This Forum Blows

[The Hitch]

you faker, that was my idea

Nope. Ive made this suggestion countless times before, and it was supported thoroughly by many people, including if i remember correctly luckyboy and joe papp back when the Flandis allegations came out.

 

[Granville57]

The whole moderation thing is a slippery slope IMO. The line between trolling and simply being delusional is just too thin to really police very well.

I agree that it can be a very slippery slope. However, Berzin's post was brilliant. Especially the following:

And if anyone objects on the basis of free speech protection, our Founding Fathers here in America, to use an example, put a clause in the Constitution protecting free speech so citizens would have a platform for political dissent, not as a mandate protecting the rights of bottom-feeders to be gratuitously idiotic and verbally abusive to whomever they choose. And this is a private sector forum where the administrators are allowed to make their own rules regarding the level of discourse they will allow and not allow on the forums.

Last night in The Clinic was unbelievable. I try to not engage the idiocy, but some times I'm feeling just a bit punchy or fed up altogether...and I go full throttle. It's stupid of me in some ways. Clearly, if everyone just ignored the lunacy then sanity would prevail. But we are all in different moods on different occasions. I only have a few members on my Ignore List, but when they are continually quoted by others, I can't avoid the drivel.

So here's my suggestion:
Change the rules, the premise, if you will.
This concept of being tolerant of newbies etc (a lot of posts last night were coming from members with only a handful of prior contributions) should perhaps be adapted when it comes to The Clinic.

I don't think it's so wrong to require a bit of self-education on the part of ignorant and contentious disruptors. I was plenty informed, from years of reading and simply paying attention, before joining the CN forum. And then I went to the beginning of threads from The Clinic to acclimate myself (it started to get really good around Aug-Sept '09 )

Why not have some special rules for The Clinic only?
When someone shows up screaming about "no proof" etc, shut them down and direct them to either the Clinic's earlier threads (as I explored, myself) or perhaps set up a Sticky Thread of Suggested Reading (key Clinic threads as well as outside sources).
Why not demand at least a minimum level of "Clinic Literacy", if you will? (Do we really have to site the Ashenden interview again?)

Free speech is one thing, but it's simply rude to show up at a gathering, with seemingly no prior knowledge of the topic at hand, and proceed to insist that ones own limited background should be the standard to which that gathering adheres.

I actually signed on today thinking, "Man, I can't go through last night again. I just wanted to share some observations, but it was mayhem. Maybe I need some time away." But the main reason I come here is to learn. That ceases to happen when the troll patrol goes into overdrive.

Thanks for starting this thread BroDeal. Sanity may just be restored yet.

 

[The Hitch]

you faker, that was my idea

No it wasnt

The first poster was possibly timmy loves rabo back when you were riding tricycles
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1881&page=2
Then theres this
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=5742

And my memory was right to think that luckyboy and joe papp were behind one too, exactly right

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8466

And then theres me repeatidly calling for it
here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=355999
here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=347859
here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=417489
and many other times i cant be bothered to find.

Hope that cleared things up Michael

 

[pedaling squares]

Post #21 blows. Can anyone decipher that one for me?

The current state of the forum is unsurprising. It's the winter, nothing really good is going on, there are no races of note in progress, and Armstrong is making his final international appearance. That's a recipe for retardation. Any troll who cannot make you laugh or cannot find a clever way to reel someone in deserves only to be ignored. Starve the lame, feed the resourceful, and the quality of trolls will improve. You won't get rid of them, but if anyone really wanted them gone they would ignore them altogether. An Armstrong sub-forum is not a bad idea, but that would be like a call to trolldom which is maybe a bit much to ask of our volunteer mods.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

No it wasnt

The first poster was possibly timmy loves rabo back when you were riding tricycles
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1881&page=2
Then theres this
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=5742

And my memory was right to think that luckyboy and joe papp were behind one too, exactly right

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8466

And then theres me repeatidly calling for it
here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=355999
here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=347859
here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=417489
and many other times i cant be bothered to find.

