Update of E2b and The BoneYard

[Moderator 02]

Okay folks, we have a couple of new and exciting changes to the forum.

First off, we will be updating our E2b etiquette guideline to state.

          b) Stay on Topic
                   i) No trolling.  Members who post into another member's thread should respect the thread topic and post accordingly. Trolling is defined as posting in an inflammatory and off topic manner.  If the reported post is found to be inflammatory and off topic, it will be moved immediately to a separate section of the forum by a moderator.
                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.


Secondly, we will be creating a new subsection of the forum, called The BoneYard.

What is the BoneYard you ask?

In an effort to keep threads on topic, we have created an area of the forum where posts or groups of posts that do not follow our etiquette guidelines can be moved, in order to prevent the disruption of intelligent on topic discussion of the original topic of the thread.  If a post or group of posts have been determined to violate certain etiquette guidelines(currently E2b) they will be moved to this subsection of the forum.

Other members or the member who created the original post which was Boneyarded can continue discussion in that new thread in the Boneyard.  If other etiquette or rule violations(other than E2b) occur within that moved post, normal rule violation processing and\or editing procedures will follow.  Additional posts created as a reply in the Boneyard must continue to adhere to all other forum rules.

Somethings of note

1.  If a member reports a post or posts that are deemed to be breaking E2b, the member will not receive our normal PM response informing the member that the post was determined to be guilty, as your notification is the fact that the post was moved to The Boneyard.

2.  Staff will be closely reviewing these changes to ensure they are working to the best interests of the forum, and if it is deemed that a change is required, we will try to make that change as rapidly as possible.

3.  If a report of E2b2 is made(derailment) and the moderators have determined that a derailment has occurred, the mods will be moving all posts by all members that are part of that thread derailment to a new thread(unless the thread OP vetos).  Unless it is directly obvious that the thread belongs in certain section of the forum by its 'topic' this thread will appear in the BoneYard.

4.  We will be making a minor update to the member penalty page as well to read:
Important: A member who breaks Rule #E2b - Stay on Topic or Rule #E2c - No Spam may be restricted to The Corner or have other forum privileges disabled without warning depending on their post rate or level of abuse.

5.  These changes go into effect immediately.  However, posts that were created before this rule went into effect but are still within our normal 30 day window for posts to be reported will be ruled upon using the old E2b rule.

If you have any questions or feedback on this change, feel free to do that here.

Thank you,
The Staff

[kevin]

hi mod 02

i have some questions about this i'd like you to respond to, if you would.

First off, we will be updating our E2b etiquette guideline to state.

          b) Stay on Topic
                   i) No trolling.  Members who post into another member's thread should respect the thread topic and post accordingly. Trolling is defined as posting in an inflammatory and off topic manner.  If the reported post is found to be inflammatory and off topic, it will be moved immediately to a separate section of the forum by a moderator.

"an inflammatory and off-topic manner . . . "

your rule says that the post can be defined as trolling only if it is simultaneously inflammatory and off-topic. this means that a post which is merely inflammatory is not a troll post, andthat one which is merely off-topic is also not a troll post.

is this correct?

                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.

threads wander in subject matter, as does any other extended conversation. some of our threads have hundreds of posts, and allow people to discuss a wide variety of topics as they come up in ordinary conversation. is the intent of this change to require all posts atall times to conform to the subject as defined in the opening post? that is what the ettiquette rewording says.

what is the criteria used to determine whether a post is a genuine derailment of the discussion, rather than comments which the reporter simply doesn't understand? sometimes ideas are presented in an extended form, and the purpose may not be apparent to all participants.

in addition, the requirement that the thread owner reply else the post is moved means that the default is that all posts reported for derailment will always be removed and reposted elsewhere. is the the intent of the change?

thank you

[Jay]

hi mod 02

i have some questions i'd like you to clarify.

First off, we will be updating our E2b etiquette guideline to state.

          b) Stay on Topic
                   i) No trolling.  Members who post into another member's thread should respect the thread topic and post accordingly. Trolling is defined as posting in an inflammatory and off topic manner.  If the reported post is found to be inflammatory and off topic, it will be moved immediately to a separate section of the forum by a moderator.

"an inflammatory and off-topic manner . . . "

your rule says that the post can be defined as trolling only if it is simultaneously inflammatory and off-topic. this means that a post which is merely inflammatory is not a troll post, andthat one which is merely off-topic is also not a troll post.

is this correct?

That is correct Kevin.  Yes.  Inflammatory yet on topic posts are still allowed, as long as they conform to other forum rules.  And off-topic posts are still allowed(as long as they are not deemed to be a derailment) and conform to other forum rules.

                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.

threads wander in subject matter, as does any other extended conversation. is the intent of this change to require all posts atall times to conform to the subject as defined in the opening post? that is what the ettiquette rewording says.

Yes.  Threads do tend to wander, and I think we are aware of that.  I can only speak for myself here, but my goal was to not require our members to be robots when responding to threads.  However, if the mods determine that a derailment has occurred, it will be moved in bulk to a separate thread for continued discussion, and thus allow the other thread to remain on topic.

in addition, the requirement that the thread owner reply else the post is moved means that the default is that all posts reported for derailment will always be removed and reposted elsewhere. is the the intent of the change?

All posts that are part of a derailment will be moved to a separate thread if the moderators deem that a derailment has occurred.  The thread owner has basically, a veto vote at this time on that movement.

thank you

Your welcome.

Something to note, as stated above.  We will be closely monitoring these changes.  And if they are not working as intended, or cause other issues, we will be reviewing them at that time.

I hope I answered your questions.

[kevin]

sure did.

thanks again

[none]

...
                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.
...

this is just a recipe for favoritism and popularity contests...
why do mods need input from somebody that is potentially not a mod but just a thread owner?

[JudoChop]

Okay folks, we have a couple of new and exciting changes to the forum.

Define 'exciting'.

[FGOH]

...
                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.
...

this is just a recipe for favoritism and popularity contests...
why do mods need input from somebody that is potentially not a mod but just a thread owner?

Because the thread owner might be really enjoying the way their thread has developed would like the posts to stay, or they may be royally pissed off that their thread has been derailed and be only too glad to see the off topic posts gone.

[Assyriankey]

...
                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.
...

this is just a recipe for favoritism and popularity contests...
why do mods need input from somebody that is potentially not a mod but just a thread owner?

Because the thread owner might be really enjoying the way their thread has developed would like the posts to stay, or they may be royally pissed off that their thread has been derailed and be only too glad to see the off topic posts gone.

And, this for None's benefit and just in case there's any confusion along these lines...

The thread owner does not get to decide what is off-topic - they only can direct the mods to not moderate the off-topic posts - the mods decide what is off-topic.

I guess it could be said that the thread owner may be being favoured a little by this but that's not so bad - anyone can start threads.

[Assyriankey]

Okay folks, we have a couple of new and exciting changes to the forum.

Define 'exciting'.

I can't speak for Jay but from my perspective, which is about 5 years worth, we're hoping to make IGI a better forum - that's exciting!

All the mods and admin, and especially Jay, have worked hard on the new etiquette provisions over the last couple of weeks and we're quietly optimistic that, even if this new version is not perfect, it's a very positive step in the right direction.

Off-topic inflammatory posting has been an albatross around IGI's neck from day one - I'm excited to think that we may finally be rid of it.

[JudoChop]

Okay I get you've worked hard on some more rules, but were they really necessary? This isn't a poke but there are already a ton of rules that new members would find difficult to comprehend. I don't post as often but I still lurk and I can't see that there's been such a rise in negative posting to suggest a rule change.

The activity here appears to have fallen off the cliff and if anything the rules need simplifying so new members aren't put off joining in the first place.

[Assyriankey]

Okay I get you've worked hard on some more rules, but were they really necessary? This isn't a poke but there are already a ton of rules that new members would find difficult to comprehend. I don't post as often but I still lurk and I can't see that there's been such a rise in negative posting to suggest a rule change.

The activity here appears to have fallen off the cliff and if anything the rules need simplifying so new members aren't put off joining in the first place.

They're not new rules, as in additions, they're new as in improved so not an extra burden.

Part of the reason for the drop off has been because of weakness in this area - true story but no names.

[Inertialmass]

One man's derail is another man's exploration of subtly consonant issues thus broadening everyone's overall perspective of the original problem.

"I want to talk about the measurement of gravitational mass and Henry Cavendish's bold experiment to 'weigh the Earth.'"

"If you want to talk about gauging incredibly weak forces you would do well to look first to the history of Coulomb's struggles with the torsion balance.  Charles-Augustin de Coulomb was born in 1736, a propitious time and place for any fresh new mind of empirical bent, High Age of Enlightenment France..."

"Derail!  Derail!  Derail!..."

