moderation poll

[2cv]

I love this site and am very grateful to Phil for setting it up so well.
I do feel that in the past year or two it has changed from what it was, and not necessarily for the better.
Wild camping was the original focus of the site, and I feel that the gradual movement away from discussion of this has been detremental to the site and has led to the problems being discussed in this thread.
I think that a return towards the original focus of the forum would be beneficial, and may eliminate the problems which have arisen.
I think the membership have indicated clearly how they feel, but of course support whatever Phil decides is the appropriate action.

 

[Clemina]

Yes ban them. Maybe those who start getting a little bit out of order firstly get a 2 week ban and if they do it again banned forever. Though a straight ban is fine with me. You have to think about the number of people that don't post or stop visiting the site because they don't want to be abused by them. It's just basic common courtesy that people need to pay each other and just because it's online and not in person does not mean that people can be abusive or arguementative. A bit of friendly banter is fine but it must be 'friendly'

 

[scampa]

I have voted "Yes".

I've read all of the comments on this thread after making my decision, but before voting (in case I saw anything to change my views).

For those who think there should be warnings, or second and third chances, then yes, that would be fine for any issues that arise in the future. For the present though, there have been plenty of warnings and chances given in the past few weeks to the one or two members who continue to resort to personal insults and put-downs when making their views known.

The claim for "Free-Speech" is also fine, but that doesn't include factors such as personal insults and abuse, as some people seem to think. I agree that some members may be out of order on only a few occasions, such as when they are pushed to their limits by others, or may be having a hard time in other areas, but it's the minority who regularly stoop to unacceptable levels on almost every thread that they take part in that are the real problem.

I liked Viktors' idea of limiting problem-causing members' access for a while, for example by giving them "read-only" rights for three months, but I suspect that some would wait and stew while they were absent and soon revert to their old ways when they return?

A slightly controversial alternative to this present poll would be to name names of the members who have been complained about most, then run polls to let other members decide which ones should be banned?

I have never yet used the "ignore" facility, nor made a complaint about any member (except when responding to them directly in a thread), but obviously I'm not the only one who has found this site a pretty miserable place to visit in recent weeks, with the usual suspects taking over too many topics with their same old arguments and personal attacks and abuse on others in the name of "vigorous debate!".

As I've said before to their suggestions of "Well, don't view the threads that you find unpleasant"...... No members should be made to feel wary of viewing or posting on an otherwise interesting topic merely because of the immature personal insults and abuse to be found on them from others.

In defence of some of the quieter members who some have accused of only appearing for the first time on this thread, or have only made a few other posts, then it's good that they have chosen to add their comments. They are perfectly entitled and welcome to browse the forum while the "noisier" members make their contributions! I'm sure that if they had any questions, or felt they could add something, then they would. Don't forget that they have been asked to view this thread and take part in the poll by Phil's email. I too look forward to hearing more from them in the future, but it's completely their choice!

And finally...... the regular unpleasantness on this site in recent weeks (despite all the previous warnings) that has seemingly replaced the previously fun, friendly and welcoming atmosphere should be proof that some bans are now warranted, either for several months or for life.

 

[Firefox]

If there was ever a dislike button I don't think the dislike results should be visible to the membership the same way as likes. This would simply create bad feelings in quite innocent threads and disagreements, leading to tit for tat dislikes and more argument.

The dislikes should be visible to the admin though. Then they get a snapshot opinion of the forum without having to wade through reams of reports.

 

[Deleted member 3011]

G'day Phil.
I won't vote in the poll, simply because the poll question is so open to misinterpretation as to be almost meaningless. As you know, the great majority of members will not vote anyway because all they want is to use the forum to enhance their lifestyle - so the poll then comes down to a futile battle between good and evil and of course then, since no-one can clearly define which side is which in this case, you are no further down the track, and in fact may be locked in to a situation where, because of a skewed result, you feel you are prevented from acting as you really ought to.

I imagine the situation is further complicated by having paid up members and you don't want to lose revenue or expertise. However, I would say that is very counter-productive and in fact by keeping one full member, you might easily lose two or three others.

You will find that in most of these sort of situations ie where you have wanted to intervene or where members are talking mutiny, I have come out in support of your absolute right as owner of a private forum to do what you like without notice and without consultation and without second thoughts. That is morally and legally absolutely true so why don't you just do it. If I am one of the victims then so be it.

NOW, that said, it doesn't mean that I personally won't make my opinion heard concerning matters like "KIndy" features ie Reputation scores, manipulated post counts, overtly manipulated "Like" scores, dinky little flashing thingos, animated avatars, excessive use of emoticons, pathetically adorned signatures and anything else appealing only to the faint of intellect - even though by using Firefox or forum features I can banish most of them them from my screen forever. Nor will it mean that I will suffer fools gladly and that especially includes anyone who clearly thinks a special position within the forum entitles it to act like some spoilt brat. I missed all the excitement leading to the current situation, but looking back on his constant stream of posts giving excellent information on camping areas, RVing lifestyle and such, ***** spitting the dummy was a big loss to the forum, especially given the very low worth of on-forum contributions by the "victor".

