|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Nov 28, 2009 18:24:00 GMT
OK, but there should be clear rules in place to identify such unacceptable behavior. And they should be enforced by a committee on which all sides are represented. Strong action should require an unanimous vote. Teabergsalad would be a natural member as owner, and perhaps we can agree on two or three further upright fellows  Or, we could have an all-powerful dictator. Or perhaps two; one male, the other female. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Nov 28, 2009 18:24:19 GMT
OK, but there should be clear rules in place to identify such unacceptable behavior. And they should be enforced by a committee on which all sides are represented. Strong action should require an unanimous vote. Teabergsalad would be a natural member as owner, and perhaps we can agree on two or three further upright fellows Where the heck is Tea? |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Nov 28, 2009 18:34:33 GMT
And they should be enforced by a committee on which all sides are represented. Strong action should require an unanimous vote. Teabergsalad would be a natural member as owner, and perhaps we can agree on two or three further upright fellows Where the heck is Tea? China? |
|
cas07
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by cas07 on Nov 28, 2009 18:56:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Nov 28, 2009 19:33:29 GMT
 It's not funny if I have to explain it.
|
|
cas07
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by cas07 on Nov 28, 2009 19:45:07 GMT
It's not funny if I have to explain it. sorry. just trying to join in... butting out now... |
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Nov 29, 2009 9:08:33 GMT
I must say I'm very leery about placing power in the hands of one individual or even a committee of "upright fellows" to ban or sequester posts from people identified as 'trolls'. On the other hand, as has been observed, bad behavior can destroy a decent discussion. I can't help feeling there must be a social/software solution to this.
For a start, trolls never become more than 5 or 10% of the population; they feed off non-troll responses, and every troll is every other troll's enemy. That means we can quite reliably rely upon 'popular opinion' to decide whether someone is a troll or not. Simply by having buttons on posts so you can say "this is good" or "this is troll dropping" would allow the system to gather statistics and profile the quality of a poster. Then, when a thread is displayed the system could by default collapse postings of trolls and color-code responses to trolls so they can easily be ignored - but I wouldn't want them removed entirely, because then you're back to plain censorship.
Has anyone encountered any forum software that does this really well? It seems like such an obvious thing to have but I've never seen it anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by davedidit on Nov 29, 2009 10:26:37 GMT
We may want to be more subtle than that as to maximize the time before trolls like 1TD and Metacrock come on over. I would be happy if 1TD and Metacrock slithered on up to this board, They wouldn't be protected here like they are at CARM. That is not to say that they'd be censored here but that we could actually answer them without fear of reprisals from the CARM admin. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Nov 30, 2009 13:54:53 GMT
Give them a chance. If they won't actually discuss, and if it is possible to move threads or posts, they can be placed in an appropriate "special" forum. Not banned, and posts not disappeared, just removed elsewhere. It's possible to set up a 'no holds barred' forum where the site rules apply, but no-one expects the etiquette guidelines to apply. If we do that(I'd have to talk to Tea about it), I could prune any troll tangents from their originating thread and pop it in there with a note in the first post simply giving a link to the thread from whence it came for context purposes. This scenario would give us a 'rational' forum with one 'irrational' section. In that case, no one could really claim that their views are being censored as the posts would still be there. Just an idea, though. |
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Nov 30, 2009 18:27:15 GMT
Give them a chance. If they won't actually discuss, and if it is possible to move threads or posts, they can be placed in an appropriate "special" forum. Not banned, and posts not disappeared, just removed elsewhere. It's possible to set up a 'no holds barred' forum where the site rules apply, but no-one expects the etiquette guidelines to apply. If we do that(I'd have to talk to Tea about it), I could prune any troll tangents from their originating thread and pop it in there with a note in the first post simply giving a link to the thread from whence it came for context purposes. This scenario would give us a 'rational' forum with one 'irrational' section. In that case, no one could really claim that their views are being censored as the posts would still be there. Just an idea, though. Not a bad idea. I'd second it; but I'd like there to be a filter so that overzealous mods don't overdo it. For example, there must be at least four smites in a thread before it can qualify for moving. I notice there's a little flamey think on some threads - does that mean people have been smiting? If that's the case, isn't that already good enough - people can just ignore the flamey folders? |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 3:14:25 GMT
It's possible to set up a 'no holds barred' forum where the site rules apply, but no-one expects the etiquette guidelines to apply. If we do that(I'd have to talk to Tea about it), I could prune any troll tangents from their originating thread and pop it in there with a note in the first post simply giving a link to the thread from whence it came for context purposes. This scenario would give us a 'rational' forum with one 'irrational' section. In that case, no one could really claim that their views are being censored as the posts would still be there. Just an idea, though. Not a bad idea. I'd second it; but I'd like there to be a filter so that overzealous mods don't overdo it. For example, there must be at least four smites in a thread before it can qualify for moving. I notice there's a little flamey think on some threads - does that mean people have been smiting? If that's the case, isn't that already good enough - people can just ignore the flamey folders? This forum software doesn't allow me to prune or split threads, so I have to move the entire thread. I see some major drawbacks with that method, however, we're going to see how it goes. Threads that are deemed to go into troll tangents are going to be moved into the troll forum. EDIT: the flamey folder indicates that it is a 'hot' thread(there's a lot of activity). |
|
|
|
Post by physicist on Dec 1, 2009 5:04:52 GMT
I actually sent these suggestions to Matt personally for a modified Apologetics Board (taken from Debating Christianity and Religion)
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature).