Is this what we mean?  Or are we referring to the more obvious cases, like whenever the thread topic is specifically the homicide death of a child but the firearms aficionados suddenly post three pages of photos of checkered, gaudily engraved old rifles that they really really really like?

[Jay]

Okay I get you've worked hard on some more rules, but were they really necessary? This isn't a poke but there are already a ton of rules that new members would find difficult to comprehend. I don't post as often but I still lurk and I can't see that there's been such a rise in negative posting to suggest a rule change.

The activity here appears to have fallen off the cliff and if anything the rules need simplifying so new members aren't put off joining in the first place.

I agree we have been in a lull lately.  I dont think our having rules discourages new members from joining.  However, our rules can have an impact on existing members.  Both in a negative and positive way to an individual member. 

Only me speaking here, but I think this change is trying to affect our members as a whole in a positive way and that was the goal.  To create a more positive experience for everyone, which hopefully will bring in new and returning members.

[Assyriankey]

IM, very much the latter.

One principle we're holding to (so far as it goes) is that this is a discussion forum rather than a debate forum.

[JudoChop]

I admire the intent, I really do. My issue has always been why are the fundamental rules so hard to understand? I think we've all had wtf moments when something inexplicably pings into your pm box and we've been here years, how do you expect a new person to get it? Out of all the forums I've ever visited, this place, BY FAR, is the most complicated to understand from a rules point of view. My suggestion would be to simplify the process by giving the moderators credit for their common sense and allowing them to make group decisions using this rather than read through mounds of forum legislation.

[JudoChop]

I have 2 degrees and I'm still not sure what the Bone Yard is. 

[Jay]

I have 2 degrees and I'm still not sure what the Bone Yard is. 

Is it visible for you? Just wondering. It should be showing up just above the corner.

[JudoChop]

I see the section, just unclear about what merits threads getting thrown in there. I'm sure I'll find out soon enough.. 

[Captain Luke]

I have 2 degrees and I'm still not sure what the Bone Yard is. 

Bronze Swimming Certificate does not count as a BSc.

[Jezzebelle]

I had never heard of a "corner" before this forum... but now that I have, I see I like it much better than just temporary banning people for 3 days when they break the rules.  I remember on our forum, it was like, WTF happened?  Are they gone?  For how long? 

I see this, like that.  Instead of deleting or forcing an edit of off topic posts... we're going to move them to the BoneYard.  Then people can keep replying to them if they like, and they don't just disappear... but they're no longer disturbing the OP.

[JudoChop]

I have 2 degrees and I'm still not sure what the Bone Yard is. 

Bronze Swimming Certificate does not count as a BSc.

Yeah it does, and my white belt in Martial Arts counts as my MA too.

[Captain Luke]

You can buy these online now as well.

[Jay]

I see the section, just unclear about what merits threads getting thrown in there. I'm sure I'll find out soon enough.. 

LOL.

Well if you break E2b, than you may.   

But then I can go into that thread and point and laugh at you.   

[FGOH]

I admire the intent, I really do. My issue has always been why are the fundamental rules so hard to understand? I think we've all had wtf moments when something inexplicably pings into your pm box and we've been here years, how do you expect a new person to get it? Out of all the forums I've ever visited, this place, BY FAR, is the most complicated to understand from a rules point of view. My suggestion would be to simplify the process by giving the moderators credit for their common sense and allowing them to make group decisions using this rather than read through mounds of forum legislation.

That's how most forums run, but my understanding of the history of IGI is that it was born out of members who were on other religious forums and got tired of mods going power crazy. (Remember FV?) As such the system of precedents and forum legislation was put in place. It would be a sea change to invoke a system of mods being allowed to make decisions on the hoof without being required to justify them if someone objects.

I'd love not to have to wade through the legislation myself and just perma ban you on a whim for daring to suggest our stuff is complex...

[Assyriankey]

I'd love not to have to wade through the legislation myself and just perma ban you on a whim for daring to suggest our stuff is complex...

[Jay]

If it helps to understand what the Boneyard is Judo.

Think of an aircraft boneyard.

[Jezzebelle]

Huh... I was always picturing an elephant boneyard.... where elephants go to die.  Ya know, like the Lion King 

[Inertialmass]

It's the back forty acres, where partials are stored for parts:

[Jay]

lol.  I dont think I ever saw The Lion King.

But sure, a boneyard can be any and all of those things.  ie, a place of old tractors, a resting place for old retired aircraft, or...a place where elephants go to die.

However, if you google image search 'boneyard' you are inundated with pictures like this.



And thus, it could be considered a 'Post Graveyard' however, using the term Graveyard seemed icky and can bring up some pretty strong imagery in ones mind.  So I thought Boneyard was more a general concept and less inflammatory.  Which seemed to have worked, as evidenced by your all examples.

The Boneyard....A resting place for extraneous posts...   

But these are just my personal opinions, and should not be taken to reflect on the staff as a whole.

[Jezzebelle]

[Jay]

Aww.  Poor elephants.   

*Never watches The Lion King*

[JudoChop]

Okay I think I get it, the elephant bone yard image was the moment of enlightenment. ;)

[Jezzebelle]

Okay I think I get it, the elephant bone yard image was the moment of enlightenment. ;)

KNEW IT!  *wubwoo*

[Jay]

Lol.

[kevin]

4.  We will be making a minor update to the member penalty page as well to read:
Important: A member who breaks Rule #E2b - Stay on Topic or Rule #E2c - No Spam may be restricted to The Corner or have other forum privileges disabled without warning depending on their post rate or level of abuse.

i have another question, it seems.

E2B is an etiquette violation, and is actionable according to the new rules, as described above.

i'm curious as to whether a member will be given an opportunity to change his or her posts before rule violations are enforced. right now the new rules say that the offense is actionable "without warning." apparently if a member decides that someone else's posts are sufficiently off-topic and distracting as to constitute thread derailment, then that member submits a list of the offending posts to the staff. if the staff decides that the reports are valid, then they contact the thread owner. if the thread owner fails to answer or agrees, then the posts are removed.

at this point the new rules state that an etiquette violation will be lodged against the offending poster, yet up to this time the offender is completely ignorant of the reports, the deliberations, the notification to the thread owner, and in fact of any of the process at all.

the new rules state that the first notification the offender will receive will be when the moderators act upon the new violations. because the posts have been removed, thereis no opportunity to correct the infraction, and i'm not sure how a member would do that anyway. so it seems the etiquette violation has now become a rule violation instead.

hard-nosed, no-notification rule enforcement used to be how IGI was run, where the ROOOLZ were written in stone, and members had no opportunity to correct their behavior. this was quite cumbersome, and the staff decided to institute the ettiquette process, where a member could correct the problem, and a Rule 4 violation was recorded only if the member refused to edit.

this is different now, because it seems i may wake up in the morning to find myself in the corner, with no warning that my posts have been the subject of discussion among moderators, reporting members, and the thread owner, and no opportunity to correct the problem.

seems like a big step backwards to me. is this how the new rule is intended to work?

[Jay]

Something to remember, Boneyarded posts never leave the member accessible areas of the forum.  They dont 'disappear', and you can still respond to them.  They just wont disrupt the thread they were sitting in any longer.

As far as you being ignorant of all the processing before you are deemed guilty, that is and has always been the case.  You are guilty of E1a as soon as the mods determine you are guilty of E1a, and only find out after all the processing is complete.  The only difference between E2b vs say E1a in this regard is that if you dont edit a E1a, you will also get a Rule 4.

However, we are not asking you to edit posts moved to the BY if the only rule they break is E2b.  So you can never get that extra step....where you need to edit it or get a rule 4 on top of the etiquette violation.

However, something to note.  Our previous E2b rule did not require the member to edit his\her post either.  It was just busy work for the mods because we had to split the individual post out into a separate thread.  You never were in danger of a rule 4 under the old rule as you never had a chance to edit it either.

Here was the old E2b rule for your review.

b) Stay on topic.  Members who post into another member's thread should respect the thread topic and post accordingly. Off Topic Posting (OTP) is defined as posting in an inflammatory and/or off topic manner. OTP posts should be reported by the thread owner and will be split from the thread at the thread owner's request if the OTP report is upheld. Other participants in the thread should PM the thread owner to request that he/she reports an OTP post rather than further disrupt the thread. Simple derailment may also be reported in this way.

In reality, not much is changing in regards to your stated questions.  The processing, and some minor changes, as well as splitting derailments and trolling into separate rules is really all that is changing.  Besides that split posts will go to the BY instead of some random section of the forum as before.


Also, a post ending up in the BY is not you as a member ending up in the corner.  There are very major differences between the two as I am sure you are aware, if you are in the corner, you cant post anywhere else on the forum, except in the corner. 

[none]

...
                   ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.
...

this is just a recipe for favoritism and popularity contests...
why do mods need input from somebody that is potentially not a mod but just a thread owner?