If someone is actually causing you angst then ban them for a week and then a month and then three months and then forever. That ensures procedural fairness and a chance to be rehabilitated before the inevitable final axe descends. I repeat, If I am one of the victims then so be it.

Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse)
The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide. They are probably of little use to the forum and could be easily ignored or excluded on your whim without detracting from the forum PROVIDED the alpha males can be sorted out at the same time. BUT don't forget that would-be alpha males fighting it out is what natural selection is all about and the usual outcome is improved stock - but of course the upset of their continued fighting can be more trouble than it is worth so one or both need to be culled by the higher being - which in this case is you, the owner.

THEN of course there is the big danger that the forum will lose all the eccentrics that add colour and life and the forum will end up bland and lifeless and that wouldn't be good either.. Guess that as the BOSS, it is your problem to balance everything out.

Anyway, as I said, it IS YOUR forum and you must do what you see fit, but in my mind that means actually doing something to resolve a situation you see as intolerable rather than stuffing around being seen to be indecisive and ineffective because you either do nothing, or make a policy decision and rescind it hours later or leave it up to the members to decide.

When did a committee of 10,000 ever achieve anything.

Regards

Tony

 

[Firefox]

You make some very good points Tony, but I don't agree with everything you said.

The forum needs posters of all different kinds. The technical ones, the debating ones, the supportive ones, and even the ones who post a bit off fluff to keep the board moving. They are all valuable in their own ways.

That value isn't realised by the number of likes or post counts - those are irrelevant. But instead it is realised in the continued success and popularity of the board to fulfill different needs of the various members. Sometimes that is technical assistance, and sometimes it is the need to share a few lighthearted posts in a game, or some words of consolation or encouragement. I don't think you can place any one of those above the other, in my view anyway.

When it comes to banning people who disrupt that process, I agree very much with your idea of time limited bans of increasing length. This always gives people a chance to make amends and return with a new approach.

 

[scampa]

ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse)

The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide.

THEN of course there is the big danger that the forum will lose all the eccentrics that add colour and life and the forum will end up bland and lifeless and that wouldn't be good either.

You really should stop beating about the bush Tony, and just say what's on your mind!

And I think we'd still have plenty of eccentric characters on here without those that habitually insult and verbally abuse other members!

 

[Deleted member 3011]

You really should stop beating about the bush Tony, and just say what's on your mind!

Didn't want to be the first to get booted so I deleted all the really pointed barbs.

Firefox said

The forum needs posters of all different kinds. The technical ones, the debating ones, the supportive ones, and even the ones who post a bit off fluff to keep the board moving. They are all valuable in their own ways.

and I said

THEN of course there is the big danger that the forum will lose all the eccentrics that add colour and life and the forum will end up bland and lifeless and that wouldn't be good either.

Both saying much the same thing in different ways. OVER-regulation can be just as destabilising as UNDER-regulation.

In looking at statistics governing behaviours or whatever, it is common practice to discard the biggest and smallest value and use the remaining data to paint a picture of what is normal. In the context of this topic I would think the equivalent would be getting rid of one member who habitually lodges complaints about many posts from a wide range of what are seen to be "normal" members - the overly precious person - on the basis that it is the serial complainer that is abnormal rather than all of the subjects of the complaints - and the other outlier ((statistics) an extreme deviation from the mean) that needs getting rid of would be where a single member is the subject of complaints from many (normal) members over a period of time - an obnoxious alpha male - on the basis that it is the one member that is the problem not the ones who are complaining. Thus getting rid of two extreme (abnormal) members exhibiting aberrant behaviour results in a more contented (normal) membership without seriously altering either the "viva la difference" or average or reasonable aspects of the forum as a whole.

 

[Deleted member 3011]

And I think we'd still have plenty of eccentric characters on here without those that habitually insult and verbally abuse other members!

Of course - PROVIDED that a distinction is made between valid argument and valid debating techniques that attack the ideas (by using examples etc) and the undesirable attacking the person himself using personal insult and denigration. Unfortunately, many are unable to distinguish between the two.

I see a big difference in a robust rejoinder such as "what you are saying is total claptrap because ......." because even though it is mildly derogatory it does have supporting argument, and "you are a mindless idiot" which is clearly personally insulting because there is no supporting argument. Not sure what end of the spectrum "acting like a kindy kid" is though. (I'd possible add a smiley here except that I've instructed my browser not to display them.)

 

[Rockerboots]

Well, after reading thro` the posts most people seem to favour a " Three strikes and your out" policy which i tend to agree with, but only Phil can decide according to the poll results.

The big question is What sort of posts are not acceptable? My own opinion is that post which contain personal attacks such as name calling or insulting someones intelligance are a definate No No. or Sarcasm (the lowest form of witt).

Strong debate is good as we all have differing opinions on a subject (We call it Democracy & why we elect MP`s to debate issues on our behalf). but it doesn`t have to get personal.

If i were Phil i would ask for volunteers to help with the moderation of the forum, full members who have been on here for a long time that are of good standing to take some of the pressure off.

 

[Deleted member 207]

Does it really matter - personally I would not want the potential grief of being a moderator that bans someone.

