A Plea to Long Time, Level-Headed Members Who Still Post Here

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Certainly (@charles) I will have to design it to be fair and not pile on the days unfairly. As for making the moderators more "uniform". At our last Moderator meeting I took an action to revise this: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/322-tos-violations-and-responses-plus-topic-moving-information/

I plan to make it more detailed and give examples (real life ones) so moderators can us it better. I am also going to take out some of the "greater than" suggested suspension dates and put a more clear tiered structure with specific amounts of time. The automated algorithm will be there to catch the habitual offenders and the moderators can follow the guideline and not have to "guess" (per say) or use their experience at what an appropriate number of days is for a suspension for things that are more than a 24 hour suspension (or second offense on a topic). I will make the updates public as I revise them. I would love feedback from the community !

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This topic gets dredged up like clockwork every so often, along with calls for some new, supposedly "clean" subforum to be created for people to participate free of the bigots and the morons. Those people never seem to understand that it doesn't work and that people post here for entertainment as much as "serious" discussion.

Moderation doesn't work, lack of moderation doesn't work. Accept it for what it is, you'll be much happier.

I also don't buy the idea that VJ has changed. I've been posting here in some form or other from the beginning (back when VJ was a link from a dead site called the Mysterious Brown Envelope) - and the only change was that noone used to talk about the politics, religion or any other controversial topic. Of course back then, there were only a handful of members. As the site got bigger, the membership more diverse.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"1 day to life" is hilarious and feeds right in to Rob's "arbitrary and capricious" complaint. There is a huge difference in severity between a 1 day suspension and a lifetime suspension.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Which is why you need an initial set of guidelines which are concise and unambiguous. And then, as the moderators make decisions on a case by case basis, each decision needs to be transparent to the community so we all understand how the standards are being applied.

The current set-up where moderator decisions are made in a room with the lights turned off simply won't be effective.

The new guidelines will be set up and numbered. It may be useful (per your post) that I ask the moderators to cite the "suspension code" they used in applicability to a suspension. For some types (more severe or by nature, ambiguous, I may simply require an escalation to myself for a suspension (pending I am on vacation and or the matter is urgent). I would think that a system like this would be more clear and less "why did this happen and how did you come up with that" questions being raised.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

"1 day to life" is hilarious and feeds right in to Rob's "arbitrary and capricious" complaint. There is a huge difference in severity between a 1 day suspension and a lifetime suspension.

Agree; Those types of ranges will be removed with specific "tiers" and examples and guidelines given. Repeat offenders will have the "extra time" added by virtue of the algorithm catching their multiple offenses rather than a moderator tacking on extra time subjectively using their experience. Getting the new policies correct will take some balance and help by the community and moderators but it should help with many of these concerns.

FYI, I need to get offline. I am subscribing to this thread. I will read updates via my Blackberry until I can get back online.

[Peikko 1,575]

Which is why you need an initial set of guidelines which are concise and unambiguous. And then, as the moderators make decisions on a case by case basis, each decision needs to be transparent to the community so we all understand how the standards are being applied.

The current set-up where moderator decisions are made in a room with the lights turned off simply won't be effective.

Incidentally A.J, by the proposed methodology, would you have accrued a life time suspension by now?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Which is why you need an initial set of guidelines which are concise and unambiguous. And then, as the moderators make decisions on a case by case basis, each decision needs to be transparent to the community so we all understand how the standards are being applied.

The current set-up where moderator decisions are made in a room with the lights turned off simply won't be effective.

It's starting to sound a bit like a manifesto, don't you think? What is the use of having any discussion, if you are going to arbitrarily limit what can and can not be said. Enfarce (sp) manners, but not content.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

In fairness, we can't retroactively enforce this (at least not fully). Some sort of criteria will have to be set in place if we look at old suspensions.

[Heracles 417]

I like the following rules from another site I visit every now and then. Evidently this is not covered by VJ TOS and is a large part of the friction.

------------

Trolling

"Trolling" is generally considered unacceptable on most Internet sites. Content posted by serial offenders will be removed with prejudice, and repeated offences may attract a Zero Tolerance response from the Moderators.

What is "Trolling"?

There are many sites which discuss what "trolling" is and, by extension, what a "troll" is. Some examples include:

• Internet Trolling
  
• Slashdot Trolling Phenomena
  
• Trolling the Web
  
• The Troller
  

For purposes of defining trolling, will use the following definition: A post in a thread or news comment that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense is considered "trolling".

Note: Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not necessarily trolls. - Adapted from Slashdot Trolling Phenomena.

Additionally:

The content of a "troll posting" generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a forum / thread / news story or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.

There are three reasons why people troll forums:

• to get attention;
  
• to disrupt threads; or
  
• simply to make trouble.
  

Career trollers tend for the latter two, whilst the former is the mark of the clueless newbie and should be ignored.

Adapted from Trolling the Web.

Why is "Trolling" bad?

The main goal of "trolling" is to incite an emotional or knee-jerk response from other posters. This response is typically in the form of:

• a personal attack;
  
• a repeat of previous points/posts; or
  
• an emotional outburst.
  

Such posts and the responses they generate tend to undermine the friendly atmosphere, and often result in long running feuds between (what can only be described as) factions loyal to one side or the other.