Because the thread owner might be really enjoying the way their thread has developed would like the posts to stay, or they may be royally pissed off that their thread has been derailed and be only too glad to see the off topic posts gone.

And, this for None's benefit and just in case there's any confusion along these lines...

The thread owner does not get to decide what is off-topic - they only can direct the mods to not moderate the off-topic posts - the mods decide what is off-topic.

I guess it could be said that the thread owner may be being favoured a little by this but that's not so bad - anyone can start threads.

um it just means authority rests with the original poster and not the mods...
nice job.
now if somebody has a stick up their ass they can say yes to some off-topic bulls**t while alienating other posters.
nice job.
and now you got a mod asking for people to stay on topic which is clearly off topic.
nice job.
should'a called it "BoneHeaded" when the idea first came up...
nice job..

[Jay]

um it just means authority rests with the original poster and not the mods...
nice job.

No.  It means we finally allow anyone to report posts, not just the thread owner anymore. 

now if somebody has a stick up their ass they can say yes to some off-topic bulls**t while alienating other posters.
nice job.

If the thread owner is ok with the thread wandering, then it is okay.

and now you got a mod asking for people to stay on topic which is clearly off topic.
nice job.

Any member is allowed to make a post as a member.

[none]

um it just means authority rests with the original poster and not the mods...
nice job.

No.  It means we finally allow anyone to report posts, not just the thread owner anymore. 

now if somebody has a stick up their ass they can say yes to some off-topic bulls**t while alienating other posters.
nice job.

If the thread owner is ok with the thread wandering, then it is okay.

and now you got a mod asking for people to stay on topic which is clearly off topic.
nice job.

Any member is allowed to make a post as a member.

and you built in a little trick.
nice job.
you don't have final authority on the issue of off-topic, you consult the thread owner as a mandatory function.
nice job.
and how serious of an issue is it if somebody posts something to contrast the idiocy of an original post? that those contrasting post clearly illustrates the lunacy of the mentality of the original poster?
nice job?
and you watch ever so closely posts that you can't or don't have final authority on what to do but leave that up to a person who might not be a mod.
nice job.
so basically it's favoritism.
nice job.

[Jay]

Thank you for your feedback on this issue None.

[none]

Thank you for your feedback on this issue None.

your welcome pfft.

[kevin]

There are very major differences between the two as I am sure you are aware, if you are in the corner, you cant post anywhere else on the forum, except in the corner.

well then, i suppose we will all see how it washes out as it progresses in real time.

thanks again for your responses. as always, i appreciate the work you do as a mod, because i know how thankless and time-consuming the job is.

[Gnu Ordure]

Jay, looking at the first example of boneyarding, I see that in the original thread, there's no indication that a number of posts have been moved - which could be confusing for casual readers.

Would it not be helpful for the Mods to announce the action in the thread (and give a link to the BY thread)? Then it would be clear to everyone what has happened...

Just a thought.

[Jay]

Jay, looking at the first example of boneyarding, I see that in the original thread, there's no indication that a number of posts have been moved - which could be confusing for casual readers.

Would it not be helpful for the Mods to announce the action in the thread (and give a link to the BY thread)? Then it would be clear to everyone what has happened...

Just a thought.

We would have to weigh whether that could also lead to its own derailment, ie if someone wants to argue that the posts were not a derailment. Right now, someone can do that in the BY thread without impacting the original thread.

Also, that would probably require some changes to how moderators interact with threads in general, as we are supposed to try to refrain from giving moderation instructions in thread.

These are just my personal thoughts though.  And your suggestion is certainly a valid suggestion, so thanks for it, and I will incorporate it into discussion on the overall rule when we review it.

[kevin]

sometimes parrish basically just tinted his outline drawings, like this one.

pretty well known.

[Jay]

 

[Gnu Ordure]

We would have to weigh whether that could also lead to its own derailment, ie if someone wants to argue that the posts were not a derailment. Right now, someone can do that in the BY thread without impacting the original thread.

Also, that would probably require some changes to how moderators interact with threads in general, as we are supposed to try to refrain from giving moderation instructions in thread.

Understood; but this wouldn't be an instruction, just an announcement...

These are just my personal thoughts though.  And your suggestion is certainly a valid suggestion, so thanks for it, and I will incorporate it into discussion on the overall rule when we review it.

OK, thanks.

Two more questions: are the people whose posts collectively are moved to a BY thread informed of this action by the Mods by PM; do they in fact receive a E2b violation?

[kevin]

no, and no.

so far anyway.

[Jay]

Gnu,

If it is an E2b1, yes, that member will officially get an E2b violation(and a notification).  Currently, not for E2b2 violations though(as this can be an exorbitant amount of manual processing by the moderators).  However, if it becomes an issue, we may change that practice later and are currently looking at add ons to the forum that may aid in that endeavor.  You will also notice that we have a report at the top of BY section which tracks the posts and the members in that section.

[kevin]

If it is an E2b1, yes, that member will officially get an E2b violation(and a notification).  Currently, not for E2b2 violations though. . .

huh?

[Jay]

If it is an E2b1, yes, that member will officially get an E2b violation(and a notification).  Currently, not for E2b2 violations though. . .

huh?

E2b1 is trolling.

E2b2 is derailment.

[kevin]

so an E2B1 violation is an automatic guilty for E2B2 as well. that means trolling is an automatic double hit for each offence, or just one?

or does someone guilty of an E2B1 get only an E2B2 violation on record, and NOT an E2B1?

seems to me this rule is fairly awkward.

[Jay]

so an E2B1 violation is an automatic guilty for E2B2 as well. that means trolling is an automatic double hit for each offence, or just one?

or does someone guilty of an E2B1 get only an E2B2 violation on record, and NOT an E2B1?

seems to me this rule is fairly awkward.

What?  No.  I dont know how you came to that understanding, but that is certainly not what I am saying.

Someone guilty of E2b1 will have an official E2b logged on the member penalties page.

Someone guilty of E2b2 will not have an official E2b logged on the member penalty page.

The report in the BY does log them all, but the violation is not 'duplicated'.

[kevin]

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing, again! I wish you all would get your act together. I report a bunch of off-topic posts and get nothing but crap in return. I do not wish to have another good thread derailed by the same person who always derails serious threads on theological subjects. Happy Evolute does nothing but crap on threads. He has nothing whatever of value to contribute to anything. Yet he is allowed to his thing without you moderators doing a thing about it. The bone yard appears to be perfect for him. Yet you won't move his crap posts out of my thread-- a thread that some people seem to enjoy. Why is that? It simply isn't a good enough excuse that he is an admin.

[Jay]

Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing, again! I wish you all would get your act together. I report a bunch of off-topic posts and get nothing but crap in return. I do not wish to have another good thread derailed by the same person who always derails serious threads on theological subjects. Happy Evolute does nothing but crap on threads. He has nothing whatever of value to contribute to anything. Yet he is allowed to his thing without you moderators doing a thing about it. The bone yard appears to be perfect for him. Yet you won't move his crap posts out of my thread-- a thread that some people seem to enjoy. Why is that? It simply isn't a good enough excuse that he is an admin.

HE being a member of the staff has nothing to do with whether we find a specific post guilty or not.  Just like for any staff member.  We rule on the content of the reported post.

If you have any suggestions on how better to determine a post is a trolling post, while looking at the content of the post, feel free to share it.  But currently, we are going with the post must be both Off-topic AND inflammatory.

Cheers! 
Jay

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Just what I told you in a pm. If the thread owner tells you that posts are off-topic, move them. Problem solved. Those posts I reported are obviously off topic. No advanced degrees are required to see that.

[Happy Evolute]

Nobody "owns" threads. The term "thread owner" simply means the person who started the thread.

[Jay]

Just what I told you in a pm. If the thread owner tells you that posts are off-topic, move them. Problem solved. Those posts I reported are obviously off topic. No advanced degrees are required to see that.

Maggie, we can not move posts simply based on the reporter wanting them moved.  The staff has to be the ones that determine if a post violates our rules.

Think how such a rule as you are suggesting would be carried out?  How many posts would get moved simply because the person who started a thread did not like the other member or their comments?  The BY would be so full of actual good posts, that it would be a farce.  How many of your own posts would end up in the BY because another member just didnt want to see your posts in their thread?(that is not a slight against you personally, I tend to enjoy many of your posts, but some other members may not agree with me in that regard).

IOW, we write and make decisions based on the rules so that the staff can make a decision based on the content of the post, not on who the reporter is, not on who the reportee is, not on the intentions of a member, but on the content of the post.  If you have a suggestions on how we can improve the trolling rule...looking at the content of the post, feel free to share it.

:)

[Maggie the Opinionated]

QM was right. You aren't constitutional lawyers and could, if you wished, use common sense in applying rules. Happy Evolute has no other role on this forum but to derail posts that touch on religion in any way shape or form. If you look for the next hour, you will not find one substantive post on any subject under the sun from him. We have several such and you all do nothing about them. So yeah, you are right. Why should I expect you to do anything differently in this case?

