Community Vote: Super Serious Discussions
StephenPBarrett
Adviser
We've been mulling it over for a while and but it really comes down to what the community wants. Should moderators be able to give infractions for attempting to derail/spam/flood/troll serious discussion threads? Its up to you. Please give your reasoning so that we know where you stand.
Comments
https://www.totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?t=11153
If nothing else Fatty is serving a useful purpose by demonstrating that some control of posts needs to be given to mods in serious discussion forums. Otherwise users can simply post meaningless 4chan shit that serves no purpose other than to shit on threads. Shitting on thread is not something that will improve this community it will only serve to run it into the ground before it can even achieve real flight.
There are of course others like Habenar0, and BigHairyDick just to name a few and the problem will not get better as we grow. In fact this problem is likely going to prevent new members with interesting content from signing up and contributing.
So the way I see it this is a dual edged sword. On one side it cuts down on the quality of contributions from existing members and it also cuts down on the probability of getting new members who will contribute quality content.
I suggest, as I have in the past, a 4 point/14 day infraction.
Yes from me.
You faggots just need to learn to ignore the dumb shit and
read what fits you. Don t go power tripping
fucking mod nigger jew faggots on us.
this
In the immortal words of Ke$ha: "we're taking over, get used to it"
yes because there is a place for this ^^^ However i think there should be some sort of allowance for clever responses that yes may be a lil troll-y or just for lulz but if there is a clear connection I don't see the harm in that.
I am all in a favor of the occasional smart ass (on topic) reply to an obviously stupid comment in a serious discussion. The type of posting that this is meant to deal with is where a users busts into a thread and clearly exhibits no desire to contribute anything of use to a serious discussion or when a user exhibits a sustained pattern of this type of behavior in the majority of their posts.
I saw how futile "moderating" was on amkon, I hope you all come to the same conclusions here and let threads meander where they want.
You can't preach free speech, and then censor and ban people...
This. Also keep in mind that the infractions here are transparent so everyone can see the reasons why somebody was banned. This will help prevent unjust bannings.
How could these posts in any way be classified as on topic?
https://www.totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?p=148665#post148665
it's still a yes . . .
They wouldn't be, although that's not really the point. How many threads stay 100% on topic at all times? There would be no discussion boards at all if that was a requirement.
And I still see no problem with off topic posts in "serious" threads, as if there were any on the internet...
There is a difference between a thread veering off topic and deliberate derailing.
While I appreciate your "experience" on your website I must disagree with you based on close to two decades of posting, moderating, admining, ownership, and general involvement with BBS based online communities. There has never been a successful online community of any real worth that has not dealt with the issue of deliberate and mindless derailment of conversations.
The ones who don't either die off (the fate of the overwhelming majority) or they turn into a useless cluster fuck of blathering such as 4chan/b/.
It wasn't a serious discussion at all, and yet my post was still removed. What was the point in that?
Keep the shit in HB and B&M, even in SG. But remove any attempts to derail a thread in a serious subforum.
I am afraid you will have to be a bit more specific than this. Do you really think I have a database of all your posts at my finger tips skunk?
What makes this new "serious" discussion moderation any different? Are posts randomly going to disappear because X moderator doesn't agree with X poster?
If you would actually read the sentiments expressed ITT you would not have to ask such questions. Nobody is talking about removing posts because of personal disagreement.
At first you accused me of removing one of your posts. Then you claim it was in an "off topic" forum. The only forum I know of that can be strictly classified as an "off topic" forum would be HB. Since I do not moderate HB it could not have been me. Since you do not even remember what the post was about why even bring it up to me?
Sorry, but I don't play words games. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and types like a duck then I call it a duck.
As for assumptions that is why forums have descriptions, to avoid mistakes made due to erroneous assumptions. While the descriptions do leave room for personal interpretation I think you will find, upon review, that your off the cuff assumptions were flawed at best. Let's review shall we?
To me this says, "if the topic does not fit the description of another forum then create your thread here and discuss your topic". Not, "if the topic does not fit the description of another forum create your thread here and hope everyone posts about the topic of your thread and not some unrelated bullshit".
Introduce Yourself (1 Viewing)
Welcome to Totse, if you're new post in this section and introduce yourself. Also, Post Here if you didn't RTFM
This one says to me. "post whatever the fuck you want so long as it does not violate any of the community wide rules such as CP and the like". So this would be a haven for off topic BS, non content garbage, and other "Half Baked" shit.
Short and to the point no need to cover this one.
Rather than tell you what this description says to me how about if you tell us what it says to you?
If you would be so kind might you also tell us if this description leads you to believe that off topic derailment and non content riddled BS is appropriate in this forum.
It really is a matter of the right thing, in the right place, at the right time. Nobody should have to go to this length to point this out to anyone over the age of 16. All anyone in support of this suggestion is saying is something to the effect of, "Don't piss in the pool piss in the toilet like everyone else".
Of course you would say this, you are constantly defending the main perpetrators of this type of behavior with no real logic behind your arguments.
Why do you believe it's so much to ask for people not to act like children and troll and derail serious forum if they dont want an infraction?
I am beginning to think Mayberry is a secret troll.
nobody said it shouldn't happen in HB or even SG. This thread is about trolling in the serious forums your just putting words in peoples mouths by saying it was ever suggested that trolling shouldn't happen in hb.
Nobody has said anything about limiting HB. Why would you be against a tool to help enforce something that have just gone on record as stating to be undesirable?
In other words if there are no consequences for undesirable behavior in inappropriate areas how do you expect the behavior to be modified to acceptable?
Just like the real world, if you can not change the behavior one who is harming the community you remove the offender from the community to limit the harm done. Everyone knows Fatty will never stop but those of us with a brain also no the day will come, sooner or later, when he will be dealt with just like Spectral was.
This discussion thread is for serious sections only. We just can't let idiots troll serious threads. It wasn't welcomed on totse.com and shouldn't be welcomed here. Since we have a transparent infraction system which is closely monitored by me and others I am sure we can limit the abuse. Plus, the Mod team consists of different people and I am sure they can spot an abuse and limit it if required.
But the thing is, there has to be a limit. I am seeing the same repeat offenders derailing threads here and there. Although we have tired banning them or removing them from discussion, the results aren't that good.
What we need is a clear method to handle these idiots, and limit their harming abilities. Fatty is quite known for causing problems, back few months ago he used to shit in every thread I created but I let it go in hope he will just grow up. But in the end he is just making things worse. We might encounter idiots in future as well, so it's best if we have some sort of defensive policy in place to control these elements.
Derailing will inevitably happen as the thread grows. This should not be infractionable.
Trolling can create discussion and is (depending on who's trolling) funny. Trolling should not be infractionable.
Users should just skip over crappy posts instead of complaining about them and creating more crappy posts.
That's just my two cents.
Well I don't understand why fatty hasn't been banned for good. He has made no attempt to stop shitting all over everything. I don't understand why he was given so many chances. I understand not wanting to have to ban people but when they obviously have no intention of making any productive posts and have been banned several times all ready it would be best to just cut our losses and get rid of them for good. Now and in the future.
We have to have some order, this isn't 4chan.
Fucking This^
You ban someone and they will comeback again and cause more problems. I tried this approach with spectral and it worked to some degree and I am willing to try it again in case of fatty. But it would be best if we find some common ground to work with. It wouldn't be nice if we started banning users for good but if we had a way to limit the users to certain sections then they will restrict their idiotic nature.
Hmm come to think of it, we could very well just restricted repeat offenders to HB.
Again, I am open for more ideas and yes I don't like adding more infractions for every little detail. Trolling is FUN, but posting idiotic memes and images isn't trolling. It's spamming.
Again, more clear roles would be better.
ITT butthurt liberals and a moslem mad because I posted his picture
try a little harder, cry a little harder.
Rofl what. Being expected to act like a civilized human being and not a blithering idiot is comparable to "an addict trying to quit cold turkey"?
You have a fucked up perception of reality, sir.
No, I'm referring to the temp bans. lrn2readingcomprehension
*EDIT* But, the bottom line is that this is supposed to be a community run decision and unless some staggering numbers come in against it I think we can safely say there will be some sort of infraction for this type of behavior.
Don't "feed" the trolls, and they'll get bored and post less (they probably won't leave entirely).
Exactly.
You really think that ignoring it will solve the problem and I get that. But what you don't get is that didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and it does not work on forums either. Hell, don't you think that the people who wrote VB have been around the BB scene long enough to know that there must be a method of removing these types of members. If simply ignoring them worked that is what every forum from A-Z would do. But time has proven (over the last 2 decades) that this is not the answer. If it were the folks at VB would not have bothered to code and infraction system into their software.
Think before you speak skunk....