know one thing, Stocken was less than truethful in the thread... and the thread caused a lot of trouble.
That was my reasoning when I 'went into action'. Yes, I waited for feedback, and had myself banned because frankly I really wasn't sure I did the right thing.
P-[/b]
Stocken was playing Cadwah in a match stating that the loser would have to agree with everything RN said and take him under his wing for a 24 hour period.
Stocken lost the game and the bet, therefore posting the I love RN thread.
All this can be proved in our private forum (not sure if you can gain access as a mod) or you can simply check Stockens recent game losses.
I hope this sheds a little light into your unbelieving/doubtful mind.
Originally posted by PhlabibitIt's what both stocken and cadwah have been saying all along, and I don't see why it shouldn't be true. Of course it was a stupid idea, but if you'd delete everything which is stupid and has the potential to cause trouble, and ban the people who posted it, the forums would be almost empty.
Lol, someone lost a bet you think. That's actually half believable.[/b]
Yes, I waited for feedback, and had myself banned because frankly I really wasn't sure I did the right thing.
Did you warn yourself, and tell yourself why you had been banned? How did you react to the ban? Did you complain?
Seriously, banning yourself because you are not sure you did the right thing seems even more meaningless than most other bans.