Oh-- when looking at the content of the post to see if it is off-topic, look at the subject of the thread. That might help.

[Jay]

Oh-- when looking at the content of the post to see if it is off-topic, look at the subject of the thread. That might help.

We do.  Thank you for the feedback.   

[FGOH]

Oh-- when looking at the content of the post to see if it is off-topic, look at the subject of the thread. That might help.

We do.

A tightly drafted OP will do much to help.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Mine could not be more tightly drafted. Doesn't seem to have helped.

I think there are probably people here who enjoy reading about new archaeological discoveries as much as I do. So I am creating this thread to share any stories that come your way-- biblical or classical archaeolgy. Either is of interest to me. And it is my thread... hah! ...

Seems clear to me. New finds. Not political arguments about them. Not atheistic debunking of them. The thread is for posting new (or recent) archaeological finds.

So letting the Devolute off because the OP isn't drafted tightly enough is a fail.

[Emily]

I just read that entire thread. Very interesting thread, BTW. Thanks for starting it Maggie.

I have a question for you, though. According to R2B1

i) No trolling.  Members who post into another member's thread should respect the thread topic and post accordingly. Trolling is defined as posting in an inflammatory and off topic manner.  If the reported post is found to be inflammatory and off topic, it will be moved immediately to a separate section of the forum by a moderator.

Can you point out any way that an inflammatory comment has been made. Not off-topic, but inflammatory, because as Jay said, the post must be inflammatory and off-topic for a violation to occur. Those are the current rules. That is the guideline. According to the rules there has been no violation by HE.

Sure, accord to how your OP is worded it might seem that trolling has taken place, but all the comments you are discussing about here are all inline with your OP and the flow of the thread. HE is sharing stories about archaeology, and how one group of researchers findings might be flawed (website biblical archaeology. for example, or possibly that dude he linked to in post 67)

I don't even see how the posts are off topic. You started a thread, HE posted a comment in the thread with links debunking the comments made by others. If you had said that

no debunking or links challenging the finds  or those who lead digs

, in your OP that would make the posts off topic, but again if the comments are not inflammatory no violation has taken place.

You might want to be the one who gets to decide if a post is off topic but by doing so would just put too much strain on the staff, for the reasons Jay mentioned. But, as I said in the rules, for a post to be trolling he must be off-topic and inflammatory. If neither of those meet the criteria for rule 2 the no trolling has taken place, according to the rules.

As of right now there has been no trolling as spelled out in the rules. You might not like some of the comments made by HE, but that's the nature of forums, and well we have to live with it. The comments that you reported have no affect on your thread whatsoever, so derailment is out of the question, and according to R2B2 no derailment has occurred either. If no comments are inflammatory then no trolling has occurred either.

That's that. If you have a suggestion that you think might improve the rule, share it.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

HE is sharing stories about archaeology, and how one group of researchers findings might be flawed (website biblical archaeology. for example, or possibly that dude he linked to in post 67)

Wrong. He is making inflammatory political statements (right wing Israelis "discovered the palace of King David for nefarious purposes) and his "debunking" is off topic. My OP is clear. His "David never existed crap" is intended to start an argument and is off-topic. His stupid comments about the solar barge are more of the same. ** MOD EDIT, RULE 4** Is it not possible to be free of such crap somewhere on this forum?

I have already told you how to improve the rule. What good will repeating myself do?

[kevin]

maggie, i agree with you that happy evolute has little of content to offer these days, and specializes in just provoking people. i've resolved the situation in my case by setting him on ignore, and he has dropped out of my life for, oh, the last two years or better.

if a dog can't be housebroken, just put it outside and keep it there.

very simple.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I agree and do have him on ignore and automatically ignore any topic he starts. However, he and his ilk ruined my "Across the street on the Internet" thread and I am determined he won't ruin my archaeology thread. So imagine my pleasure when a new rule to deal with trolls was announced. Of course, I blame myself for falling for it yet again. Fool me once and all that. The application of rules here has always been rather capricious and, somehow, they never mean what a normal person of average intelligence thinks they mean.

It is maddening.

[kevin]

yes, it can be difficult, especially if people feed the troll, because then the troll tends to direct the conversation, which of course is the whole motivation for trolling.

i've abandoned threads before which i have started, in which persistent trolls directed the subject matter away from where i wanted it to go. i often have several things i'd like to hear discussed about a particular subject, and i don't introduce them all in the original OP. when a troll enters a thread, i sometimes don't get the opportunity to introduce the peripheral subjects that, to me, were a major part of my interest in the subject. there's little hope for it. trolling is impossible to define clearly in a rules-based forum, and conversations wander.

still, there is a way to begin. you'd have to take the troll off ignore, and then as thread owner, request, publicly and persistently, that the troll stop-- without engaging the troll in conversation, and with a brief identification of the offending behavior--each time. this would be the best way to demonstrate a pattern of continued unilateral disruption that is required to establish the existence of trolling.

a practiced troll will often respond with feigned innocence or dismissal, but unless his contribution has substance, it can still be identified as trolling, eventually. and if the troll is forced to provide content in order to avoid a troll judgement, then all is as well as you can expect.

[Jay]

Kevin,

One thing you will notice. There is no requirement to ask a troll to stop trolling in our current rule.

[Captain Luke]

The forum isn't a blog. Get over it.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I too think there is a lot of trolling going on.  But by your definition of "inflammatory and off topic" almost anything is permissible.  I could go to almost every thread and post "God sucks" and it not match that criteria but it is most certainly trolling. 

So you can troll all you want as long as it's not inflammatory and off topic?

I really think it needs a little work.

[Jezzebelle]

I too think there is a lot of trolling going on.  But by your definition of "inflammatory and off topic" almost anything is permissible.  I could go to almost every thread and post "God sucks" and it not match that criteria but it is most certainly trolling. 

I would most certainly find that guilty of being off topic and inflammatory. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Did I miss where another of our trolls was nailed for calling God a rapist? I am skeptical. Oh wait! Nevermind. It might not have been off-topic. You might find "sucks" inflammatory but our herd of trolls regularly say worse and get away with it. JST is right. The off-topic and inflammatory double whammy nonsense makes it virtually impossible to find anything "guilty" of trolling and worthy of the bone yard.

[Jezzebelle]

Well we've only started this a couple weeks ago and already have 4 threads in the BY.  So no, it is not impossible to find something guilty.

We're still working out kinks, and it's been a hell of a lot of work and discussion.  Thanks for the appreciation.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I can't appreciate what I don't see. I am also quite tired of being told how hard you all work and how much you discuss. If you are at that hard, why aren't the results better? How much credit do you want for moving a spammer and none to the BY? They are obvious choices.

[Jezzebelle]

You can whine until the cows come home.  HE was not trolling your thread.  His post was not inflammatory.  Imagine how many people would kick your posts out of their threads if they just didn't simply like what you had to say.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it trolling.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

yeah, yeah. The only one whining here is you. When you pull out the "we work so hard and you don't appreciate it" card, it is time to admit that you have failed.

[Jezzebelle]

yeah, yeah. The only one whining here is you. When you pull out the "we work so hard and you don't appreciate it" card, it is time to admit that you have failed.

\

I only do that when you whine about us not doing enough, while you're the one consistently making more work for us by running around calling people satan.   

[Emily]

The off-topic and inflammatory double whammy nonsense makes it virtually impossible to find anything "guilty" of trolling and worthy of the bone yard.

It's actually not a double whammy. By the definition of trolling (from wikipedia)

In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Then again:

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

The "even if it's controversial" bold is what I think everyone is getting pissed off over. Was a post off-topic (in the archaeological thread)? I say no. Was it inflammatory? I say no also. Is it controversial? Sure. Maybe. But it's still legitimate to the conversation.

If I say "God sucks d**k" over and over again on the forum, I'd be trolling. But I someone posts a rebuttal to any thread or any comment anywhere on the forum, IMO it's not trolling, because that comment is legit, simply because I feel that any thread created is open for people to post their disagreement.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Emily, pay attention. My OP was quite clear. The thread was for announcing new archaeological finds. Not for getting into political debates about right-wing, Jewish archaeologists and debunking their finds. Why none of you can understand this eludes me, it really does. But I am done trying to make any of you see reason. You have made it clear that the OP doesn't matter. Whatever the troll wants to do is fine with you. Unless, of course, he insults black people. Then he will find himself in lock-up immediately. But short of that horror, trolls are free to do their thing. Glad we got that straightened out.

[Jay]

I am drunk. It's my bday party. I'm in a limo. Why do I say all this? Because if I say anything f-d up excuse it.

Here is the thing folks. We are trying to do something about trolling. That should be commended unless you like trolling. Are we gonna catch everything everyone wants? No. Are we also gonna catch things some people disagree with? Yup. We can't please everyone. But yes, we talk about this crap extensively. Being a mod is a pain in the ass. But someone has to do it.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Better luck next time. 