Hope that cleared things up Michael

ok I wasn't the first but I did think of it myself Sorry for calling you a faker Hitch

 

[Maxiton]

I think if anything the Clinic is clearly weighted in favor of the anti-Armstrong viewpoint. You may think that, based on available evidence, it MUST be that way to anyone with a lick of sense. But for many of the anti-Armstrong brigade, evidence is a nicety, not a requirement. If you're really interested in operating an impartial forum, enlist as moderators those who are avowedly pro-Armstrong, or else avowedly neutral. This will balance out those who have an agenda of the opposite type. On the other hand, though, if you're looking to have a forum with an anti-Armstrong agenda under the guise of fairness, just keep doing what you're doing.

As for newbies, not everyone who asks an innocent question is a troll, and calling them trolls shouldn't be permitted. If you have solid reasons (such as an IP address) for believing they are trolling, that's one thing. But if it's merely someone whose questions disrupt your mutual narrative, it isn't right to ban them or shame them. Outside of the groupthink known as the Clinic, most of the world knows LA as a great athletic hero and humanitarian. You and I may not share that view (and likely fewer people will very soon) but for right now for most newbies encountering the Clinic the first time, this is all news to them.

So my advice would be a lighter hand in moderation, not a heavier one.

Of course, you could just make the Clinic members-only. Then the circle (jerk) would be complete. Full circle.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes forum blows.
hfiha;b q;oncj;'k;'nc0u'p jdqtybleic 9nyb0fph8fh on;9;yo9up0'f UEQWXUG hq9hncxh ounbnuo 8gbyetvb n9ob nbi8bw9809ybhb 9oubt8vb8tb[x nkugdkgoip niyiyt 9uno p0uq96j jdsyg nloiyfpu.
At least I admit to be a troll,

Post #21 blows. Can anyone decipher that one for me?

Is that clearer?

 

[Chuffy]

Minimum post count to be allowed to post in the Clinic? Not sure if that would work, given the software you're using, but it would eliminate the passing trolls and reduce the need for Extreme Modding.

 

[BroDeal]

The problem is that a moderation policy that works for non-controversial subjects will not necessarily work for controversial ones.

For non-controversial sujects, like the pro cycling forum, a light touch is all that is needed. Occasionally things will flare up, and a mod will have to step in to put a stop to it. Sometimes a member will just lose it and need to be banned. But not much moderation is needed.

For controversial subjects there are two solutions. The first is a pretty much hands off approach that allows the majority to beat the crap out disrupters. It is ugly brass knuckle combat but, if nothing else, it can be a great deal of fun and yields lots of laughs about creative insults. An example are boards that use different moderation policies for their politics forums, allowing a lot of stuff that would not be tolerated in their other forums.

The second solution is just the opposite of the first. It is a heavy handed moderation policy that goes beyond tamping down flare ups to attempting to maintain a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio. This can require a *lot* of active moderation, and the moderators have to be deft enough to know when to alter a discussion and when to let an individual comment slide. Simply locking threads or making warning posts is not good enough. Lots of posts have to be deleted and lots of warnings handed out.

I think that even in calm times, when there is not a juicy piece of news, the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten really bad. A new media article causes an influx of the usual suspects, who only show up every few months to troll, and the forums goes from suck to blow.

Personally I think ya'll should begin deleting baiting posts. I have posted before that I stopped putting any effort into my posts because I got sick and tired of the endless ping pong that results from flicker, Polish, and the people who respond to them, just page after page of it in threads that should be interesting. The end result is that most of my posts are now snarky comments that should probably be deleted because they do not add anything.

I also think that posters should be judged on the totality of their posting history. One of the problems that exists at RBR is that the banhammer is used with a hair trigger. There are lots of cases where members with thousands, sometimes 10K+, have been banned for minor things even though they were valuable members of the community. We have a few members here that constantly disrupt threads, and I cannot remember a single post by them that has ever been valuable. Out of hundreds upon hundreds of posts, not a single one. That is where I think the mods should step in an put a stop to it.

A technical solution would be the ability to flag a thread so that a member can only post to it twice per day.

 

[Granville57]

A technical solution would be the ability to flag a thread so that a member can only post to it twice per day.

Now that sounds pretty interesting. I could see this in a couple of ways.
If a particular thread was flagged whereby everyone was limited to only 2 or 3 posts, it might make people think much harder about what they throw out there. Of course this just means that we might see a sudden surge in the number of threads.

