Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Should the global mods be more strict or less strict on suspending people for personal insults directed at other forum users?

more strict    
  16 (30.8%)
less strict    
  14 (26.9%)
undecided    
  3 (5.8%)
do it differently    
  11 (21.2%)
status quo    
  8 (15.4%)




Total votes: 52
« Last Modified by: freediver on: Apr 20th, 2017 at 9:16am »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Send Topic Print
banning people (Read 8569 times)
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14295
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #45 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:58am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 9:58am:
Should the global mods be more strict or less strict on suspending people for personal insults directed at other forum users?

Redmond Neck wrote on Apr 17th, 2017 at 12:25pm:
Mods would use this to advise bannings and unbannings and reasons why.

I have posted these to clarify the terminology. Some people are using the terms "suspend" and "ban" interchangeably and this is not correct.

IMO, a suspension is distinct from a ban. Suspensions are temporary. Bans are permanent.

Now, in light of that clarification, here is my view on the matter. To clarify, I voted for the more strict option.

There should be a distinction between someone who calls someone some kind of mild insult as a part of an on-topic post, and someone who posts a more substantive personal attack as their entire post. The latter does not advance the topic of discussion and should attract a suspension at the mods' discretion.

The period of suspension should initially be short, say a few days or one week. Further suspensions should be for longer terms, increasing with each suspension. Records need to be kept so the repeat offenders can be identified more easily.

Anyone who is proven to be disruptive by repeatedly posting personal attacks even after multiple suspensions should be upgraded to a ban after receiving one warning that this will occur. The warning would most likely be given when they are suspended for an infraction. This needs to be consistent, but could be as few as two or three (such as a "three strikes" rule).

Anyone whose sole contribution to the forum is personal attacks (with none of their posts making an attempt to address the topic) should receive an immediate ban after 20 posts or some other similar threshold of posts without any substantive contribution, regardless of warning history.

Anyone who is spamming should be banned immediately, without a warning, and all of their posts and threads deleted. The forum does not allow the posting of links for new accounts, but one kind of spam that is sometimes seen is the copying and pasting of text that is obviously posted from elsewhere and is offtopic. A simple internet search can identify such spam. This is posted for completeness; the forum rules are not well defined on this topic.

All bans should include a ban by IP to make it harder for them to create a sockpuppet account so they can continue their disruption.

One final point, these suggested rules are still very lax compared to the rules on some sites. BigFooty (an AFL discussion forum) has very strict rules that sees their mods handing out bans very liberally. Any infraction that would attract a warning or suspension here would attract an immediate ban there. The forum is a popular forum so such bans do not make a material impact on the traffic volume.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 31602
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #46 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 10:08am
 
What really scares me are the 'Undecided' people. The 'Don't know' people. I don't know how these people manage to stand up straight without a backbone.

Invertebrate people who can't decide which side to butter their toast should be put out of their misery.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 32638
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #47 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 10:35am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:33am:
AiA wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 1:43am:
In addition to "real names and porn" Aussie, how about adding your chronic baiting of certain members here with your innuendos and blatant lies to your list of offences? Then, of course, with Aussie, one has to consider what a "real name" is:  Aussie has claimed 4-5 first names as "his" as well as at least two surnames ... Furthermore, Aussie has labelled art, in a museum, "filth" and "porn." So, whatever you do, don't let Aussie have a say in anything and please do not "start a Thread in Relationships" as it would give him the opportunity to abuse and threaten members even more than he does now.


Aussie? - consider yourself busted!  Grin


Feedback is not the place for personal attacks like that Herbert, so there will be no response from me here.

A very clear trend is emerging, undeniably.   As at the time of this post, 28 Members want there to be a change (either more or less strict or done differently.)

28
want change, Effendi, only 1 supports the status quo.

Of that 28, 39.29% want more strict, 32.14% want it done differently,  28.57% want less strict.

Not a landslide, but a very obvious preference for more strict and ~ that things be done differently.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4857
Canberra, ACT.
Re: banning people
Reply #48 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 3:40pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 10:08am:
What really scares me are the 'Undecided' people. The 'Don't know' people. I don't know how these people manage to stand up straight without a backbone.

Invertebrate people who can't decide which side to butter their toast should be put out of their misery.