[Emily]

You have made it clear that the OP doesn't matter

Your OP hasn't gone to s**t because of the threads you reported.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Yes. It has. I am not interested in your opinion. It is vaguely interesting to know that the opinion of the person who started a thread counts for nothing when moderators decide what is off-topic. But moderation here has always been capricious. I know what my thread was about and Evolute has ruined it. I just am not interested in hearing you excuse him. If I continued to post in it, he would be right there with one of his nasty, argumentative posts. Well, I won't continue. He killed it and you gave him permission to.

Congratulations! You have shown us who is boss!

[Jay]

Maggie, I luv ya but lol. Oops.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Congratulations! You are a moderator for real! That is just the way they talk and think.

If I am a pain in the ass so be it. You all need to get smarter fast and enforce your rules fairly and evenly. It doesn't happen. Never has and never will. I am sick of it. I knew it was a mistake to let myself be talked into coming back. That is a mistake I won't make a second time.

[Jay]

K. Thanks for the feedback.

I'm going back to paying attention to the women at the bar. They may end up being pains in the ass, but I don't know it yet. Nite.

[Captain Luke]

I knew it was a mistake to let myself be talked into coming back. That is a mistake I won't make a second time.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

[Assyriankey]

If anyone is bemused by the decision Maggie refers to above, it was decided that the posts in Maggie's archaeology thread were not inflammatory - E2Bi.

Maggie is obviously inflamed by the posts being in her thread.  This is a very different thing from the posts themselves being inflammatory.

Maggie may have been better served by reporting those posts for derailment - E2Bii.

[kevin]

Kevin,

One thing you will notice. There is no requirement to ask a troll to stop trolling in our current rule.

that's a mistake in the planning of your rule.

i said earlier that i often have reasons for creating a thread that are quite obscure to anybody but me. i may make an opening post that doesn't have anything to do with where i want the conversation to end up. sometimes i want to establish some things beforehand, or elicit a certain response that can be discussed in light of later developments in the thread, or invite comments from someone who won't contribute if i word the OP in a particular manner.

so i don't like it when the moderators have the duty to decide that my thread isn't going in the direction it should be, because the moderators don't know what that direction should be. so unless i confront the troll and ask it to leave, i'd personally prefer that none of the moderators interfere with my threads.

i appreciate the work you folks do, especially with the endless subject of trolling. but with respect to trolling in my threads, i'd prefer that you stay out unless i identify a troll myself and ask for assistance. i don't care who else doesn't like the troll-- i have my own ideas about what posts are and are not constructive. i don't need a visit from the thread police interfering out of well-meaning ignorance.

[FGOH]

i appreciate the work you folks do, especially with the endless subject of trolling. but with respect to trolling in my threads, i'd prefer that you stay out unless i identify a troll myself and ask for assistance. i don't care who else doesn't like the troll-- i have my own ideas about what posts are and are not constructive. i don't need a visit from the thread police interfering out of well-meaning ignorance.

It is by no means always moderators who report people for trolling in other people's threads, nor is it always the thread owner. Thread contributors have an interest in how the thread is going, and possibly even readers.

Whilst the thread owner is given a right of veto for derailment, which should address your issues, the issue of trolling (i.e. posting in a way which is both off topic AND inflammatory) is something that affects the feel of the whole forum and as such should not be within the jurisdiction purely of the thread owner.

[kevin]

It is by no means always moderators who report people for trolling in other people's threads, nor is it always the thread owner. Thread contributors have an interest in how the thread is going, and possibly even readers.

FGOH, do i have to point out that neither thread contributors nor readers can see into my mind any better than moderators? neither they nor the moderators have an understanding of "how the thread is going" unless i've told them where i intended it to go. they can ask, of course, and i would be delighted to explain.

Whilst the thread owner is given a right of veto for derailment, which should address your issues, the issue of trolling (i.e. posting in a way which is both off topic AND inflammatory) is something that affects the feel of the whole forum and as such should not be within the jurisdiction purely of the thread owner.

um, sorry, no. that doesn't fly.

neither you as a moderator, nor a thread contributor, nor a reader, knows what is or is not "off-topic" in my thread unless i tell you, or them. you can certainly identify an inflammatory post, but you don't have the information to know whether or not a post is genuinely off-topic unless you ask me, because i'm the only one who knows what the topic is intended to be. because you cannot identify what is "off-topic" without reading my mind, you cannot identify a troll in my thread, using the rule you have constructed.

FGOH, you're intentions are good, and i applaud your efforts. but if the moderators step into a thread that i'm carefully directing into a particular line of discussion and bollocks it up by removing posts containing information that i want to be there, then they have become the troll.

i don't need moderators derailing my threads, no matter how good their intentions are. and i don't need them dumbing the conversation down by deleting side discussions for which they can't see connections. i'll be happy to explain what i'm doing, but if the conversation is going where i want it to go, the thread police approach is not the constructive one.

[Assyriankey]

Kevin,

One thing you will notice. There is no requirement to ask a troll to stop trolling in our current rule.

that's a mistake in the planning of your rule.

i said earlier that i often have reasons for creating a thread that are quite obscure to anybody but me. i may make an opening post that doesn't have anything to do with where i want the conversation to end up. sometimes i want to establish some things beforehand, or elicit a certain response that can be discussed in light of later developments in the thread, or invite comments from someone who won't contribute if i word the OP in a particular manner.

so i don't like it when the moderators have the duty to decide that my thread isn't going in the direction it should be, because the moderators don't know what that direction should be. so unless i confront the troll and ask it to leave, i'd personally prefer that none of the moderators interfere with my threads.

i appreciate the work you folks do, especially with the endless subject of trolling. but with respect to trolling in my threads, i'd prefer that you stay out unless i identify a troll myself and ask for assistance. i don't care who else doesn't like the troll-- i have my own ideas about what posts are and are not constructive. i don't need a visit from the thread police interfering out of well-meaning ignorance.

FTFY!

You, as thread owner, have veto on any posts being split out.

[FGOH]

You are not distinguishing between the two parts of the rule, Kevin.

If there are side discussions in your thread which do not contain inflammatory material then you as thread owner have the option to request that they not be removed. Therefore keeping your thread un-bollocksed.

If there are side discussions in your thread which do contain inflammatory material (therefore caught by the trolling rule) then that is a matter which concerns those who run the forum, and ultimately the forum owner, because such issues affect how the forum presents itself to the world.

Since we cannot consult our crystal balls as to what may or may not be in your mind concerning your topic we can only go by what is written, same as for everyone else. You might not like that, but as you know we always strive for objective rather than subjective moderation.

I would also comment that any thread which is a sensible discussion going in an interesting direction is unlikely to be reported under the derailment provisions and possibly may not even be reported under the trolling provisions even if it contains posts which could be caught. If it is reported it is a sign that somebody is unhappy with it and then we have to investigate.

[kevin]

You are not distinguishing between the two parts of the rule, Kevin. If there are side discussions in your thread which do contain inflammatory material (therefore caught by the trolling rule) then that is a matter which concerns those who run the forum, and ultimately the forum owner, because such issues affect how the forum presents itself to the world.

FGOH, with respect, you are not the appropriate person to decide what is or is not an "unrelated side-discussion" in my thread. as a moderator, you certainly have the power to dismantle a conversation which i have designed, but when you take it upon yourself to decide how someone else's thread should or should not progress and what direction it should go, you, yourself, become the troll that you were intending to discourage.

Since we cannot consult our crystal balls as to what may or may not be in your mind concerning your topic we can only go by what is written, same as for everyone else. You might not like that, but as you know we always strive for objective rather than subjective moderation.

just ask the thread owner whether your intervention is necessary, and you'll have no need for either a crystal ball or a blind enforcement of the written rule. this is an easy and simple solution to your dilemma, and will satisfy even touchy forum members like me.

I would also comment that any thread which is a sensible discussion going in an interesting direction is unlikely to be reported under the derailment provisions and possibly may not even be reported under the trolling provisions even if it contains posts which could be caught. If it is reported it is a sign that somebody is unhappy with it and then we have to investigate.

this^^^ in a nutshell, is a clear identification of why the new rule is a mistake. the posts in my threads are frequently NOT "sensible," or "interesting," or designed to avoid someone being "unhappy." if you are going to limit the ideas that i can express to those which the staff decides are "sensible," "interesting," or conducive to "happiness," then i suggest that the policy causes more damage than its benefits are worth. i realize that you are not intending to propose these criteria as limitations, but intending to or not, you have just done so.

just stay out of the thread, please, unless i ask for help. the best moderation is that which is light and interferes the least with other people's thoughts.

