Banning members: Poll

[RR7]

The problem with the "I don't care about trolls" statement is that it isn't that simple. I have NO problem ignoring a certain Troll's posts. The problem is that if EVERYBODY doesn't do the same, the entire discussion gets completely derailed and now I have to skip the entire thread and discussion instead of a single poster's posts.

It is a lot easier to try to fix the actions of a single poster than try to change the actions of everybody else. And if everybody else doesn't ignore the troll, then he has succeeded at screwing up the experience for those who really were ignoring him.

This I think is the biggest problem. The rules state something about posting with honorable intent, which obviously could be up to interpretation. If the intent is to be inflammatory, is that honorable? If the intent is to be as negative as possible, and change your opinions when needed to fit that m.o., is that really honorable? I don't see how it is. But some mods say that's just discussion. I understand everyone is not going to have the same opinion. I question, if I posted the exact same thing as some in here, but on, say, the Lakers board, pretending to be a Lakers fan, how long I would truly last. The entire board, when infected, is either posts by a poster, about that poster, or posts within other topics they might post in that get derailed attacking, then the entire discussion deteriorates. it really brings down the quality of the board, IMO. Whatever. I don't think a vote to ban is a good idea. I think maybe hitting the reset button on the mods, and going with some that try to let honest discourse go, and blatant trolling not would be nice. Whatever. I'll just likely begin to visit less and less during the season until it ruins the experience of posting here, and then I'll focus my posts elsewhere.

 

[blazerboy30]

If you read my post, you'll find I came to pretty much the same conclusion.

I read your post. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just reiterating in my own words.

 

[Denny Crane]

This I think is the biggest problem. The rules state something about posting with honorable intent, which obviously could be up to interpretation. If the intent is to be inflammatory, is that honorable? If the intent is to be as negative as possible, and change your opinions when needed to fit that m.o., is that really honorable? I don't see how it is. But some mods say that's just discussion. I understand everyone is not going to have the same opinion. I question, if I posted the exact same thing as some in here, but on, say, the Lakers board, pretending to be a Lakers fan, how long I would truly last. The entire board, when infected, is either posts by a poster, about that poster, or posts within other topics they might post in that get derailed attacking, then the entire discussion deteriorates. it really brings down the quality of the board, IMO. Whatever. I don't think a vote to ban is a good idea. I think maybe hitting the reset button on the mods, and going with some that try to let honest discourse go, and blatant trolling not would be nice. Whatever. I'll just likely begin to visit less and less during the season until it ruins the experience of posting here, and then I'll focus my posts elsewhere.

This post suggests to me a possible solution.

How about if the guy who starts a thread is considered the "owner" of that thread. If he (or she) sees some posts that are derailing the thread, PM a moderator and the moderator can go clean up the thread.

Good?

 

[RR7]

I suppose. I don't see how that will really help. I mean, shouldn't a mod kind of be doing that anyways? And what if it is a mod derailing it? Also, if they don't feel like someone is trolling, then how will they find that said trolling is possibly derailing a thread? It's a vague interpretation they don't seem willing to make, and I don't see that solution helping any.

 

[mook]

I edited the poll to reflect mook's change of mind. I really don't want to keep changing votes though.

Thanks.

Right now it seems like it's 8 to 5 in favor of some form of increased banning.

 

[blazerboy30]

This post suggests to me a possible solution.

How about if the guy who starts a thread is considered the "owner" of that thread. If he (or she) sees some posts that are derailing the thread, PM a moderator and the moderator can go clean up the thread.

Good?

How is that different than how things should be operating today, minus the unnecessary step of a PM?

 

[mook]

I thought I was pretty careful in writing this poll, but in retrospect I probably should've limited it to suspension and not outright ban.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting barometer of the board's overall mood about the subject of dealing with trolls.

 

[barfo]

I don't understand the option "yes, but forum consensus doesn't matter", as an answer to the question "Is banning ok based on forum consensus?"