Please note: A negative comment is not automatically "trolling", nor is the expression of an honestly held personal opinion.

Anatomy of a Troll

Trolling is perhaps the hardest thing to detect with any accuracy, simply because it really is in the eye of the beholder. However, experience has shown us that trolls tend to follow set patterns of behavior. For example, trolls:

• Post to get emotional responses from other posters.
  
• Always post the same tired responses in response to the same tired topics.
  
• Never answer questions directed at them.
  
• Never justify their position.
  
• Always demanded documentary evidence from others to support their assertions, while offering none in return.
  
• Always disappear if their bluff is called.
  

From a moderator perspective, if a post serves no purpose other than to upset others, then there is a good chance that the poster is trolling. The next question we look at is whether the poster meant to troll, or not. That is where moderators will look at the poster's user history to determine what is "normal behavior" for the user.

------------

Edited May 26, 2010 by Booyah!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Like anything, much comes down to opinion. For example, I say a joke about Incas and I get suspended for a week. You guys berate Aussies and label them dirty rotten convicts (weekly) but that is funny because they are Caucasians. Do you see the quagmire here for mods?

Otto suspended me because of a picture which both he and my bud Rob claim was promoting the abuse of women. Whereas, to the rest of us that are "level-headed", it was clearly a silly pic and nothing more.

Level headed person would think that pic was silly? You've got a warped sense of reality BY. As to the Australia comments, do you dispute the facts of the matter? If so, i'd love to see some empirical evidence that proves me wrong.

I like the following rules from another site I visit every now and then. Evidently this is not covered by VJ TOS and is a large part of the friction.

Trolling

"Trolling" is generally considered unacceptable on most Internet sites. Content posted by serial offenders will be removed with prejudice, and repeated offences may attract a Zero Tolerance response from the Moderators.

What is "Trolling"?

There are many sites which discuss what "trolling" is and, by extension, what a "troll" is. Some examples include:

• Internet Trolling
  
• Slashdot Trolling Phenomena
  
• Trolling the Web
  
• The Troller
  

For purposes of defining trolling, will use the following definition: A post in a thread or news comment that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense is considered "trolling".

Note: Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not necessarily trolls. - Adapted from Slashdot Trolling Phenomena.

Additionally:

The content of a "troll posting" generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a forum / thread / news story or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.

There are three reasons why people troll forums:

• to get attention;
  
• to disrupt threads; or
  
• simply to make trouble.
  

Career trollers tend for the latter two, whilst the former is the mark of the clueless newbie and should be ignored.

Adapted from Trolling the Web.

Why is "Trolling" bad?

The main goal of "trolling" is to incite an emotional or knee-jerk response from other posters. This response is typically in the form of:

• a personal attack;
  
• a repeat of previous points/posts; or
  
• an emotional outburst.
  

Such posts and the responses they generate tend to undermine the friendly atmosphere, and often result in long running feuds between (what can only be described as) factions loyal to one side or the other.

Please note: A negative comment is not automatically "trolling", nor is the expression of an honestly held personal opinion.

Anatomy of a Troll

Trolling is perhaps the hardest thing to detect with any accuracy, simply because it really is in the eye of the beholder. However, experience has shown us that trolls tend to follow set patterns of behavior. For example, trolls:

• Post to get emotional responses from other posters.
  
• Always post the same tired responses in response to the same tired topics.
  
• Never answer questions directed at them.
  
• Never justify their position.
  
• Always demanded documentary evidence from others to support their assertions, while offering none in return.
  
• Always disappear if their bluff is called.
  

From a moderator perspective, if a post serves no purpose other than to upset others, then there is a good chance that the poster is trolling. The next question we look at is whether the poster meant to troll, or not. That is where moderators will look at the poster's user history to determine what is "normal behavior" for the user.

So is this your official announcement that you are leaving BY? Upwards of 90% of the threads you post are troll threads.

[Jenn! 918]

I know this idea has been unpopular in the past, but what about having anonymous moderator accounts? I think it goes well with a less ambiguous TOS and a formal suspension/termination structure.

[Heracles 417]

Level headed person would think that pic was silly? You've got a warped sense of reality BY. As to the Australia comments, do you dispute the facts of the matter? If so, i'd love to see some empirical evidence that proves me wrong.

So is this your official announcement that you are leaving BY? Upwards of 90% of the threads you post are troll threads.

Actually Rob, you are one of few, with coincidentally like-minded views, who is guilty as charged of the following:

* Post to get emotional responses from other posters.

* Always post the same tired responses in response to the same tired topics.

* Never answer questions directed at them.

* Never justify their position.

* Always demanded documentary evidence from others to support their assertions, while offering none in return.

* Always disappear if their bluff is called.

For example:

Rob: "BY's comments are fabricated and he talks out of his ####.".

Me: Any proof of this constant claim in every third thread Rob?

Rob: "ha ha bigot convict."

Edited May 26, 2010 by Booyah!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Get rid of the post count, all the hearts, and all the history, then it just might work!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Incidentally A.J, by the proposed methodology, would you have accrued a life time suspension by now?

Of course.

It's starting to sound a bit like a manifesto, don't you think?

?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course.

?

I didn't stutter. You and the rest of the loons want the RWN's gone. Am I wrong?