[Jay]

Kevin,

One thing you will notice. There is no requirement to ask a troll to stop trolling in our current rule.

that's a mistake in the planning of your rule.

i said earlier that i often have reasons for creating a thread that are quite obscure to anybody but me. i may make an opening post that doesn't have anything to do with where i want the conversation to end up. sometimes i want to establish some things beforehand, or elicit a certain response that can be discussed in light of later developments in the thread, or invite comments from someone who won't contribute if i word the OP in a particular manner.

so i don't like it when the moderators have the duty to decide that my thread isn't going in the direction it should be, because the moderators don't know what that direction should be. so unless i confront the troll and ask it to leave, i'd personally prefer that none of the moderators interfere with my threads.

i appreciate the work you folks do, especially with the endless subject of trolling. but with respect to trolling in my threads, i'd prefer that you stay out unless i identify a troll myself and ask for assistance. i don't care who else doesn't like the troll-- i have my own ideas about what posts are and are not constructive. i don't need a visit from the thread police interfering out of well-meaning ignorance.

Ahh.  But normally, telling the troll to stay on topic is just feeding the troll.

And you can still take a thread in any direction you want.  Heck, we even give you a veto vote on derailments as the thread owner, so the new rules should not be a problem for you. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

How many of us have to tell you that this new "rule" is a gigantic fail, before you consider the possibility that it is a gigantic fail?

[Jay]

You are not distinguishing between the two parts of the rule, Kevin. If there are side discussions in your thread which do contain inflammatory material (therefore caught by the trolling rule) then that is a matter which concerns those who run the forum, and ultimately the forum owner, because such issues affect how the forum presents itself to the world.

FGOH, with respect, you are not the appropriate person to decide what is or is not an "unrelated side-discussion" in my thread. as a moderator, you certainly have the power to dismantle a conversation which i have designed, but when you take it upon yourself to decide how someone else's thread should or should not progress and what direction it should go, you, yourself, become the troll that you were intending to discourage.

Since we cannot consult our crystal balls as to what may or may not be in your mind concerning your topic we can only go by what is written, same as for everyone else. You might not like that, but as you know we always strive for objective rather than subjective moderation.

just ask the thread owner whether your intervention is necessary, and you'll have no need for either a crystal ball or a blind enforcement of the written rule. this is an easy and simple solution to your dilemma, and will satisfy even touchy forum members like me.

I would also comment that any thread which is a sensible discussion going in an interesting direction is unlikely to be reported under the derailment provisions and possibly may not even be reported under the trolling provisions even if it contains posts which could be caught. If it is reported it is a sign that somebody is unhappy with it and then we have to investigate.

this^^^ in a nutshell, is a clear identification of why the new rule is a mistake. the posts in my threads are frequently NOT "sensible," or "interesting," or designed to avoid someone being "unhappy." if you are going to limit the ideas that i can express to those which the staff decides are "sensible," "interesting," or conducive to "happiness," then i suggest that the policy causes more damage than its benefits are worth. i realize that you are not intending to propose these criteria as limitations, but intending to or not, you have just done so.

just stay out of the thread, please, unless i ask for help. the best moderation is that which is light and interferes the least with other people's thoughts.

Kevin, threads here are for everyone, not just one member.  This is not a blog, but a discussion forum.  You are correct that no one can see into your mind, and as a former moderator, you should know that we never try to look into someone's mind, but at the content contained in a post. 

The problem with what you want is that there are some threads here where the actual first poster in the thread is not around anymore, so those threads could never be moderated if it was solely up to the thread 'owner'.  We have to write rules for everyone.  As I stated last night in my drunken stupor, that will mean that not everyone will be happy.  Some people will think we are too lenient, some will think we are too harsh.  Some will be just fine with it.  In the end, that means that we have found the middle ground.  And we are still looking at ways to tweak the rules if they do  not have the desired results.  As far as I know, you have not had any threads 'ruined' by these new rules, so maybe...your fears are unfounded?  Or maybe not.  But your fears certainly have not been realized yet.

[kevin]

jay, if i am no longer around, you have my permission to modify, move, delete, or change the text color of all my posts in all my threads. if i am around, however, and am attempting to speak with someone, i would rather not have the staff take it upon itself to decide which questions and which answers are appropriate to a conversation that i have begun.

yes, it's not a blog. it's a forum designed to encourage conversation between members. conversation is made more difficult when someone interrupts and drowns out the exchange, even when that someone is a moderator acting with good intentions.

it's not rocket science, jay. if i need help, you can be sure i'll ask for it. if i don't ask for it, it's because i don't need it. if someone else wants to co-opt the direction my thread is going and asks you to intervene to change its direction, then his or her interference is equally unwelcome.

perhaps the real issue here is whether or not such a concept as "thread owner" is going to continue to be a part of IGI policy. if there is no longer going to be such an entity, then much of what i have written here is moot.

what is a thread owner, jay, in your opinion? what are the responsibilities and authorities that go with the concept, in the context of the new rules?

[Jay]

Kevin, currently the 'thread owner' gets a veto on derailments.  You can have all the off topic discussion in one of 'your' threads that you want, as you can veto any derailments found to be guilty in a thread you 'own' and those posts wont be moved.

You could discuss Picasso in a thread that you created about the death penalty if you wanted, and if someone reports it, and if the mods find it guilty, you as the thread owner can still say "I dont want those posts moved'....and they wont be moved.

Now, if someone is discussing Picasso in a thread about the death penalty and is calling anyone who doesnt like his art a flaming pile of crap, well then....no one gets a veto and the post is moved to the BY...if it is reported and found to be guilty of trolling.

Clear anything up?

[kevin]

yes, it does. here is the relevant rule:

ii) No derailing of threads.  Thread derailments consist of the repeated posting or discussing of an off-topic issue not related to the original topic which disrupts the conversation away from the original topic.  Derailments should be reported in bulk, and the thread owner will be contacted by a moderator.  If no response from the thread owner is made within 24 hours requesting the posts to stay, all off-topic posts reported will be moved to a separate thread.

i've been belaboring this point to make it explicit in as many ways as i can. i interpret it to mean this:

the thread owner has the final authority on what is and is not off-topic within his thread, subject to his response to any moderator query within 24 hours.

i have little liking for inflammatory posting, and so you can move any of that stuff around as much as you like with no objections from me. i'm assuming that after the convicted troll has his posts removed, he can return and discuss the off-the-original-topic subject matter as much as he likes, so long as he stays civil about it.

your interpretation has been unchanged from the very first time i read it, but there have been some confusing wording on the part of the staff so far which has been a cause of concern to me. if all the staff is agreed that my simple interpretaion above of the new E2bii is correct, then i don't have any problems with the rule.

as i think i've said much earlier than this.

[Jay]

Well. I would not say it as that.

The moderators make the determination as to what is off topic in a thread. As with all of our rule violations.  But for derailments, the thread owner can choose to have ruled upon off topic(yet not inflammatory) posts not moved from the thread.

The end result I think is the same though.

[kevin]

the end result is absolutely not the same, with respect to future interpretations of the rule.

either the thread owner determines whether the conversation in his thread is on-track or he doesn't, so far as whether the moderators take action on an off-topic post.

perhaps i can explain my interpretation differently?

the thread owner can tell the moderators to stay out of his thread, so long as the only issue is off-topic posting. if the off-topic poster is also uncivil, he can be classified as a troll, and the moderators can override the thread owner's opinion and can move the posts.

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone. inflammatory stuff they can handle as they see fit.

how is that?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Kevin: You have done an outstanding job of elucidating the issues. But I wonder, can you tell me this? Why hasn't Jay called you a pain in the ass yet? You have now made more and very intelligent posts on the subject than I and at greater length. Yet you have been spared. Why is that do you suppose? Wouldn't you think that a moderator could at least be even handed about that? 

[Jay]

Because I was drunk off my ass last night Maggie. :)

[Assyriankey]

This is like watching a never-ending replay of one flew over the cuckoo's nest!

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone.

Kevin, you get veto on posts being boned.

This is like watching a never-ending replay of one flew over the cuckoo's nest!

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone.

Kevin, you get veto on posts being boned.

This is like watching a never-ending replay of one flew over the cuckoo's nest!

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone.

Kevin, you get veto on posts being boned.

This is like watching a never-ending replay of one flew over the cuckoo's nest!

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone.

Kevin, you get veto on posts being boned.

This is like watching a never-ending replay of one flew over the cuckoo's nest!

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone.

Kevin, you get veto on posts being boned.

This is like watching a never-ending replay of one flew over the cuckoo's nest!

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone.

Kevin, you get veto on posts being boned.

[kevin]

Kevin: You have done an outstanding job of elucidating the issues. But I wonder, can you tell me this? Why hasn't Jay called you a pain in the ass yet? You have now made more and very intelligent posts on the subject than I and at greater length. Yet you have been spared. Why is that do you suppose? Wouldn't you think that a moderator could at least be even handed about that?

interesting point.

i am a pain in the ass about stuff like this, frequently. there was more than one occasion in the mod box when i was a very large pain in the ass, and was told so.



but you're not alone in the big picture. my turn comes around too.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Why do you think the world wide flood is a literal event and not a parable?

