Discussion time is dead. Please Discuss.

Mandelbrot

BarryBlue wrote: »

What you regard as "offensive baiting" may be just someone expressing an opinion contrary to yours. Likewise, "infuriated posts by people driven to distraction" are just as likely to be offensive, or even more so if recent events are any guide.

I am of course not referring to people expressing opinions contrary to mine (or anyone else's). That is what discussion often involves.
I meant exactly what I said. The small number of people who post something in a deliberately offensive and goading fashion with the specific purpose of eliciting an angry response. They have often looked through someone's 'back catalogue' of posts with the intention of finding 'sore spots'. They will continue to goad until they achieve a response they deem fit to report, hoping it will get that user a sanction.
You see them on many 'open' forums. Careful 'hands-on' moderation can nip such stuff in the bud.

I take your point but hope that you are not suggesting posts are edited or removed simply because you disagree with them.

Of course not. I never suggested anything of the sort.

We have had many cases where posts have been removed even though they don't contravene forum rules, just that some folks don't like them.

Exactly. Folks who are minded to report those posts.
But which folks? And are they working together?
Are they all even separate people?

lovinituk

I've said for ages that DT is pretty much the same few people repeating the same old arguments with each other over and over. Perhaps they're all finally getting fed up of their version of Ground Hog Day (and/or each other)!

Former_MSE_Megan

Mandelbrot wrote: »

And what will actually be getting reported?
The original offensive baiting stuff, or the infuriated responses of people driven to distraction.
A system based on 'user reporting' just ain't gonna work.
Most people simply do not go around 'reporting' other posters.
But a small subset do it on a regular basis.


Hopefully, you will read enough to see the full picture.
But please don't go and delete a whole thread when all that's (arguably) needed is to delete a few posts or some text.
Deleting whole threads (when most posts in it are fine) annoys lots of forum members.


No. I (for one) will simply ignore most of the 'less than savoury' stuff. I have a thick skin, and can not be goaded.
Do you really want to have one lot of users continually reporting another lot, and vice versa?
If you want to moderate the boards, then set up a proper moderator system.
Having good discussions often means spending time crafting long responses, and there is little point in doing that if a big hand is going to come down at some point and remove the whole thread ... or move it to this 'thread graveyard'.

We get a large range of people sending in reports, and we always read around them. Not just the post that is reported. We always try and keep as much content up as possible - there is a lot of work behind the scenes to make sure this happens.

We don't moderate the boards, as it's incredibly large and would take a lot more people to do. Also, it would mean we are legally responsible for whatever gets posted if we did that.

If you don't want to report posts, no worries. We're only trying to make sure that everyone can enjoy the forum, not just those with thick skins!

Mandelbrot

MSE_Megan wrote: »

We always try and keep as much content up as possible - there is a lot of work behind the scenes to make sure this happens.

So what happened on threads like the 'Picture' thread in the Arms (and many others)? Popular uncontroversial threads. A few posts of name-calling and WHAM - the whole thread disappears.
Excuse me if I prefer to believe what I see with my own eyes.

We don't moderate the boards, as it's incredibly large and would take a lot more people to do.

You have a lot of users (or so we are told).
How about making better use of them?

Also, it would mean we are legally responsible for whatever gets posted if we did that.

I've yet to see that argument properly explained.
But if that is what you are told ...

If you don't want to report posts, no worries. We're only trying to make sure that everyone can enjoy the forum, not just those with thick skins!

A worthy aim. And one I obviously agree with.
We just believe in different methods.

MothballsWallet

j.e.j. wrote: »

I agree, there is nothing like a religion thread to draw out the trouble-makers and the nasty ones. I am not particularly religious myself, but I wouldn't dream of leaping on a thread and calling a Christian (or Muslim or Jew) names just because they follow a faith.



But getting onto the subject of the site being moderated, I am not sure how that would work? I have never been on a site that is moderated, - do the mods read every post and approve it before allowing it to be posted, or are they somehow responsible for what people are posting..

This site is not moderated and as far as I understand it the reason is that it is too large and would take too many employees to do so. Also I think there are legal reasons why it is better to leave it (officially) unmoderated.

I've just remembered a site that is moderated: Reddit.

They have this system called a "shadow ban" where users can be banned from posting without it affecting how they use the site: it's just that everyone else can't see their posts.

MothballsWallet

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I will say straight away that I have never reported you, or anyone else, for posting their point of view, apart from one person years ago who insulted me personally.

I think the reason the atheist posts get reported (if they do) is that some posters can be very scathing, rude and insulting about a person's faith or their God, and sometimes about the person themselves. If this was about race, or gender, it would be unacceptable. People get hurt and upset by it.

Having said that, whilst I have asked people to speak in respectful language about my faith, even whilst disagreeing with it, (there is no need for terms like Sky Fairy or Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor to insult my intellect) I would not report them for not doing so. I'd just leave the thread.

Er, the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" refers to an actual social movement - more info on Wikipedia here.

It's meant to be a bit of fun and a satire of Creationism (Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, anyone?).

fermi

MothballsWallet wrote: »

I've just remembered a site that is moderated: Reddit.

They have this system called a "shadow ban" where users can be banned from posting without it affecting how they use the site: it's just that everyone else can't see their posts.

There has been something similar in the software running here for years as well.

This option.

Admin Help - Global Ignore

This setting allows you to set certain users as being globally ignored. Their posts etc. are not seen by any users except themselves. This gives them the illusion that they are still functioning members of the forum when in reality nobody is seeing their posts. Enter a list of userids separated by spaces.

seven-day-weekend

fermi wrote: »

There has been something similar in the software running here for years as well.

This option.

Oh wow. Have I misunderstood? It sounds very sneaky and underhand :eek:

fermi

No. I didn't mean it was used here. I have no idea if the MSE team ever use it. I'm sure they couldn't/wouldn't say if they ever did.

I just know from admining other forums running the same software as here, that it's a built in 'option' there that can be used if admin choose to.

It's referred to in the forum code as putting users

"in_coventry"

as in being sent there.

MothballsWallet

fermi wrote: »

No. I didn't mean it was used here. I have no idea if the MSE team ever use it. I'm sure they couldn't/wouldn't say if they ever did.

I just know from admining other forums running the same software as here, that it's a built in 'option' there that can be used if admin choose to.

It's referred to in the forum code as putting users

"in_coventry"

as in being sent there.

That's nice - I live in Coventry (by choice) :rotfl: