Update of E2b and The BoneYard

[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.