I am not certain it was.  While I agree everything Jesus taught was true and Jesus did refer to the flood, I cannot tell if he was referring to it as a historical event or the story of the event.

However, if the flood was not true then what lessons can actually be learned from a story that is not true?  And if it were not true then why are there so many myths about it?  Is it coincidence?  Did they all make up stories about a global flood because of local flooding?  That is hard to swallow.

On the other hand how do they know it was global?  In the Bible often times "world" or even "earth" can mean the world of mankind.  Depending on how widespread mankind was at the time, God could have destroyed the "world of mankind" without actually flooding the entire earth.

yeah God almighty flooded a couple city blocks.... what a shame...

Here is an example of what I am referring to.  While it is not directly inflammatory it is indirectly inflammatory.  When you belittle someone's beliefs that is inflammatory.

This is nothing but a trolling post in an otherwise serious discussion, and it is meant only to offend someone, namely me.  It in no way supports the discussion nor does it add anything at all.  It's just an inflammatory remark, although it is technically on topic.  But not really.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

^ Implying that I am not like an intelligent human being is another example.  If I responded in kind what would be the result?  A flame fest.

[Jay]

Jst.

Did you report the post for trolling?  If not, I find it highly improper to post a post in here and say that you think it is trolling.

If you think a post is trolling, report it and let the moderators take a look.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

yeah God almighty flooded a couple city blocks.... what a shame...

In what way does this prompt an intelligent response?  You are simply trying to bait someone into a flaming argument.  Once you do this, you will undoubtedly report it to the moderators.

[none]

yeah God almighty flooded a couple city blocks.... what a shame...

In what way does this prompt an intelligent response?  You are simply trying to bait someone into a flaming argument.  Once you do this, you will undoubtedly report it to the moderators.

hey dude you are the one who suggested a limited flood, I just expounded upon your wisdom

[Meat]

I've got a crazy idea. Let the threads evolve however they do. Much like a conversation that goes anywhere and everywhere. Keep in mind it's just typed words on the Al Gore's internet.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

^ And again.  It is a continuous onslaught of sniper remarks.

[Jay]

the end result is absolutely not the same, with respect to future interpretations of the rule.

What future determinations?  Are you arguing about what you think may happen in some future date, or what you are currently worried about happening with the current rules in place?

either the thread owner determines whether the conversation in his thread is on-track or he doesn't, so far as whether the moderators take action on an off-topic post.

You are correct, the thread 'owner' does not get to determine if a post is violating the rules or not, nor do I think that will ever come about here.  Staff members determine if a post violates the rules.  If you think we have made a wrong decision on a specific post, we even allow you to appeal the ruling or make a post about it and yell at the mods.  However, we have never let a member determine if another members post is guilty of a violation, just because they reported a post.  It just doesnt  work that way, nor would I ever agree to such a thing.  Just my opinion though.

perhaps i can explain my interpretation differently?

the thread owner can tell the moderators to stay out of his thread, so long as the only issue is off-topic posting. if the off-topic poster is also uncivil, he can be classified as a troll, and the moderators can override the thread owner's opinion and can move the posts.

No.  A thread owner does not get to tell the staff to stay out of his\her thread.  That is just silly.  The mods are members here as well.  You do not get to play god in a thread you create here.  What is next?  "This thread is free from the insult rule"  Not a good idea, and if you are concerned about slippery slopes, you should see this as a slippery mountain.

i don't care whether or not the moderators consider a post in my thread to be technically off-topic, so long as they leave it alone. inflammatory stuff they can handle as they see fit.

how is that?

[/quote]
That is awesome Kevin.  That is also exactly what you have.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Snipe

verb
[no object]
1 shoot at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range:the soldiers in the trench sniped at us

2 make a sly or petty verbal attack:

Oxford dictionary.

[Jay]

I would prefer that we dont turn the trolling thread into a flame fest.  please and thank you.

JST,
One thing you need to remember, is that we currently only moderate upon off topic and inflammatory posts.  Will that mean that on topic yet inflammatory posts are allowed?  Yes, as long as the post complies with other rules of the forum.

This forum is for adults, not children.  Some of the very topics we allow to be discussed here could be inflammatory.  If we moderated on topic yet inflammatory posts, we could actually negatively impact the free flow of ideas.

I understand that may not be the outcome you want on specific reports, and the best I can tell you is to report them, and let us look at them, as it may prompt a change in the rules...or maybe not.  But at least we are looking at the situation more closely in those situations.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Inflammatory comments are not a problem, I expectthem.  It's when posts are designed only to be inflammatory that is a problem.

I am not trying to argue, only offer feedback.

[Meat]

^ And again.  It is a continuous onslaught of sniper remarks.

I'm withholding a comment. *biting my tongue*

[Jay]

Inflammatory comments are not a problem, I expectthem.  It's when posts are designed only to be inflammatory that is a problem.

I am not trying to argue, only offer feedback.

You can argue if you want to, as long as it is on topic.   

But...I dont think we wrote the rule to catch every post that could possibly be considered to be trolling.  The only way to do that, and maintain a rule that is specific and not "Trolling - you will know it when you see it" would also catch a whole bunch of posts that should not be moderated. 

But your opinions are certainly noted.   

[Maggie the Opinionated]

How many of us have now demonstrated how badly thought out the new "rule" is? How many more must before you take it back to the drawing board? JST has brought up the very real problem of the serial snipers (and we have a number of them) and you are just blowing him off.

In other words, to be blunt, you solved a problem we don't have in favor of ignoring the ones we do have. I don't think that will do any good at all.

No wonder they sent the new guy out to announce it. The more experienced knew better!

[Jay]

How many of us have now demonstrated how badly thought out the new "rule" is? How many more must before you take it back to the drawing board? JST has brought up the very real problem of the serial snipers (and we have a number of them) and you are just blowing him off.

In other words, to be blunt, you solved a problem we don't have in favor of ignoring the ones we do have. I don't think that will do any good at all.

No wonder they sent the new guy out to announce it. The more experienced knew better!

I dont know Maggie?  Why dont you count them up, combine all of their issues into a cohesive argument, and write a rule that is workable based on it. 

IOW, help us help you.  And I dont think I have blown off anyone in this thread, including you.  Your particular responses though are not very helpful, as they consist of..."If I say it is trolling, then it is trolling".  See?  I listened to your argument, I just disagree with your approach.

Here is what I see.  Some want the trolling rule to be more lenient, some want it to be more strict.  Most have not come out and disagreed with it at all.  That means we have reached the middle ground.  Kevin, does not seem to have any problem with the trolling rule currently, but with derailments.  And I still do not know why he has an issue with it, as he still gets veto power as the thread owner.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I don't think you are seeing clearly at all. Your solution doesn't solve any current problem and creates several new ones. Why don't we start by identifying the problems? Trolls, snipers, spammers ... etc. Then we decide how to deal with them individually, if we deal with them at all. They don't all represent the same problem.

[Jay]

I don't think you are seeing clearly at all. Your solution doesn't solve any current problem and creates several new ones. Why don't we start by identifying the problems? Trolls, snipers, spammers ... etc. Then we decide how to deal with them individually, if we deal with them at all. They don't all represent the same problem.

You are correct, one rule does not fit all problems.

That is why trolling and derailments are now two separate rules.  Spammers are also already dealt with using a separate rule, with 5 separate caveats to it(E2c).  I am not really sure what a 'sniper' is unless we are talking military lingo, but I dont think we have had a huge demand to resolve whatever it is either way.  But maybe it would require a separate rule if it is actually necessary. 

The rules in this thread are an attempt to deal with derailments and trolling, and that is it.  And yes, both have been a problem for this forum for a long time.  And both have been part of our rules for a long time, however, the last rule was not really resolving anything.

I also do not see what current problems we have created by rewriting the rules on trolling and derailments, but maybe you could point them out?

[kevin]

What future determinations?  Are you arguing about what you think may happen in some future date, or what you are currently worried about happening with the current rules in place?

moving on now, jay . . .

You are correct, the thread 'owner' does not get to determine if a post is violating the rules or not, nor do I think that will ever come about here . . .

still moving on here . . . .

No.  A thread owner does not get to tell the staff to stay out of his\her thread.  That is just silly.  The mods are members here as well. . .

do you misunderstand on purpose, jay?

That is awesome Kevin.  That is also exactly what you have.

good.

then we're done, i think.

[Jay]

good.

then we're done, i think.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Inflammatory comments are not a problem, I expectthem.  It's when posts are designed only to be inflammatory that is a problem.

I am not trying to argue, only offer feedback.

You can argue if you want to, as long as it is on topic.   