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This I think is the biggest problem. The rules state something about posting with honorable intent, which obviously could be up to interpretation. If the intent is to be inflammatory, is that honorable? If the intent is to be as negative as possible, and change your opinions when needed to fit that m.o., is that really honorable? I don't see how it is. But some mods say that's just discussion. I understand everyone is not going to have the same opinion. I question, if I posted the exact same thing as some in here, but on, say, the Lakers board, pretending to be a Lakers fan, how long I would truly last. The entire board, when infected, is either posts by a poster, about that poster, or posts within other topics they might post in that get derailed attacking, then the entire discussion deteriorates. it really brings down the quality of the board, IMO. Whatever. I don't think a vote to ban is a good idea. I think maybe hitting the reset button on the mods, and going with some that try to let honest discourse go, and blatant trolling not would be nice. Whatever. I'll just likely begin to visit less and less during the season until it ruins the experience of posting here, and then I'll focus my posts elsewhere.

Good point. I think there are several posters who clearly have no honorable intent. They just post crap. But I'm also a free speech type, so again I'd say just place those posters on 'ignore' and let them have their fun.

 

[mook]

I don't understand the option "yes, but forum consensus doesn't matter", as an answer to the question "Is banning ok based on forum consensus?"

barfo

Whack! You're out!

 

[Denny Crane]

How is that different than how things should be operating today, minus the unnecessary step of a PM?

Yeah, it's different. The mods were always instructed to first help people do what they wanted (e.g. move a thread to the OT forum, fix thread title, etc.). And they were instructed to only edit personal attacks.

If a certain poster is polluting (in your opinion) your threads, have a mod delete the offending post and followups to it. Then you don't have to stop reading the thread because of those posts.

And 14 votes is hardly representative of several hundred posters' opinions. It's early yet.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't understand the option "yes, but forum consensus doesn't matter", as an answer to the question "Is banning ok based on forum consensus?"

barfo

I take it to mean, "let the staff ban at their discretion."

 

[Jayps15]

This post suggests to me a possible solution.

How about if the guy who starts a thread is considered the "owner" of that thread. If he (or she) sees some posts that are derailing the thread, PM a moderator and the moderator can go clean up the thread.

Good?

And if someone starts an intentionally inflammatory thread or a thread starter makes an inflammatory post and gets called on it?

I'd be thoroughly against this kind of limiting discussions as it could give 1 person to much influence over a topic

 

[mook]

I don't understand the option "yes, but forum consensus doesn't matter", as an answer to the question "Is banning ok based on forum consensus?"

barfo

Seriously, though, I guess my point was that there might be some other way to determine a banning other than outright democracy. Say, for example, a cabal was formed between me, you and HCP's wife. (We'd have to take out your ball gag at that point.) That secret group (let's call it "The Rough Riders") get to spontaneously decide what's in the best interest of the board. We might give a poster who displeases us "The Rusty Gimp," which might incur a week's punishment ("The 19 Incher") or if we're particularly fed up a permanent home in "The Damp Bag."

 

[mook]

I take it to mean, "let the staff ban at their discretion."

Yeah, well, when you say it that way it sounds wrong.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Seriously, though, I guess my point was that there might be some other way to determine a banning other than outright democracy. Say, for example, a cabal was formed between me, you and HCP's wife. (We'd have to take out your ball gag at that point.) That secret group (let's call it "The Rough Riders") get to spontaneously decide what's in the best interest of the board. We might give a poster who displeases us "The Rusty Gimp," which might incur a week's punishment ("The 19 Incher") or if we're particularly fed up a permanent home in "The Damp Bag."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[WarriorFan]

As a regular reader of your forum but a non-Blazer fan, I've got to say that I enjoy reading things from the poster (I assume) that this thread is about. Without him or others like him, you guys would spend an awful lot of time taking about how good Freeland, Koponen, or Cunningham could be. I think he injects a bit of reality, or at the very least balances out the homerism.

i don't blame you for thinking Blazers are better than I think they are, that's what fans do (I'm sure I'm a bigger Monta Ellis fan than all of you). I like to read this stuff to find out what is going on with other teams, good and bad. I just think that having someone point out that LA is soft (he is) or that Roy seems to be lacking something in the preseason is a positive contribution to the board.

 

[julius]

I recently placed 3 people who seem to do nothing but agitate on "ignore". Amazing how peaceful this place has become since then.

neener neener neener! You can't see me..you can't see me!

 

[RR7]

I agree opposite opinions are welcome. That's not really the case as I see it. Saying I think LA is soft is one thing. Saying we need to move Blake and Outlaw for a big man repeatedly, and then after it is done, lamenting the loss of them on the team is just bullshit. Saying bayless is crap, and a non rotation player, and then being concerned about the rotation when he is gone. Crap. Saying Webster is the only worthwhile option at SF, and Batum is overrated, until Webster starts doing good for a brief moment, and everyone talks him up, and then saying how he is trash. That's not just having a different opinion. That's just trolling to be a douche.

 

[Natebishop3]

I wish we as mods could clean things up more. Rather than go to the extreme and ban a suspected troll, I think it would be more beneficial if we simply cleaned up the thread. Remove posts that derail the topic, and keep things on track. If the thread is an obvious attempt at trolling, delete it. I think we have some good mods, let's give them the chance to make things right.

 

[Natebishop3]

I tried placing a mod on "ignore", but found it couldn't be done.

Let me guess......

 

[Masbee]

As a regular reader of your forum but a non-Blazer fan, I've got to say that I enjoy reading things from the poster (I assume) that this thread is about. Without him or others like him, you guys would spend an awful lot of time taking about how good Freeland, Koponen, or Cunningham could be. I think he injects a bit of reality, or at the very least balances out the homerism.

i don't blame you for thinking Blazers are better than I think they are, that's what fans do (I'm sure I'm a bigger Monta Ellis fan than all of you). I like to read this stuff to find out what is going on with other teams, good and bad. I just think that having someone point out that LA is soft (he is) or that Roy seems to be lacking something in the preseason is a positive contribution to the board.

You just gave yourself away as a closet Blazer fan. Only Blazer fans have any clue who Freeland and Koponen are, let alone that the Blazers hold their rights.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Is this really about a poster on the basketball forum, or is this an effort to silence certain political opinions in the OT forum? The latter will be the effect, whether it is intended that way or not.

 

[julius]

Is this really about a poster on the basketball forum, or is this an effort to silence certain political opinions in the OT forum? The latter will be the effect, whether it is intended that way or not.

Who is mentioning anything about political opinions?

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I agree opposite opinions are welcome. That's not really the case as I see it. Saying I think LA is soft is one thing. Saying we need to move Blake and Outlaw for a big man repeatedly, and then after it is done, lamenting the loss of them on the team is just bullshit. Saying bayless is crap, and a non rotation player, and then being concerned about the rotation when he is gone. Crap. Saying Webster is the only worthwhile option at SF, and Batum is overrated, until Webster starts doing good for a brief moment, and everyone talks him up, and then saying how he is trash. That's not just having a different opinion. That's just trolling to be a douche.

+10000000000000

 

[oldmangrouch]

Who is mentioning anything about political opinions?

The proposal is to ban/suspend posters who annoy other posters. Where does it say that political threads in the OT would be exempt?

 

[julius]

The proposal is to ban/suspend posters who annoy other posters. Where does it say that political threads in the OT would be exempt?

I don't think annoyance is owned by a political party or person who believes in one particular political ideology.

 

[BGrantFan]

It's a free message board. I'm not sure what people's expectations are, but I guess I don't see the problem, considering that all I have to give to this board is my time.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's a free message board. I'm not sure what people's expectations are, but I guess I don't see the problem, considering that all I have to give to this board is my time.

If I were you I wouldn't worry about it. You're the one people love most around here.

 

[BGrantFan]

If I were you I wouldn't worry about it. You're the one people love most around here.

Heh

Anyhow, ya'll get back to your gripe fest.