But I'm not sure if that's what you were implying, Bro.
The other way I read that suggestion is that instead of banning someone outright (so as to avoid the "free speech" or "I'm new here!" tactic) mods could limit only disruptive members to limited posts on a given thread. Want to post freely? Demonstrate the ability to provide something useful. Contrary to what some might believe, our time to be on this forum is limited (really!) and it would be nice for it to be as productive as possible.

Now that I consider it more, maybe the "post limit", as applied to a troublesome member, should apply across the board and not just to a particular thread. Being followed from one thread to another last night, by the same troll, is more than I care to put up with on a regular basis.

Of course the other danger there is that we might get posts that are 10,000 characters in length (which, by the way, is the limit. Trust me. I know )

On the "sub-forum" issue, I'm not really following the need for that. Isn't that what The Clinic is by default? A sub-forum? In a forum dedicated to doping issues, it shouldn't be surprising to see an abundance of Lance threads. Maybe I'm missing something there?

 

[Ferminal]

I think if anything the Clinic is clearly weighted in favor of the anti-Armstrong viewpoint. You may think that, based on available evidence, it MUST be that way to anyone with a lick of sense. But for many of the anti-Armstrong brigade, evidence is a nicety, not a requirement. If you're really interested in operating an impartial forum, enlist as moderators those who are avowedly pro-Armstrong, or else avowedly neutral. This will balance out those who have an agenda of the opposite type. On the other hand, though, if you're looking to have a forum with an anti-Armstrong agenda under the guise of fairness, just keep doing what you're doing.

As for newbies, not everyone who asks an innocent question is a troll, and calling them trolls shouldn't be permitted. If you have solid reasons (such as an IP address) for believing they are trolling, that's one thing. But if it's merely someone whose questions disrupt your mutual narrative, it isn't right to ban them or shame them. Outside of the groupthink known as the Clinic, most of the world knows LA as a great athletic hero and humanitarian. You and I may not share that view (and likely fewer people will very soon) but for right now for most newbies encountering the Clinic the first time, this is all news to them.

So my advice would be a lighter hand in moderation, not a heavier one.

Of course, you could just make the Clinic members-only. Then the circle (jerk) would be complete. Full circle.

The problem is that if at this stage you still aren't sure if Armstrong doped, you have basically suspended all rationality - you are not fit for moderating. There are very few posters who are rationally pro-Armstrong whilst acknowledging his indiscretions.

I don't count myself "anti-Armstrong" as much as I count myself "pro-truth".

 

[Anonymous]

Personally i think whenever a new lance article is released or due to be released you should not allow any new members to join in the three days before the article or five days afterwards.

That pretty much bans all the livestrong interns in one fell swoop (whatever a fell swoop is)

 

[Boeing]

perhaps a sub forum for the 10-15 guys you tell each other how great they are all the time will help as well

 

[Francois the Postman]

We have a LA thread in the race subforum, and that appears to function well to keep certain posts and posters contained (and tone, attitude, etc). It is also the part of the site where the rules tend to be applied stricter. There are plenty of arch-rivalries in the race area too btw, but these days, the moment they start to flare up, someone tends to step in quickly.

Sure, there is more heat in the Clinic as there are more combustables kicking about . But it isn't just topic that causes that. Nor is it the newbies per se. The type of crowd that resides there, or gravitates there, and end up amongst those who really are there for genuine Clinic substance has a lot to answer for too. Sometimes people are there for a bit of both.

Maybe we could create something similar in the Clinic though. Catch-all threads for the hot potatoes with a rule that only mods are able to create new threads on these subjects for specific noteworthy events (by request or when they feel it is time to)?

Maybe we could create threads within the clinic with a special [substance only] tag? Indicating that it is a HEAVILY modded one. Post "funny" pictures, take stabs at anyone else, and you will pay the price, and we don't care how valued a member you are. Any problems, report, don't confront, or you too will suffer. Discuss the topic seriously or shut up. Mods will delete any post they think adds next to no value (and boy will you have to make sure your mods have level heads for that judgement).

I argued a while back for posting caps for new members (at the time when many more trolls slipped through the nets that are now stopping a lot more and posting 50+ posts on their first day alone). 3-5 posts per day until they had reached 50 or so, by which time we would have a fair sense how solid someone was. But given that the coders here still haven't fixed how XL images break the page structures, I can't see "complicated" solutions be in place any time soon. I fear we might have to find a solution to improve the quality and tone amongst us, within the forum that we have.

I strongly disagree with the notion that less moderation in the Clinic is the way forwards however, as suggested early on (and more clearly in a PM to me in my early modding days).

We had a period like that. It was ugly, and it actually encourages those that are purely there to disrupt to have a ball. The most persistently loud ones are guaranteed amongst the last ones left standing. And they will always attract those who just "love" that type of fight and repel those that love the middle ground. But if you happen to have an opinion that is favoured by the biggest lot, your chances to be left alone have just gone up. Mob rule, keen to hold the fort.

The irony to me is that several of the posters here were actually involved with the tone that made it unbearable for many others, some of those were genuine posters who were ripped to bits and just upped sticks or needed us to step in to point out that people had been "misidentified". Some felt they had to become louder, to "compensate". Sometimes regulars were indeed fighting the good fight, sometimes they though they were fighting the good fight, but were getting it oh so wrong. And, infuriatingly, sometimes they too were just having a fight.

Saying that, I get BroDeal's frustration all too well. I felt the same about the Forum before the Clinic was put in place. Those who want substance in the Clinic are now in the boat I was in when "the other lot" was mainly hanging out in the area that interested me most.

I would love to see a solution that works for all. Split the debaters off from the "having a bit of fun at the cost of others" crowd.

The only one I can see as effective in the long run, and frustrating in the short run, will be perceived as heavy handed and less fun by many, I think. Especially those who like having fun with "the others", or those that think that forumites are best equipped to rule themselves, and mods just get in the way.

Create two areas within the Clinic, or split it up. Moderate the subtance one, be a bit more hands off in the "have a go at it" one. Be very clear which one is which. And keep kicking the ones that are used to hang out "with their pals" in the substance one until everyone gets the message.

Some people are quick to stamp on behaviour they don't like from the other side. Whilst quietly condoning the same stuff, as long is it done by people they get on with, or is done against people or opinions that are mutually disliked. At times even egging them on.

There are very few posters here (you know who you are) who do complain about offensiveness, pictures and fluffy nonsense from "all camps". Most people only seem to have problems with posts from "one camp". A lot of people never bother to press that "fetch a mod" button, even if it would actually help everyone a lot if people were less reluctant to use it. I f a more substantial deabte is what you are after.

Firstly we would find posts that we simply don't read long before they let things spin out of hand. And secondly as it gives us clear signals who and what particularly gets on people's nerves.

I am all for finding a solution to frustrations, and I certainly think something in the Clinic could do with a kick in a more fruitful direction.

Although I suspect that the boring and long off-season (sorry Down Under) is greatly contributing to the fluff and nonsense. For months the Race area was also endless regurgitation until we all jumped on the teeniest bit of exciting new news.

A lot of regulars who are bored create their entertainment, as they will post here, even if there is little to post about, I think. And plenty of external trouble makers who know exactly when it is easiest to get a rise out of people, and how, will find the road to these boards when the time is ripe. And Lance and Landis are blossoming.

We have already managed to keep the influx of genuine trolls down a lot compared to a few months ago. We do have better tools to fight the fights worth having, and we are getting more and more of them too.

It is good to have this sort of feedback though, and I'm sure something fruitful will come out of it. And if you want to know, we are already discussing related topics on the mod-forum pages too. People having their say here helps. I would encourage everyone to jump in, actually. This is where you will influence mod attitude. The better the argument or the idea, the quicker it will be embraced. And don't hesitate to just agree or disagree with what is said, even if it is very brief. If we don't hear it, how can we know you felt that way?

When people suggest we should moderate less in the Clinic, or just let things go, or let regulars have a go at newbies more (when they think it is justified?), or something, you do (also) realize that we are in the house of site-owners who have a business to run, and who can't and won't accept that?

I get that type of argument when people are in their own house, or on a public square that no-one owns, or on a free-speech internet forum, or something. But cyclingnews.com isn't such a space.

The owners of this place are remarkably lenient and nearly almost hands-off. There are very few opinions people can have that won't remain there for all to see. It is amazing how much input we all actually have here, if you asked me.

But in the end we all are guest in someone else's house. As a consequence, I am certainly upholding some rules that I personally find a bit pointless, but I respect they matter to others. I do value them for that reason alone. Some people appear to forget where they are sometimes, it seems, and are good at focussing what suits them best, without considering how that would sit within the cyclingnews.com restraints.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Being followed from one thread to another last night, by the same troll, is more than I care to put up with on a regular basis.

As far as I can see you did not report it. Which makes reading these things very frustrating, from my pov. If true, I don't want anyone to have to put up with it. But I am not clairvoyant, nor do we read all threads. You know that we do notice reports, and usually act upon them when they are justified (publicly and behind the scenes).

If someone is harassing you, inform us. In the end it helps everyone.

 

[Granville57]

Maybe we could create threads within the clinic with a special [substance only] tag? Indicating that it is a HEAVILY modded one. Post "funny" pictures, take stabs at anyone else, and you will pay the price, and we don't care how valued a member you are. Any problems, report, don't confront, or you too will suffer. Discuss the topic seriously or shut up. Mods will delete any post they think adds next to no value (and boy will you have to make sure your mods have level heads for that judgement).



And Lance and Landis are blossoming.

Francois, that had to be close to the 10,000 character limit I mentioned previously, no?

In all seriousness though, I'd like to follow up on two points that I bolded above.
Funny pics:
I realize that you're referring to a very specific hypothetical, and maybe, in that context, in makes perfect sense. But I have wondered recently why humorous pics seem to upset some of the mods. They are often the perfect "release valve" when tensions are rising; they take no more than a moment to view and process; they are very often insanely hysterical!

So is there some reason that it is treated negatively as "childish" behavior when, often, that is kind of the point? Again, it just seems much, much less disruptive than a poorly spelled, paragraph-break-free tirade. Some mods really don't seem to care for it though.

To the other point...
Lance and Landis are blossoming.

We all know that the real drama is only just beginning. I mention this in the hope that some sort of solution to stem the madness will at least be attempted in the very near future. If indictments really do start coming down within the next few weeks...Well, I don't envy the position of the mods.

The Clinic is going to go supernova once charges become public.
(Strongly resisting urge to insert image from deep space...)

 

[Granville57]

As far as I can see you did not report it. Which makes reading these things very frustrating, from my pov. If true, I don't want anyone to have to put up with it. But I am not clairvoyant, nor do we read all threads. You know that we do notice reports, and usually act upon them when they are justified (publicly and behind the scenes).

If someone is harassing you, inform us. In the end it helps everyone.

Not to tangle the conversation here; your response came as I was putting together my previous one. But to clarify, I didn't realize it was happening until I went back to some of my posts, only then to see that they had been followed by the same member. It was late (early) at that point and I was done for the evening anyway. But your point is well taken.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Snipped in the interest of maintaining sanity.

You raise a lot of good points, but FFS if brevity is a virtue then you are Paris Hilton (she has no virtue left).
I guess I am on the side of less moderation, one man's troll is another man's .......uhm....Polish?
Obviously Polish and Flicker have an idea (I think they are capable of that) of what is going on, but I am not sure if some of the new posters do. Some guys come on here all guns blazing and eventually read the links and so on and change their tune, some are not that bright. I thing all should be welcomed, or at least put up with. If someone wants to argue a stupid point of view and I am in the mood I will go for it, if I am not in the mood I will go away, there is always that option, and someone else willing to take it up.
I think mods should be here to ensure that a certain level of discourse is maintained and nothing more. No threats, no slanderous attacks on other posters, a moderate and MTV approved level of cursing, we are good to go.
This is a forum not a classroom, it is here for a free exchange of all ideas, not just good ones.
Besides sometimes Trolling is fun.

 

[Maxiton]

The problem is that if at this stage you still aren't sure if Armstrong doped, you have basically suspended all rationality - you are not fit for moderating. There are very few posters who are rationally pro-Armstrong whilst acknowledging his indiscretions.

I don't count myself "anti-Armstrong" as much as I count myself "pro-truth".

