moderation poll

[Roadagent]

I've voted.

I suspect that the worst offenders probably wouldn't abuse, bully or otherwise be unpleasant to others if they were in a face-to-face situation. Forums are often the chosen battleground of cowards, imho.

 

[wildandwelsh]

stay out of it is my thought...

Perhaps you could drop them a little message of caution that other members are complaining and ask them to cool it a little. If you draw the line at bad language and anything that would be deemed a threat then let them get on with it! It is at best silly and at worse tedious as someone else pointed out. I trust those who have been complaining will take part in this poll as so far the comments seem to be inclined towards tolerance.

 

[caspar]

If the decision is going to be based on the poll, personally I would have closed the thread so people can't comment. As the thread is open though I assume it is open to encourage comments.

I too moderate on a couple of other forums and on those infractions are issued twice before a ban. In my opinion it is fair to give people a warning, and a final chance; if they continue to abuse the privilege of being a member here, I have no doubt that the right thing is then to ban them. It would be totally unfair on other members should they be allowed to continue getting away with inappropriate conduct.

In my experience people respect the more disciplined approach, and at the end of the day, people who deliberately continue to abuse the forum are effectively sticking two fingers up at everyone else and have no place here.

 

[00derek]

If someone "starts" an argument - is a little vague. If they abuse anyone, even once, ban them. If they keep starting arguments, than a warning, followed by a ban.

But I should also say, it takes at least two people to have an argument. The best way to avoid abuse is to ignore the abuser.

 

[mattiball]

Let's get to the point this is a site about wild camping, nothing contravertial, just a site where people with similar intreast talks about this. So why would the conversation become so heated that people start upsetting each other? As said before, one warning, maybe some consideration if the offending party apologises, then ban. We are supposedly grown adults. I reAlly don't see that this sort of site is the place for robust arguments that may upset other users. There are plenty of othet sites to argue about politics, ect.

 

[Deleted member 25724]

Momma always said....."If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all !"

 

[moonshadow]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but if we just ignored them I would assume they would just give up as they wouldn't have an audience, I am sure the offenders are enjoying all this controversy about them!

 

[chass]

We are all big boys & girls sticks & stones! All you need to do is ignore or not read the posts & the perpetrators will soon realise they are being ignored,:wave:most are just keyboard warriors & whimps in real life anyway.:egg:

 

[Gismo13]

I've been involved with a number of websites over the years and there are always a few folks on every site that seem to get a kick out of ruining a good thead by intentionally going off topic or just verbally abusing a contiributor who they don't agree with.

In the past we've found one way to treat these folks is for the first offence admin have a quiet word and then if the problems continue suspend them until they agree by e-mail to abide by the rules and if they are allowed back and start up again then just block them. The admin job give enough hassel without having to put up with prats

 

[mattiball]

This is a site about wild camping. Why are peoplegetting so heated that they offend others! I think if you cause offence and haven't got the manners to apologise then you should be banned.

 

[Northerner]

Oh yea, and everyone is going to vote fairly aren't they? No one will vote for a banning just because they've lost an argument or two with a member, they'll all be terribly fair! Give me strength!

Let me try to see just what this forum's policy really is: These are a few comments posted recently: The first is about the Olympic torch procession around Britain and, as we all know, the torch has mainly been carried by ordinary people, chosen by their community for the contribution they have made.

I still don't get the torches! Everytime I see tv coverage there's some twat either mincing down the road or doing some silly dance.Whats that all about? And wearing a white shell suit to boot If that's supposed to be MY OLYMPICS then No . The final straw was a pillock doing a silly dance infront of a caldren tonight, a grown man! Well he did have a beard!

The second is about parking in Scarborough where one member said:

I'm not going to be bullied on to camp sites owned by some fat councillor.

Yesterday some one accused the Olympics of being mired in extortion and corruption. Needless to say when challenged he had no evidence!

The first one was merely vile and insulting, the second was insulting, untrue and probably libellous.

These sort of comments appears to be acceptable as they are never removed and nothing is ever said about them.

But if wanted to say that, in my opinion, the people who say things like this are nasty idiots with the IQ of a goldfish, I'll be banned.

Is that it?

This is a pointless poll and will achieve nothing. You'll lose members who, as well as arguing, also contribute and you'll end up with a boring and anodyne forum, except of course for those who think it's acceptable to peddle the ludicrous and vicious tripe that I give examples of. But that doesn't matter does it, they're not member of this forum? So the lollipop lady with fifty years of service whose chance to carry the Olympic torch is a dream come true, can continue to be described as a 'twat mincing down the road'.

If a thread gets out of hand, delete the offending posts, we'll soon take the hint. If a thread is started simply to stir up a row, as was the one this morning, move it to the Black Hole, as you did, where I can tell the perpetrator that he's a sh*t stirring idiot without fear of retribution.

For my part I've tried to be a bit more reasonable but it's very difficult when you have people who still bear a grudge from six months ago and seek to prod you whatever you post.

Rant over, go ahead and ban me if you must.

 

[wildandwelsh]

I used to enjoy this forum but got p***ed off with people turning informative discussions into slanging matches.
Ban them unless they have something usefull to say.

but who is to judge whether what they say is useful or not??

 

[Canalsman]

We are all big boys & girls sticks & stones! All you need to do is ignore or not read the posts & the perpetrators will soon realise they are being ignored,:wave:most are just keyboard warriors & whimps in real life anyway.:egg:

If it's only one person that works - but when you have two or three all arguing with each other, and often insulting each other, it's self perpetuating and destructive.

Note observations made above - members wary about posting in case their input to the site becomes lost amongst the noise.

