Feedback Thread closing/ Moderation

[PoetJC]

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.

Actually - my comment was meant to show a direct parallel between religious sects using their indoctrination as a weapon against others:

And those dead there - Probably are all Muslims, which makes it even sadder imo = Muslims killing Muslims because one sect disagrees with the others' interpretation of what's supposed to be a holy text.

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.

Thanks,

J.

 

[Danielx64]

I could simply prevent 3 or 4 current members from participating on TAZ and 95% of my problems would be solved. I prefer not to do that...

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.

 

[PoetJC]

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.

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.

 

[Danielx64]

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.

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.

 

[Steve]

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.

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.

As for punishments, trying to punish another forum admin is like telling your significant other to sit in timeout. Not going to go over well. Then that leads to a ban when the user is usually helpful in other parts of the site.

 

[PoetJC]

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.

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

My very frank opinion ahead!!!

Though I am okay with not allowing the threads, I don't understand why not allow them? The convenience of the staff should never be a reason. I would not set rules on my site for my convenience, I set them for the users.

I can't speak for others, so I will share my own experience.....

Treat us like adults, most of us know when to put the gloves down... those that do not, and take it out of political threads... deal with them. But to summarily not allow it....harkens back to my early days as an admin, where I was on my 1st site, try ing to build it and so afraid of anyone getting offended that it ended up like a kindergarten. Pleasant, but not a whole lot of fun for adults.

On my current forums, I treat users as the adults they are, and allow them to express strong political beliefs and differences of opinion. They even name called. That's okay... because as adults, outside of such threads they are friends, help each other out, and even attend the same locals meets... and have a lot of fun on the site. Those who can't (and that is very rare)... are dealt with.

Maybe TAZ's staff doesn't believe this can exist here, but not only will I say it can... I can prove it does. Poet and I disagree on some things (some very intensely). But outside of those discussions we get along, reply to each others post cordially, and share knowledge in the same threads. I have sent her business (though the client turned out to be a major headache, sorry about that!) and I would do so again. I don't have to agree with someone's politics or they mine, for me to otherwise get along with them.

I am not advocating allowing a free for all, cussing at each other, or go beyond the occasional snippy remark and getting vile with each other.... I don't allow that at my sites. I am asking that we carefully consider what we disallow, and why.

You see, I believe the stricter you make it, the worse it can get. That's when people start hitting the report button, at every remark they see as the least bit negative. I know, for example, that I didn't use the report button here about any user's political beliefs... until TAZ staff started making it an issue. When they did... my feelings turned to "if I can't say such and such, then that user can't say so and so".

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

J.

 

[s.molinari]

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

 

[Steve]

properly punishing the few

We're all ears

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)

 

[s.molinari]

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

 

[Danielx64]

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.

 

[Amaury]

So you'd rather punish the other 99% of your active members by not letting them discuss politics or religion?

Scott

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.

 

[The Sandman]

So you'd rather punish the other 99% of your active members by not letting them discuss politics or religion?

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.

 

[Robust]

So you'd rather punish the other 99% of your active members by not letting them discuss politics or religion?

Scott

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).

 

[s.molinari]

We can't ban someone

Nobody is asking you to.

Scott

 

[Robust]

Nobody is asking you to.

Scott

Seems like you did

 

[s.molinari]

Seems like you did

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

 

[Steve]

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.

 

[s.molinari]

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

 

[Steve]

I'm going to disagree with that approach here.

 

[s.molinari]

It isn't an approach. It is the only way to achieve discipline. What you are doing is expecting people to be disciplined. The only problem with that is, you are open to problems when they aren't disciplined and not following what I've suggested means you are missing a proper basis to enforce discipline. Sound familiar? So, instead of "being a parent", you'd rather just remove the toys the kids are fighting about from the room. That is a method of solving the problem, temporarily.

Scott