less locking, more banning

Meta
1

on the proposed measure of increasing the banning of avatars and decrease the locking of threads, what say you

  • aye
  • nay
0 voters

the way it works now is threads get locked and people dont get banned. this is a wrong approach imo, because

when locking a thread, moderators act on the belief that past posts are an indication of future posts in that thread. this is obviously not true, ever. while a bad flame war might need a few threads locked, it would obviously be more efficient to ban the flamers

locking the thread would work in a world where any discussion could maybe, conceivably arrive at an end. that world is not the world of philosophy, and as such thread locking is out of place.

the issue of silly/childish/not contributing posters is never adressed. while i can understand that deciding to oust someone is a very difficult call indeed, it should be even more difficult to decide to lock a thread. the argument that people will act tomorrow similarly to how they act today should be alot more persuading than the argument a thread in which idiots post today will be frequented by idiots tomorrow.

finally, there is no value created by locking a forum that i can think of. if anyone sees any value to that, please post to explain. its arguable wether banning people would create any more value, but i think it obvious that the latter would do more for a readable, intelligent forum than the former.

2

i completely agree. i see no reason to lock threads unless you are trying to save bandwidth. and in that case, shouldnt you first delete the 5 million oft repeated threads that will never see the light of a monitor again?

however, i think its important that we ban avatars before we ban ip’s. banning somebodys persona from ever posting again will make that person realize theyve behaved improperly. forcing them to create a new avatar could give them a second chance if they want it. since nobody except mods will really be paying much attention to his ip, he can pretend hes new all over again. i know if philosophyforums.com gave me a second chance id have taken it and id have changed my attitude and writing style.

if you ban the guys avatar, im sure you mods can tell who his new avatar is and you can keep a close eye on him, pm him telling him that he needs to change if it doesnt seem like he immediately does. obviously this wont work perfectly in all cases, but i think its harsh to ban somebody from the community forever simply because its easier that way. we dont have such a huge problem that one single dedicated person with a huge amount of free time cant maintain this system. cough mecough

3

I have only locked one or two threads… I simply move them to mundane babble or rant house when appropriate… and when garbage is simply posted, the thread is simply deleted…

Ben is the only one who bans people…

-Imp

4

HehE :evilfun:

5

thread is back, be sure to vote/post

6

zenofeller

Wait a moment. Now if your argument is that a thread should never get locked because previous posting behavior is no indication of future posting behavior then how can you justify banning? What criteria would you use to ban somebody, if not their previous posting behavior?

7

my argument is simply that inasmuch as past behaviour can be used to predict future behaviour, this should be used more for banning than for locking, seing how same person’s behaviour should be more predictable this way than same thread’s behaviour.

8

Very much so, Zenofeller.

9

So zenofeller split and started his own site. Said he didn’t like the place anymore. I don’t know why. I think the place is managed pretty well, and I think Xanderman and Imp are fine moderators. The babble doesn’t happen in the lecture hall and the pedantry doesn’t happen in the lounge. Its a decent system, I think.

If ILP wanted revenge against zenefeller, here’s what it should do.

Several members should join his site, start a thread or ten, and then dissappear forever.

That would be funny.

But do what you like. I’m just trying to start a fight here because I like to be entertained. It was just a suggestion.

10

Three strikes on one thread - then you’re out for X amount of time.

If nothing else it would:

A) Shorten flame-wars to easily skip-able length. ie 2x2/3/4 etc.
B) Improve the quality of insults used - as people really try to cause damage with the limited amount of ‘flame-posts’ available. :evilfun:

Whatever the consensus - something has gotta be done about the GD/ID types. :unamused:

Also - long-term relationships of spite should be discouraged - okay - you may hate someone’s guts, but don’t follow them round posting bile - give them both the freedom and chance to change. [size=75][Where’s the ‘halo’ smilie…?][/size]

[size=75]Ps: Epoche - haven’t you joined already…?[/size]

11

Well, I can only give the perspective of one moderator - me.

Bannings are a last resort that follows warning by PM to the offending party or parties. It isn’t my job to be the arbiter of the value of any particular post or thread. I can only watch for breaking of forum rules or move threads that are obviously not connected to the forum in which they were originally posted. I do watch for ‘tone’ inside a member’s posts, and if I see very much negative crap being directed toward other members, I will send a ‘play nice’ PM. I would rather ask members to take care of their own problems. Simply ruling by edict isn’t in the spirit of the site. Moreover, to provide as much freedom of expression as possible, I must avoid at all costs playing the PC game. Of course, it’s all subjective, and all moderators face the same issue of walking that fine invisible line.

Perhaps one of the things that members don’t think about, is the privacy issue. If a moderator has to call a member down for something inappropriate, we do so in private. We’re not here to throw our weight around or publically embarrass any member. By the time someone is banned, there has been a lot of private chat about the problem, but all members see publically is the banning. They conveniently ignore the possibility that a lot of effort was made before the banning took place.

Locking threads: I’ve used that ‘tool’ on several occasions, but only when I can see that all that is going on is the ‘last word’ game. Some members just have to have the last word whether it is still related to the thread or not. Typically, these posts also contain the veiled ad hominems. For me, locking a thread says, it’s time to shut up and move on.

Outright deletions: When I see a post that is nothing but pure bile or an obvious breaking of forum rules, I simply delete the post and PM the member with an explanation and/or warning. The only exceptions are in the ‘grey’ areas, and then there is discussion with other moderators to work out the best course of action.

The concept behind moderation is to do as little as possible, keeping the problems down to a dull roar, acting only when a moderator feels it is necessary.

If more members operated under the ‘play nice’ perspective, moderation would almost be non-existent, but life being what it is…

JT