General discussion of moderation procedures

What would be an example of abuse, Holmes? I was just wondering since I never experienced anything like that.

You are an idiot - have you considered how stupid and vapid that question is? (althought I suspect that holmes has something else in mind...)

What if somebody says my argument is idiocy? Would you call that abuse, you son of a bitch (smily face here)?

That's a suggestion that we have been discussing for some time now. There are several problems involved that quite frankly, we haven't found an answer for. For example, we have several members who cry foul every time someone disagrees with them, a few that are constantly impugning the motives of other posters and some that simply will not follow the rules nohow.But we are talking about these issues and trying to come up with something that might help. We just don't have any good ideas yet.

This seems kind of obvious so you've probably already considered it, but what about simply limiting the number of times members can use the function in a given period? Those who would otherwise abuse the system might be more inclined to temper its use if they know they only have so many anonymous complaints available.And if they don't, then they've effectively wasted them and have to go back to complaining the old-fashioned way until their "quota" is restocked at the start of the next "period" (whatever that is deemed to be). Maybe this will encourage them to be more sparing with the function and only report legitimate complaints. And I suppose repeat offenders could always be locked out ("suspended"?) from its use, couldn't they?Eh... Like I said, I'm sure you've already considered this. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that I've written it down and re-read it I'm not so sure.Well, it's just a thought. Perhaps it'll be useful.

There have been cases, though I think that was a while back, of a poster "stalking" another poster, and essentially following the other across forums to do nothing but heckle them.More common, are people that continually break guidelines (most esp. #4), and so make posting a waste of time as well as thoroughly unenjoyable. I think we could raise the bar a bit and expect that posters do not just come on to preach and preach and preach, or assert and assert and assert, to the annoyance of those that raise legitimate points and want some answers. Even an "I don't know", or "I give up", or "I don't care anymore", is better than allowing the person to claim they have answered a point when they haven't.Along with this are the posters that accuse another of doing something, for example being accused of not answering questions when it can be shown they have only to have the false accusation repeated. I don't think posters should have to suffer that kind of behavior.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I do agree that if a system were to be in place it should be made clear that the notification should be for real cases, and not simply "tattling" to get someone in trouble.The idea would be if a poster is genuinely not contributing to discussions and making life generally unpleasant by breaking certain forum guidelines, a person can get a message to an admin on what the violations are (more than once, because everyone can slip up once in a while) and which posts they can be seen in.The other person who replied to your post had an interesting suggestion of limiting posters to a couple uses, and if they are seen to be frivolous, then losing the privilege. I was thinking they themselves could be suspended, but losing the privilege of notification could be equally effective, without going through the trouble of altering their posting status. The "Boy who Cried Wolf" penalty.Disagreement should not be considered a problem, and make it clear that it must be factual (evident) breach of the forum guidelines. I am not suggesting this turn into a giant game of getting people suspended, or introducing a measure of paranoia to keep people in line.As far as people not following the rules, then I think they ought to be limited to the nonserious areas, until they can show improvement. I think there is a point a poster can reach where they are simply detracting from conversations, and that becomes their modus operandi.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think holmes's suggestion is a good one. If a member abuses it by making spurious or excessive complaints then they can be provided with that feedback directly. If they choose to ignore it then the service could be denied to them or they could be temporarily suspended. If the latter were to occur, it should be explained in the announcement as other members would not know what had been going on in the other channel.

people as often as using your hand to touch something. You guys have been suspending/restricting more people the last couple months than the last year or so.

I absolutely agree. Looking at the hitchy suspension, it would seem that expressing any negative opinion whatsoever about ID or creationism will get you suspended. Hitchy didn't attack anyone, he simply pointed out that ID and creationism are not science, which is the truth. And he did it in response to a poster who feels that teachers should "discuss the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism" in science class! For that, he's suspended.I assume it's still okay to attack gays in any way whatsoever, so long as the attack is motivated by a "belief system". But no attacks against ID or creationism. Those are to be treated as legitimate sciences on this forum. Attacking them by telling the truth about them will get you suspended.Who the hell wrote these new rules anyway? Coral Ridge Ministries?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I too agree.The admins' efforts to sanitize discussion on this forum are over the top, in my opinion. The effect might well be that any discussion is stifled before it can start, because nobody dares to say anything negative anymore.If this trend continues, I'll be forced to temporarily ban EvC from my computer. Let's hope I don't have to."When an arguer argues dispassionately he thinks only of the argument." - Virginia Woolf

I'll add my name to the list on this one.I'm not totally opposed to the new policy. Given time it might reduce the amount of unpleasant sniping without having to resort to outright bans. There is a danger of being overzealous though and I think the Hitchy case is a good example of where a bit of leaniency should be called for. I think it's sometimes fun to throw a bit of spice into the debate (depending on who you're talking to of course :cool, so if someone oversteps the mark to a minor degree maybe a warning could still be enough.Aside from the fact that the post it was replying to wasn't exactly all sweetness and light itself ("mundane, shallow thinking"), Hitchy actually apologised a couple of posts later.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 17-05-2005 11:52 PM

See? Seven of Nine agreed with me, which mean I was right.

Ooook! writes:

quote:

---

I'm not totally opposed to the new policy. Given time it might reduce the amount of unpleasant sniping without having to resort to outright bans.

---

But why is everything supposed to be pleasant? Sniping makes things interesting. I'd like to know just who the hell is griping about getting their feelings hurt. The admins seem determined to remove any and all comments that cast any aspersions at all on fundies.The admins don't seem to want to say anything, but by their actions I would gather that the best way to insure that you don't get suspended is to ask yourself, before making a post, whether or not said post would be approved by Jerry Falwell. If not, better not post it.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I agree, a little bit of light ribbing is both entertaining to read and makes writing posts fun. I don’t want to see a totally sterile environment develop here: I don’t think Percy wants that either. That’s why I used the word ‘spice’ in my original post — I think I remember Admin using it in a previous discussion. The point (I hope) of the new system of ‘zero tolerance’ is to stop the posts that are nothing but needle and inevitably develop into unseemly slanging matches. It does seem to have had some success in this area, and people seem to think twice now before posting — although I might be mistaken.The point I was trying to make was that a little leeway should be given, and that really hard and fast rules can result in farce. The point of view of the admin staff at the moment seems to be fairly inflexible: Personal Attack: Bad, Attack on the Argument: Good. My personal opinion is that it should be more to do with context.I don’t really see the fundamental difference between You seem to like making things up, and ID seems to like making things up, and either way I don’t see much offense in them. Similarly, I don’t see the difference between That argument is Idiotic!! and You’re an Idiot!!, both of which would annoy me quite a bit.