Feedback Thread closing/ Moderation

Discussion in 'Suggestions & Feedback' started by s.molinari, Mar 29, 2016.

  1. s.molinari

    s.molinari Leader of Skooppa

    5,047
    642
    +1,952
    The fact people are limited here now is a punishment, only because of the circumstances which led to the decision. You seem to want to ignore that part of the story, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Agreed. One doesn't have to resort directly to punishment in the first instance of an infraction.

    Steve - you all do a pretty good job for the most part and I enjoy being a member here. The reasoning for closing the threads I noted above seemed to allude me. You've reopened the one thread. Thank you.

    I'll admit I flew over the rules page rather quickly, but what I missed was any reference to the process of judgement and punishment, should any of the rules be broken. For discipline to work, that process must also be known and followed....consistently.

    Scott
     
  2. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated asshat

    4,988
    552
    +3,594
    The second one probably would have been able to left open it it wasn't morphing into a comparison of what happened on the Ivory Coast to the content that was edited out of a posted message comparing a political party being on a "witch hunt" (not exact words) against a sexual preference group to what happened there. And yes, I'm the one that complained about that post - but not with the intent to get the thread closed but to attempt to keep it on topic, which in my opinion is a great grounds for discussion as long as it can be kept apolitical - but which usually those type of threads cannot. That thread had no place for LGBT/political party discussions really.

    EDIT:
    Actually I was mistaken (see, I do admit when I am wrong!), it was the Ivory Coast thread that the post was made in - but the philosophy applies to either one of them.
    The third line of the OP probably had the biggest impact on getting that thread closed as it brought the implications of a concealing due to race by the media.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative! Informative! x 1
    • List
  3. PoetJC

    PoetJC ⚧ Jacquii: Black Kween of TSSN ⚧

    21,004
    1,497
    +5,327
    Actually - my comment was meant to show a direct parallel between religious sects using their indoctrination as a weapon against others:
    Whether you agree with the statement made or not - it's a shame that we cannot agree that it was in context. Because it absolutely was!
    Furthermore - I was not at all trying to redirect the conversation. :tdown:

    Thanks,

    J.
     
  4. Danielx64

    Danielx64 Developer

    3,330
    607
    +1,395
    Would it work if you did thread banning or banning those from taking part in some areas. So if someone being a - in the chit chat forum ban that person from the chit chat forum.
     
  5. PoetJC

    PoetJC ⚧ Jacquii: Black Kween of TSSN ⚧

    21,004
    1,497
    +5,327
    The suggestion of thread banning anyone who engages in personal attacks or otherwise violating TAZ policy was rejected at
    Re: Summarily closed political threads...

    J.
     
  6. Danielx64

    Danielx64 Developer

    3,330
    607
    +1,395
    Well I am bringing it back to the table since The Sandman doesn't want to ban people outright. Like it or not I feel that that option should be looked at again.
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Administrator

    3,721
    1,662
    +3,191
     
  8. PoetJC

    PoetJC ⚧ Jacquii: Black Kween of TSSN ⚧

    21,004
    1,497
    +5,327
    Totally agree! It's why I made the suggestion to begin with.
    It's a decent suggestion. And could work quite well if implemented fairly. IDK if it's a concern - but perhaps at issue may be the over-moderation of posts that a staff member may politically disagree with? IDK... But I've just reread that thread and came across mysiteguy's brilliant post that I apparently did not see until a few moments ago :blush:

    I absolutely agree with his sentiment and yours that the option should be revisited, especially considering this newest thread. It's a tall order. I don't envy Howard's decision. Whether he rethinks it or not - it's not an enviable position for a forum administration site owner.

    mysiteguy ==> Great post dude :tup:

    J.
     
  9. s.molinari

    s.molinari Leader of Skooppa

    5,047
    642
    +1,952
    I personally don't understand how sacrificing the privileges of the many is the better solution, than properly punishing the few.

    I know this is an extreme analogy, but I feel it hits home my point. The mentality being shown here is similar to saying, we can't stop terrorism or if we do punish the terrorists, they'll just get worse, so everyone must stay away from public places of gathering.

    Edit: and I can hear it already. Someone is going to get all bent out of shape, because I am equating them possibly to terrorists. No. Not at all. Don't go there, as that is not my intention. If the equation is made, it is in your own mind.