But...I dont think we wrote the rule to catch every post that could possibly be considered to be trolling.  The only way to do that, and maintain a rule that is specific and not "Trolling - you will know it when you see it" would also catch a whole bunch of posts that should not be moderated. 

But your opinions are certainly noted.   

I can definately understand that.  And I know as moderators you guys have to walk a thin line because you don't want to run poeple off.  And I'm certainly not wanting mods to become extremists.  I just think the rules need to be tightened just a little.

I think I have demonstrated my ability to discuss things with those that have opposing view points.  That's why I am here afterall.  And I can see how trolling could be something hard to pin down.  And even I have become inflammatory before.  Composer is often inflammatory but at least he offers something to the discussion most of the time, even if it's just the same thing over and over again.  He is more of a spammer which bothers me but it is tolerable for me.

Trolling sniper comments are my main concern.  As patient as I am it eventually does get under my skin and I react and then we have a flame war. To me trolling is kind of like a drive by post that's only meant to offend.  Certainly you can tell if a post is devoid of any actual content and it's just meant to be bait for a flame war.  I definatley would err on the side of non-involvement but I think a little more hands on approach would be helpful.

I would imagine that noone needs to identify the trolls for you.  If you know they are trolls then maybe you should address the trollers and not their posts.

However I admit Maggie's complaint is a tough one.  HE's comment does diverge from the narrowed topic Maggie intended, but at least he brought something to the table that could be discussed.  Perhaps Maggie could have asked him to start a seperate thread for his discussion.  But I think Maggie was probably already annoyed and more likely to react because of repeated exposure to trolling.

For example, to me, Greatest I am is the most highly offensive but at least he creates his own threads.  He doesn't troll other people's threads so much, or at least he hasn't mine.  Any abuse I take from him is my own fault.  When someone trolls a thread it's an inconvenience.  When they continually troll all threads it becomes highly annoying and makes you just want to reach through the screen and slap them.

And I think public discussion like this is helpful too.  If the trolls disagree then they are free to come here and disagree.  But where are they?  They would rather let you defend them.  That is not to say you are dishonestly doing so, but they could only do it by being dishonest.  The one that did come here only came here and trolled.  He actually had the gall to come to a complaint discussion about trolling and troll.  Think about that for a moment.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I am not really sure what a 'sniper' is unless we are talking military lingo, but I dont think we have had a huge demand to resolve whatever it is either way.

Snipe

verb
[no object]
1 shoot at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range:the soldiers in the trench sniped at us

2 make a sly or petty verbal attack:

Oxford dictionary.

A sniper is characterized as someone that lurks and just takes pot shots (petty verbal attacks) here and there.  It is an indirect attack.  It is passive aggresive.

[Jay]

I can definately understand that.  And I know as moderators you guys have to walk a thin line because you don't want to run poeple off.  And I'm certainly not wanting mods to become extremists.  I just think the rules need to be tightened just a little.

I think I have demonstrated my ability to discuss things with those that have opposing view points.  That's why I am here afterall.  And I can see how trolling could be something hard to pin down.  And even I have become inflammatory before.  Composer is often inflammatory but at least he offers something to the discussion most of the time, even if it's just the same thing over and over again.  He is more of a spammer which bothers me but it is tolerable for me.

Trolling sniper comments are my main concern.  As patient as I am it eventually does get under my skin and I react and then we have a flame war. To me trolling is kind of like a drive by post that's only meant to offend.  Certainly you can tell if a post is devoid of any actual content and it's just meant to be bait for a flame war.  I definatley would err on the side of non-involvement but I think a little more hands on approach would be helpful.

The best I can say at this point, is to report the posts you deem are 'sniping' and you never know.  Many of them may just be found to be off topic and inflammatory.  Maybe not though.  I am not making promises, nor trying to read the future, but we wont know unless we try.  Correct?  If the current trolling rule catches a portion of posts you deem to be 'snipe' posts, would you say then that the rule is beneficial?  I would.  It may need to be strengthened, or maybe not, but we will only know if posts are reported.  We need members to be our eyes, as the mods do not scrub thru every thread here looking for violations. 

So, I will say this.  Report the posts you think are 'snipe' posts and we shall see how things go.  I say that to anyone.  Use the features we give you...ie, the report feature.

I would imagine that noone needs to identify the trolls for you.  If you know they are trolls then maybe you should address the trollers and not their posts.

We strive to be inclusive here and not ban members, but that is not to say we never ban a member here either.  We also have other avenues at our disposal besides just banning.  And we do have the capability to use them if it is deemed necessary.  Again, things are a work in progress on this front.

And I think public discussion like this is helpful too.  If the trolls disagree then they are free to come here and disagree.  But where are they?  They would rather let you defend them.  That is not to say you are dishonestly doing so, but they could only do it by being dishonest.  The one that did come here only came here and trolled.  He actually had the gall to come to a complaint discussion about trolling and troll.  Think about that for a moment.

You will notice at least one post by None from this thread has already ended up in the BY.

And I dont think I am defending anyone in particular.  Nor do I think I am even defending the new rule.  I am merely answering questions and providing my own opinions when I feel it appropriate to do so.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Okay I will give it a try.  You seem like a fair person to me.

[none]

I WAS NEVER CONSULTED AS TO WHETHER POSTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE BONEYARD WHEN THEY ORIGINATED IN MY THREAD

[Jay]

Were they inflammatory?  If so, you dont get consulted on trolling posts.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Doesn't matter. Mine was not off-topic and it is a coin toss whether it was inflammatory. But it got moved and it was my thread. Really, mods, it would be best not to reopen this thread. This is one that has caused a lot of bad feeling and I, for one, can say that I am not in the mood for more forum drama ...

[Meat]

I like the drama. (They're back)   

[Jay]

Doesn't matter. Mine was not off-topic and it is a coin toss whether it was inflammatory. But it got moved and it was my thread. Really, mods, it would be best not to reopen this thread. This is one that has caused a lot of bad feeling and I, for one, can say that I am not in the mood for more forum drama ...

Maggie,
Could you point me to the post of yours that was split out from one of your threads?  I do not see such a post in the BY.  In fact, the only post I see of yours in the BY was one post from this thread, and I am willing to bet...that this thread we are sitting in now....is not your thread.

[none]

ONE OF MY POSTS WAS MOVED AND IT WASN'T INFLAMMATORY NOR OFF TOPIC.
THE ONE ABOUT ""GODS EXISTANCE"

[none]

AND ASKING IF DOCTORS SPANKED GARJA'S NEWBORN WAS NOT OFF-TOPIC EITHER.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

ONE OF MY POSTS WAS MOVED AND IT WASN'T INFLAMMATORY NOR OFF TOPIC.
THE ONE ABOUT ""GODS EXISTANCE"

AND ASKING IF DOCTORS SPANKED GARJA'S NEWBORN WAS NOT OFF-TOPIC EITHER.

[Meat]

AND ASKING IF DOCTORS SPANKED GARJA'S NEWBORN WAS NOT OFF-TOPIC EITHER.

My doctor gave me the belt!

[nateswift]

Well, I will be dipped.  The Mods DID pull their heads out and no one let me know.  Good job.  I would prefer to see the rule applied to trolling comments within posts and handled the same way as insults, but the boneyard concept allows the perp to extract any constructive comments and reinsert them into the thread if appropriate, so that answers.  I am encouraged.

[Assyriankey]

Well, I will be dipped.  The Mods DID pull their heads out and no one let me know.  Good job.  I would prefer to see the rule applied to trolling comments within posts and handled the same way as insults, but the boneyard concept allows the perp to extract any constructive comments and reinsert them into the thread if appropriate, so that answers.  I am encouraged.

Thanks Nate.

Handling the troll part as an insult was not an option because it would mean giving the perp 24 hours to effect the edit.  We don't do re-insertions either.  Troll is troll.  And asking the mods to monitor the 24 hour edit window is too onerous.

Also, no offence is recorded against the perp for E2bi - they can't incur an R4 for failing to edit.

[nateswift]

Ah, yes, well my comment in that regard was pretty muddy.  I was actually just talking about the proceedure as in deleting only that part of a post that constituted trolling.  Dunno whether I think that the request to edit should be the same.  How many Mods in agreement does it take to boneyard a post?  I do think that an expedited solution to a troll is warranted because there is this abominable tendency we have to respond to trolls.  Muddies the waters, you know?

[Assyriankey]

Ah, yes, well my comment in that regard was pretty muddy.  I was actually just talking about the proceedure as in deleting only that part of a post that constituted trolling.  Dunno whether I think that the request to edit should be the same.  How many Mods in agreement does it take to boneyard a post?  I do think that an expedited solution to a troll is warranted because there is this abominable tendency we have to respond to trolls.  Muddies the waters, you know?

The actual number of mods required is privileged info at this time (we will later clear this up in an announcement to the forum).

Yes, speed of response is very important.