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
6. Do not debate in the discussion subforums. They are only for general discussion to get to know one other better.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
8. Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagarism.
9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates)
Hope he takes my suggestions.
As a a bit of simple humor, check out the parody Apologetics forum at Landover Baptist. The scary thing is that POE's law might apply here.
|
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 1, 2009 5:18:06 GMT
As a a bit of simple humor, check out the parody Apologetics forum at Landover Baptist. The scary thing is that POE's law might apply here. Oh wow. Could they be any more obvious who they are parodying? LOL |
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Dec 1, 2009 18:07:24 GMT
I actually sent these suggestions to Matt personally for a modified Apologetics Board (taken from Debating Christianity and Religion) 1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed. 2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature). 3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate. 4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread. 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence. 6. Do not debate in the discussion subforums. They are only for general discussion to get to know one other better. 7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages. 8. Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagarism. 9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates) Hope he takes my suggestions. Hmm. It's tricky: something like "No personal attacks of any sort are allowed" sounds all very well, but it can be stretched to cover anything at all by someone quick to take offence, and it suppresses any kind of humorous banter that makes a normal conversation fun. You could accomplish just as much by giving advice rather than imposing rules, like: 1. Don't be quick to take offence. 2. Don't let yourself be baited by trolls. 3. Be ready to give and accept apology in the event of a misunderstanding. etc. etc. The only rule you really need is the statement that someone actively detracting from the quality of the community will be expelled; and that doesn't even require an executive decision, it can happen automatically if someone gets smited enough. As an example, doesn't your statement above violate rules 4 & 7? But yes, Landover is frickin' hilarious (oops, just violated rule 2). |
|
Suluby
New Member
Yeah ..... that's me. ;)
Posts: 15
|
Post by Suluby on Dec 6, 2009 4:56:56 GMT
I must say I'm very leery about placing power in the hands of one individual or even a committee of "upright fellows" to ban or sequester posts from people identified as 'trolls'. On the other hand, as has been observed, bad behavior can destroy a decent discussion. I can't help feeling there must be a social/software solution to this.
Put me in charge. I'm new, and I only know one other reg here. I don't care at all who's happy and who isn't. Give me the rules, and I will discipline everyone who breaks them. You can kiss my butt ...... I will no doubt enjoy it, but you won't get away with any crap.
I will be fair and equitable in my treatment of all.
I will be just what I am in real life ...... A DOMESTIC GODDESS.
Disobey me at your own peril.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.
In Brooklyn.
It's very old, so I can get ya a bargain.
[/b][/font][/color] For a start, trolls never become more than 5 or 10% of the population; they feed off non-troll responses, and every troll is every other troll's enemy. That means we can quite reliably rely upon 'popular opinion' to decide whether someone is a troll or not. Simply by having buttons on posts so you can say "this is good" or "this is troll dropping" would allow the system to gather statistics and profile the quality of a poster. Then, when a thread is displayed the system could by default collapse postings of trolls and color-code responses to trolls so they can easily be ignored - but I wouldn't want them removed entirely, because then you're back to plain censorship. Has anyone encountered any forum software that does this really well? It seems like such an obvious thing to have but I've never seen it anywhere.[/quote] |
|