I appreciate what you're saying. I agree that someone who is unaware of doping in cycling in general, and with Armstrong in particular, is just plain uninformed. Clueless. Basically not a cycling fan. (Probably most of LA's fans, in other words.) But there are some cycling fans, and I'm one of them, who are well aware of the doping - but don't have any particular axe to grind against Armstrong. (For what it's worth, I'm coming back to the conclusion that he was a fearsome and formidable competitor, doping notwithstanding.)

No one can deny that there are people on this forum who nurse longstanding grudges against LA - people who would run over him with their car, for example, if they could get away with it, or maybe even hurt his family members - whose hatred, in other words, is personal. Maybe they have good reason for such hatred, but I hate to see the forum driven by this group.

That's why I think it's a good idea to count among the moderators people who are Armstrong-neutral or Armstrong-pro (even while knowing about the doping - Eddy Merckx would be among this latter group; wouldn't it be cool to have him for a moderator?)

We have a LA thread in the race subforum, and that appears to function well to keep certain posts and posters contained (and tone, attitude, etc). It is also the part of the site where the rules tend to be applied stricter. There are plenty of arch-rivalries in the race area too btw, but these days, the moment they start to flare up, someone tends to step in quickly.

Sure, there is more heat in the Clinic as there are more combustables kicking about . But it isn't just topic that causes that. Nor is it the newbies per se. The type of crowd that resides there, or gravitates there, and end up amongst those who really are there for genuine Clinic substance has a lot to answer for too. Sometimes people are there for a bit of both.

Maybe we could create something similar in the Clinic though. Catch-all threads for the hot potatoes with a rule that only mods are able to create new threads on these subjects for specific noteworthy events (by request or when they feel it is time to)?

Maybe we could create threads within the clinic with a special [substance only] tag? Indicating that it is a HEAVILY modded one. Post "funny" pictures, take stabs at anyone else, and you will pay the price, and we don't care how valued a member you are. Any problems, report, don't confront, or you too will suffer. Discuss the topic seriously or shut up. Mods will delete any post they think adds next to no value (and boy will you have to make sure your mods have level heads for that judgement).

I argued a while back for posting caps for new members (at the time when many more trolls slipped through the nets that are now stopping a lot more and posting 50+ posts on their first day alone). 3-5 posts per day until they had reached 50 or so, by which time we would have a fair sense how solid someone was. But given that the coders here still haven't fixed how XL images break the page structures, I can't see "complicated" solutions be in place any time soon. I fear we might have to find a solution to improve the quality and tone amongst us, within the forum that we have.

I strongly disagree with the notion that less moderation in the Clinic is the way forwards however, as suggested early on (and more clearly in a PM to me in my early modding days).

We had a period like that. It was ugly, and it actually encourages those that are purely there to disrupt to have a ball. The most persistently loud ones are guaranteed amongst the last ones left standing. And they will always attract those who just "love" that type of fight and repel those that love the middle ground. But if you happen to have an opinion that is favoured by the biggest lot, your chances to be left alone have just gone up. Mob rule, keen to hold the fort.

The irony to me is that several of the posters here were actually involved with the tone that made it unbearable for many others, some of those were genuine posters who were ripped to bits and just upped sticks or needed us to step in to point out that people had been "misidentified". Some felt they had to become louder, to "compensate". Sometimes regulars were indeed fighting the good fight, sometimes they though they were fighting the good fight, but were getting it oh so wrong. And, infuriatingly, sometimes they too were just having a fight.
Saying that, I get BroDeal's frustration all too well. I felt the same about the Forum before the Clinic was put in place. Those who want substance in the Clinic are now in the boat I was in when "the other lot" was mainly hanging out in the area that interested me most.

I would love to see a solution that works for all. Split the debaters off from the "having a bit of fun at the cost of others" crowd.

The only one I can see as effective in the long run, and frustrating in the short run, will be perceived as heavy handed and less fun by many, I think. Especially those who like having fun with "the others", or those that think that forumites are best equipped to rule themselves, and mods just get in the way.

Create two areas within the Clinic, or split it up. Moderate the subtance one, be a bit more hands off in the "have a go at it" one. Be very clear which one is which. And keep kicking the ones that are used to hang out "with their pals" in the substance one until everyone gets the message.