 

[Jojo]

I had quite a lot of abuse from members because I kept people up to date with how my claim against Armitages was going and some of that was quite hurtful and aimed at my wife who as you know is in remission. I gave back as good as I got but this was not done in open forum. If somebody in open forum is abusive to the point others are offended those who are offended should privately message Phil and if there are over a certain number then Phil should be able to ban them, It will then be the members that have banned the member and not Phil. That should then be the end of it.

How awful for you. I'm completely baffled as to why anyone would have a go at you for talking about your experiences.

I only joined recently and while at first pleasantly surprised by the general friendliness and chat, then found myself reading screeds of pointlessly "challenging" posts by people whose only reason for posting seemed to be to prove themselves right and someone else wrong, often about political views where we all know there's no right answer (other than mine, obviously). But reading some of the complaints, and comments from Phil, I got the feeling that we don't all agree on who the culprits actually are. Not being very familiar with the group I don't feel able to vote because I don't know whose removal I'm voting for!

Assuming Phil has the technical ability to moderate individuals (rather than moderating every post, which would be madness and the end of the forum) I would urge him to use it as follows (all offences to be decided by Phil):

• Level 1 offence - issue warnings (maybe 3 strikes)
• Level 2 (after warnings) - moderate posts from the individual concerned until their tone conforms to acceptable social standards ie don't publish until acceptable.
• Level 3 instant removal for gross offence - and if that person signs up again under a new ID, they'll have to go through it all again.

It might be useful for the rest of us to know who's done what, or to see the text that caused the offence, so we all learn from what is/is not acceptable - social norms and standards are usually agreed and operated by a community. At present I don't feel confident to challenge people in case of being attacked by them and endure the misery experienced by others. I suspect that, with more transparency about what is offending people, we could defend ourselves better and feel more able to step up/in to defend others.

Great forum nonetheless! Thanks Phil

 

[Andrew Davies]

Just joined from the link on SBMCC did not pay a membership as I was put off by the slagging matches going on!

Don't want to mix with people like that, there are PM messaging systems, telephones and a host of other ways to communicate without public brinkmanship!

I run a BMW motorbike club with an active online forum and at times it's a problem keeping tempers, in the real world a pint of beer and a quiet chat and it would be sorted. Being new, I know my opinion counts for nothing, but I got the email as everyone else did, I've been in the same position and asked the same question. I'd stick to the poll results as you have asked for the decision to be made for you (if you don't then everyone's upset!).

Personally I'd ban them, but say they are welcome to rejoin in a month if they can manage to sort themselves out, no need for IP tracking, they just lose post number and join date. If they 'flounce' then no loss.

As your email said, dammed if you do or don't, so let the poll take the flack, you will find it's more important those who have voted quietly than those who have posted (myself included), possibly you risk a far higher membership loss if you ignore them.

Moving forward, I don't know how many moderators you have, but sharing these sorts of issues in a 'mod lounge' might be a good idea, I know it works for us as different opinions can be shared on an issue without making a unilateral decision you bear the brunt of the flack for, it's a 'team' choice. Like a jury, it's only fair to allow a range of opinions and personalities to consider the problem (very much like you are doing with this across the whole membership).

Just to reiterate, I only replied as I am in exactly the position Phil is in, I run and administer a forum and it's not fun when these sorts of things happen (worse when the moderators kick off!)

 

[winchman]

Its a difficult subject, but as its your forum I feel its your choice.
We are all different and express our selves in different ways so it wont be easy, as some feel stronger about some things than others.
What you do need to watch is slanderous stuff and stuff that could cause issues for the forum

 

[fairytooth]

but who is to judge whether what they say is useful or not??

Phil, because he is the Moderator.

 

[palmydays]

Giving a chance!

....three strikes and you are OUT???

I'm with Ian81, the parties should both be warned first that no such behaviour can be tolerated on a public forum.
Just my opinion.

Happy Wild-camping!
Cheers,
Dave.
:angel:

 

[Jojo]

I don't know how many moderators you have, but sharing these sorts of issues in a 'mod lounge' might be a good idea

Good point - more mods helps spread the load and even out the stress.

 

[MichaelU]

Banning is warranted.

How awful for you. I'm completely baffled as to why anyone would have a go at you for talking about your experiences.

I only joined recently and while at first pleasantly surprised by the general friendliness and chat, then found myself reading screeds of pointlessly "challenging" posts by people whose only reason for posting seemed to be to prove themselves right and someone else wrong, often about political views where we all know there's no right answer (other than mine, obviously). But reading some of the complaints, and comments from Phil, I got the feeling that we don't all agree on who the culprits actually are. Not being very familiar with the group I don't feel able to vote because I don't know whose removal I'm voting for!

Assuming Phil has the technical ability to moderate individuals (rather than moderating every post, which would be madness and the end of the forum) I would urge him to use it as follows (all offences to be decided by Phil):

• Level 1 offence - issue warnings (maybe 3 strikes)
• Level 2 (after warnings) - moderate posts from the individual concerned until their tone conforms to acceptable social standards ie don't publish until acceptable.
• Level 3 instant removal for gross offence - and if that person signs up again under a new ID, they'll have to go through it all again.

It might be useful for the rest of us to know who's done what, or to see the text that caused the offence, so we all learn from what is/is not acceptable - social norms and standards are usually agreed and operated by a community. At present I don't feel confident to challenge people in case of being attacked by them and endure the misery experienced by others. I suspect that, with more transparency about what is offending people, we could defend ourselves better and feel more able to step up/in to defend others.

Great forum nonetheless! Thanks Phil

I agree with Hamsha, and why would anyone feel it appropriate conduct to abuse a fellow member.

It's too easy to be drawn in to some debates when in reality all I really want is supportive advice, a forum for promoting wild camping and wild camping locations. Im similarly grateful to Phil for creating such a cracking forum.

Mike.