LOL I voted "more strict".  Wink

I thought somebody mentioned having a thread somewhere announcing who was "suspended" and for how long, that ONLY GMods (and Freediver) can use?

Some GMods do PM you with the reason and for how long you have been suspended but .... you don't have that information until AFTER you can log in again.  A great idea but rather useless.

Searching your last 10 posts, once you can log in again, is pretty useless too.  I have mostly received a suspension for calling Aussie "Santa Clause" or "The Jolly Green Giant" (he'll claim both as his REAL NAME), believe me!!!  Grin

C'Est la Vie.  Roll Eyes


Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 32638
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #49 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm
 
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4857
Canberra, ACT.
Re: banning people
Reply #50 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:43pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.



WHY don't you start your own Political Forum, Arsie, and get everyone from here to join up.  Then you can be Hitler and Lord it over all and sundry?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10752
ACT
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #51 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:53pm
 
Neferti wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:43pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.



WHY don't you start your own Political Forum, Arsie, and get everyone from here to join up.  Then you can be Hitler and Lord it over all and sundry?


Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 11425
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #52 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:02pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 18th, 2017 at 7:06pm:
I've noted on other forums with strict controls, the quality of posts and discussions are greatly improved.


Well, durrrr ....  Grin Grin Grin


Yes, you'd think it wouldn't have to be said... Or even need a thread to discuss it...

But there's no guarantee the quality of posts on this forum would improve.

Not sure this forum would survive stricter controls... Many posters here seem to be posting angst...

You'd have to say that it's more about the limbic system here than the cerebral !

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 37797
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #53 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:19pm
 
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.


The majority have indicated a preference for either one of those two Aussie, but not necessarily both. I anticipated the "do it differently" vote would mostly be from people who don't really want it more or less strict.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14722
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #54 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:24pm
 
In the last hour a poster had accused 3 people of being excited by sex between a grown man and a 9 year old girl,  and accused one person of being investigated over child porn. 

Surly that's ban worthy?
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 33067
Here
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #55 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:31pm
 
I am somewhere between status quo and do it differently.

There is so little information about who is banned and why that an intelligent assessment is difficult, we seem to have had examples of people who have been banned and others let off based on their political persuasion.

All in all it would be better is nobody needed to be banned.

Banning in my view should be fair, transparent and little used.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 31602
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #56 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:39pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:02pm:
Yes, you'd think it wouldn't have to be said... Or even need a thread to discuss it...

But there's no guarantee the quality of posts on this forum would improve.


It would guarantee that the small gang of graffiti artists wouldn't keep arriving in threads to harass, heckle, insult-and-abuse, and generally vandalise and derail threads in which people are making a real effort to express an opinion on serious issues.



NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:02pm:
Not sure this forum would survive stricter controls... Many posters here seem to be posting angst...

You'd have to say that it's more about the limbic system here than the cerebral !


Grin Grin Grin

The primary structures within the limbic system include the amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia, and cingulate gyrus. The amygdala is the emotion center of the brain, while the hippocampus plays an essential role in the formation of new memories about past experiences.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 37797
I like fish
Re: banning people
Reply #57 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:40pm
 
We don't make it transparent for privacy and to stop it becoming a dramafest with people campaigning to get certain members banned.

I am open to the idea of making it public. Perhaps that's another poll idea.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 32638
Gender: male
Re: banning people
Reply #58 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 8:25am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 4:07pm:
Just looking at the figures as at the time of this Post, Effendi ~ A total of 33 Members have voted, and only 3 made a vote consistent with leaving things as they are.  A whopping 91.91% of your members who have voted so far want change, and the great majority want things to be more strict (the Rules enforced more strictly) and the method of bannings made different to the current system.

Quite a dramatic outcome so far, Effendi.


The majority have indicated a preference for either one of those two Aussie, but not necessarily both. I anticipated the "do it differently" vote would mostly be from people who don't really want it more or less strict.


How did you come to that conclusion.

In any event, the pattern is clear, so what will emerge now from your Thread and your Poll?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Peace \/ man

Posts: 12108
Northern NSW
Re: banning people
Reply #59 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 8:39am
 
How about you make it so people can change their vote FD?
Back to top
 

nu ninda an ezzateni watar ma ekuteni
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Send Topic Print