Some people are quick to stamp on behaviour they don't like from the other side. Whilst quietly condoning the same stuff, as long is it done by people they get on with, or is done against people or opinions that are mutually disliked. At times even egging them on.

There are very few posters here (you know who you are) who do complain about offensiveness, pictures and fluffy nonsense from "all camps". Most people only seem to have problems with posts from "one camp". A lot of people never bother to press that "fetch a mod" button, even if it would actually help everyone a lot if people were less reluctant to use it. I f a more substantial deabte is what you are after.

Firstly we would find posts that we simply don't read long before they let things spin out of hand. And secondly as it gives us clear signals who and what particularly gets on people's nerves.

I am all for finding a solution to frustrations, and I certainly think something in the Clinic could do with a kick in a more fruitful direction.

Although I suspect that the boring and long off-season (sorry Down Under) is greatly contributing to the fluff and nonsense. For months the Race area was also endless regurgitation until we all jumped on the teeniest bit of exciting new news.

A lot of regulars who are bored create their entertainment, as they will post here, even if there is little to post about, I think. And plenty of external trouble makers who know exactly when it is easiest to get a rise out of people, and how, will find the road to these boards when the time is ripe. And Lance and Landis are blossoming.

We have already managed to keep the influx of genuine trolls down a lot compared to a few months ago. We do have better tools to fight the fights worth having, and we are getting more and more of them too.

It is good to have this sort of feedback though, and I'm sure something fruitful will come out of it. And if you want to know, we are already discussing related topics on the mod-forum pages too. People having their say here helps. I would encourage everyone to jump in, actually. This is where you will influence mod attitude. The better the argument or the idea, the quicker it will be embraced. And don't hesitate to just agree or disagree with what is said, even if it is very brief. If we don't hear it, how can we know you felt that way?

When people suggest we should moderate less in the Clinic, or just let things go, or let regulars have a go at newbies more (when they think it is justified?), or something, you do (also) realize that we are in the house of site-owners who have a business to run, and who can't and won't accept that?

<snipped for brevity>

I get what you're saying, Francois, and I appreciate your even-handedness. When I suggested lighter moderation, I guess what I meant was being less quick to ban those who are accused of being "trolls," merely because their questions challenge the prevailing cant. But based on what you're saying, I see how heavier moderation is the way to go as long as it truly is even-handed.

EDIT: And I think it's a strong idea, to split the clinic into two areas - one heavily but even-handedly moderated, the other a free-for-all.

2nd EDIT: To be clear, I don't count Polish or Flickr among the trolls (though they may do it here and there - we all do).

 

[Race Radio]

In the words of that wise Philosopher Ted Nugent.

"Freedom of speech is great, because then we know who the idiots are"

The trolls do more damage to their cause then good. Unfortunately their babble ends up killing any real discussion. I would post so much more info here, like the $hit that will happen on Sunday, but it only ends up draws the weirdos out of their caves.

 

[Anonymous]

Ssdd..........

 

[Polish]

I would post so much more info here, like the $hit that will happen on Sunday, but it only ends up draws the weirdos out of their caves.

Do you mean THIS Sunday or NEXT Sunday?
Just checking. You know, to avoid any confusion...

 

[Francois the Postman]

Funny pics:
I realize that you're referring to a very specific hypothetical, and maybe, in that context, in makes perfect sense. But I have wondered recently why humorous pics seem to upset some of the mods. They are often the perfect "release valve" when tensions are rising; they take no more than a moment to view and process; they are very often insanely hysterical!

To one pov only. they tend to be utterly insulting to the other.

They release tension for one half of the coin only. They raise tension for the other half, who will retaliate. And not only for those involved, but the onlookers who sympathise which each group too. Plus they encourage those with less ability to pinprick the right recipients to do the same when they think it is appropriate.

Crybaby, Fanboy, Hater, Lover, Douchebag, Delussional, Drunk, Immature, Imbecil, Newbie, Troll, Sniffer, Liar, Hope You Are Being Paid By The Word, ..... and that goes on and on.

ALL these pictures and words polarize and inflame. They are all debate stoppers and thread hi-jackers, as there is no "argued comeback, except more of the same insults, just aimed in the opposite direction. Not saying there always was one to begin with, but I have seen them being used on many occasions when the counter points raised were perfectly valid or honestly held.