    Scott
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Administrator

    3,721
    1,662
    +3,191
    We're all ears :tup:

    We've had conversations with the offending parties ("Yeah okay won't happen again!" - Right....), we've banned (and unbanned cause they "promised" to be less harsh with words), we've thread banned and were called out for doing that by the people that were not even thread banned plus the offender posting in other areas making a point to mention the thread ban.

    This isn't like some site where the users are just normal users, they are mostly admins of their own sites.

    Funny though, you would think there would be a higher level a maturity to where we wouldn't even have to consider a ban or what have you. I'm not sure anyone really notices, or pays attention but over the last year or so we've had some pretty intense discussions that have pitted users against each other. They may not even notice but their posting style has changed, in particular threads and normal discussion where both parties are taking part (not politics but rather software). So now we have users that basically cannot stand each other because one beliefs do not line up with theirs.

    I would like to take part in some of these discussions (I did in the past) but it is extremely difficult to moderate a thread you are taking part in. So in the last year I've kept my distance, almost ignoring the threads unless there is a report.

    I will say, I do not come to TAZ to talk politics, discuss any type of mass shooting, bombing or even golf. I visit here to help others with their boards and I really do think people need to find another venue to talk about those niches. (This last statement is my opinion not that of TAZ's)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative! Informative! x 1
    • List
  11. s.molinari

    s.molinari Leader of Skooppa

    5,047
    642
    +1,952
    I come back to my previous suggestion of creating a clear process of judgement and fair punishment. The problem isn't the topics discussed. As you said, the few causing issues might even have a problem to discuss even software in a proper manner (proper according to the TAZ rules). Obviously, the effectiveness in making clear their offenses (either through direct dialog or punishment) doesn't improve the behavior. So, the deduction can only be, the process of poor behavior management needs improvement. Because, despite avoiding the "hot heads" through a ban on religious or political topics, that bad behavior will still show its ugly head at some point anyway.

    Enough said for me on this. I think you understand my standpoint, Steve. I'll still respect your decision, because it is your community and despite my position, I also have no real issue with the banning of political and religious threads on TAZ. In the end, it is a very small and practically insignificant detail in the swaths of life. :)

    Scott
     
  12. Danielx64

    Danielx64 Developer

    3,330
    607
    +1,395
    Steve yeah I did see that in the last year it been more toxic around here: forum owners getting grumpy that their favourite script is heading off rail, then there all the drama at XF and the rant that goes with it, all the hacking that comes along and the drama that comes with it because no one knows the real story. I think that the biggest problem that there not alot of positive news or development to look forward to. I could be wrong but that how I see it right now. But then I also think that the real world is getting more mad by the days.
     
  13. Amaury

    Amaury Habitué

    1,341
    207
    +414
    He said that blocking three-four current members would solve 95% of the problems. I took that to mean that the other members could continue civilly discussing politics since those three-four members cause the current problems.
     
  14. The Sandman

    The Sandman Administrator

    29,116
    1,822
    +5,517
    First, the immense variation in our demographic makes it virtually impossible for TAZ as a community to discuss controversial social issues without causing an unacceptable amount of divisiveness among our members.

    Second, if there is *any* chance that I would even consider to allow such discussion it would only be after we begin to approach our former level of meaningful, on-topic discussion.
     
  15. Robust

    Robust Developer

    1,373
    432
    +663
    We can't ban someone that's constructive otherwise to allow debates to occur which, in a lot of senses, is banned (political and religious debates, par example).
     
  16. s.molinari

    s.molinari Leader of Skooppa

    5,047
    642
    +1,952
    Nobody is asking you to.

    Scott
     
  17. Robust

    Robust Developer

    1,373
    432
    +663
    Seems like you did
     
  18. s.molinari

    s.molinari Leader of Skooppa

    5,047
    642
    +1,952
    Nope. Banning is a very last resort in my book. I've said earlier talking to the person is a good first step. I've also said there needs to be a proper process for further infractions. I've also said to have discipline there needs to be fair punishments. Obviously, for a minor infraction, banning wouldn't be fair.

    Scott
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Administrator

    3,721
    1,662
    +3,191
    Do not want this to come off as a jab s.molinari but that sounds more like parenting more so than moderating.

    We have rules, people should act like adults and be courteous.
     
    • Pure Genius! Pure Genius! x 1
    • List
  20. s.molinari

    s.molinari Leader of Skooppa

    5,047
    642
    +1,952
    Yes, it may sound like parenting, because the same things apply, when parenting, if you want to have disciplined children. Set rules, have clear punishments and be consistent and consequent.

    Scott
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.