We know (or can find out) how to ignore someone, just use that if you cant cope with a post and move on.

I sometimes enjoy some of the banter, but am sorry to see some longtime members leave because they have
become disenchanted with some of the threats or language used.

Some years ago I was a member of a self moderated forum, and when (I think) ten members hit the "report"
button the post got deleted and the member banned. I'm pretty sure that it worked ok, and in many ways
it represented the forum members views about what was acceptable. It also stopped a moderator from having
the arbitary power to ban.

 

[Northerner]

Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse)

And there lies the real problem.

 

[Northerner]

Absolutely right. What Phil should be taking notice of in this pointless exercise is the number of people who not only don't really understand the subject, but have simply used this thread to vent their spleen against anyone they don't like. They haven't made one intelligent suggestion about how the forum should be moderated and have simply made an attack on those with whom they disagree with or don't like. I suspect that these are the are the same ones so eloquently described thus by Tony Lee:

Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse)

The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide. They are probably of little use to the forum and could be easily ignored or excluded on your whim without detracting from the forum PROVIDED the alpha males can be sorted out at the same time. BUT don't forget that would-be alpha males fighting it out is what natural selection is all about and the usual outcome is improved stock - but of course the upset of their continued fighting can be more trouble than it is worth so one or both need to be culled by the higher being - which in this case is you, the owner.



I'm waiting to be culled!

 

[Dezi]

I help run another forum & one of the problems for any moderator & something that this thread raises, albeit obliquely, is that we can never be absolutely sure who we are talking to.

It has always struck me as the height of stupidity to get abusive or threatening on a forum when for all you know Daphne from Eastbourne might well be Atilla the nun from Gateshead.

There have been several instances where trolling another person on an internet forum has led to a home visit & violence.

Why anybody has to get irate to the state of abusiveness on a site dedicated to a peaceful minority pursuit is completely beyond me.

As for banning, I will leave that to others.

Dezi c:

 

[n brown]

i think maybe all of us few who voted against may be in danger of a good culling by the majority.oh well.does it hurt ?

 

[Deleted member 3011]

And there lies the real problem.

Yes, but whose problem is it.

#1 One version says that since Phil owns the forum and Phil makes money out of it by selling a service that people are willing to pay for, then it is in his interest to keep it as a forum that most people ARE willing to pay for. This won't happen if Phil's standards aren't at least close to those of the majority so the majority are satisfied.

Presumably this requirement can be translated as being a forum that is informative or serves as a substitute religion or agony-aunt column or whatever and since that is most likely to mean that extremists of any persuasion are not welcome, wouldn't cracking down on those extremists that also solve the problems of the vast majority of members.

So then the problem is, whose standards should be applied. Mine??, yours????

No!!!! Phil's

Why??

Go to #1 above

Don't agree??

Then find another forum or start one of your own.

Easy!!!!

 

[Deleted member 21686]

i think maybe all of us few who voted against may be in danger of a good culling by the majority.oh well.does it hurt ?

You deserve all you get nutty brown and you know it! lol.

 

[mariesnowgoose]

Does it really matter - personally I would not want the potential grief of being a moderator that bans someone.

We know (or can find out) how to ignore someone, just use that if you cant cope with a post and move on.

I sometimes enjoy some of the banter, but am sorry to see some longtime members leave because they have
become disenchanted with some of the threats or language used.

Some years ago I was a member of a self moderated forum, and when (I think) ten members hit the "report"
button the post got deleted and the member banned. I'm pretty sure that it worked ok, and in many ways
it represented the forum members views about what was acceptable. It also stopped a moderator from having
the arbitary power to ban.

I agree with Roger, not a bad idea.

Live and let live. It's only text on a forum living in the ether. It's not real, physical, day-to-day life.

Nobody's actually getting beaten up, and unless there are lots of teenagers/schoolchildren in here who are feeling "bullied" by typed words,
shouldn't we all be old enough and sensible enough not to take things too seriously?

Remember: the web is, and always was, just a reflection of real life complete with all the warts and nutters, as well as the geniuses and really good stuff.

Can I go back to talking about actual campers and camping and cracking jokes now, please?

 

[jimbob2467]

arguments

Arguments are in my opinion hard to define in some cases as I think certain debates can be healthy.

What I don’t like, as I see so often, is web sites set out to help people are abused by confused people.

If you really want to debate issues that others don’t really want to hear or are irelevant to the point get in touch with the person by phone or email and let the rest of us debate what the site was set up for, OK

I know i cant speeel weel
Jim
:wacko::wacko::banana:

 

[ricc]

ive not read this thread in its entirety and not voted either.... i dont think there is a simple yes or no answere.... one forum i use you wouldnt beleive the abuse that goes on between members... but most give as good as they get and you soon learn who has nothing useful to contribute, and even there there is a reort button which results in a quite word from a mod.. if thats ignored its a temp ban ... couple of days to a week... there are occasional permenant bans. then you get get threads debating whether the latest new idiot is a reincarnation of one of the old ones. at the end of the day you know who the idiots are and dont have to bother reading their drivel.... and whatever the mod does someone will dissagree... all we can really ask is that the mod makes their policy clear and sticks to it.