With very few exceptions, they resolve nada. They trigger more posts, and people switch off. You appear to enjoy them, we also know there are plenty that don't. Some threads maybe are more suited for this stuff, but usually when it is a **** take thread from the start. Those are the exceptions.

Not even mentioning those who egg each other on, or try to outdo each other with a perfect put-down, and complimenting each other on a perfect slam.

And the moment you allow them for some, you cannot stop them for others without triggering the next wave of favouritism and clique nonsense. Probably quite rightly so.

To the other point...
Lance and Landis are blossoming.

We all know that the real drama is only just beginning. I mention this in the hope that some sort of solution to stem the madness will at least be attempted in the very near future. If indictments really do start coming down within the next few weeks...Well, I don't envy the position of the mods. The Clinic is going to go supernova once charges become public.

But yup. Trust me, we kinda know that flowers lead to even fruitier times. Whichever way it goes, I can't see a quiet time ahead in the Clinic.

Expect a few "this is not the day to test the patience from mods" posts when those situations arise (if is probably too optimistic). And my advise is not to test them then. Regular or not. 10,000 posts or naught.

Personally I hope that when those days are here, people will want to help us keep things on the rails, especially regulars, even if it is ever so tempting to really rub it in, or kick those smirks of someone's face.

I always hope that people can rise to the occasion. The first day of the SI article was pretty decent here. We aren't all bad.

But if folk want to be posting on the juiciest days (from their pov), folk gotta make their own minds up what is the best posting tone to pick when it gets "interesting".

We do try our best and find a balance between letting it flow for the occasion and keeping things on the rails. But we are no gods, and on busy days even less so.

On those days I can safely predict that we will communally care a wee bit less if every snap decision made was 100% correct, even if I trust all mods to try to keep a clear head through it all, and spend some time to find out exactly what is going on in a hot-spot.

I won't speak for myself, but if you knew what work was done, and how much time some of the mods here invest, voluntary, day in day out, for the pleasure for others, and how they care about the site and its posters, and try to be balanced, I think you're all rather damn lucky (with the other mods at least). Having seen the behind the scenes, they are impressive, and I have big shoes to fill.

And all of us would rather be posting, reading, and enjoying, than modding. It comes at a price.

So if folk are still keen to see how far things can be pushed when it's all hands aboard for us, don't be surprised if you find a breaking point. And don't come whining afterwards that you missed out on ace posting days.

(Strongly resisting urge to insert image from deep space...)

Yeah yeah....

There is a place and a time for everything. And there is a difference between being funny, and being funny at the expense of someone else. Once people get that distinction, you'll figure out quickly what we welcome and what we don't. You just missed a chance ;-)

 

[Francois the Postman]

I get what you're saying, Francois, and I appreciate your even-handedness. When I suggested lighter moderation, I guess what I meant was being less quick to ban those who are accused of being "trolls," merely because their questions challenge the prevailing cant.

We are never quick to ban anyone accused of trolling, unless we have very clear reasons to (behind the scenes stuff). We tend to discuss the ones we aren't sure of. Keep an eye on them. look deep into our logs and the site. Etc. We tend to form communal opinions or seek 2nd or 3rd opinions, depending on the "potato". At times some of us come from almost opposing sides. Group think, hah!

People are very very unlikely to be banned for genuinely held opinions. And banning is rarely a first step. Attitude, attitude, attitude.

But based on what you're saying, I see how heavier moderation is the way to go as long as it truly is even-handed.

EDIT: And I think it's a strong idea, to split the clinic into two areas - one heavily but even-handedly moderated, the other a free-for-all.

2nd EDIT: To be clear, I don't count Polish or Flickr among the trolls (though they may do it here and there - we all do).

I don't like the word troll. I don't mind many posters who start. I do tend to wish some of them knew when to stop, or at least pause. In all honesty I wish they were better judges, but this isn't the place to discuss individual posters, so I will leave it at a hint for wise ears.

 

[Anonymous]

My idea... Pay the mods from fining the halfwits. Take the case of the Arbiter/BPC: Give an option... $10 fine, or 2-week ban.

You guys could have made a killing while bankrupting BPC.