New Members

[newalaan2]

have you seen Holding Room sub-forum?

Yes I have. 'Holding' means there for a period of time before being put elsewhere [that's my understanding of surfrests intention behind it?]. Flaming Forum was a permanent area where threads and posts deposited (or indeed started )there, remained there. So you could resurrect and find thread/posts easily. It also encourages to keep momentum on the thread going as you know where it is and where it will be when you come back to find it. Also from the name its quite clear what is going to be going on in there, so anyone who doesn't care for in-fighting, arguing and off topic litter/rubbish can see and avoid.

[Moses]

Yes I have. 'Holding' means there for a period of time before being put elsewhere [that's my understanding of surfrests intention behind it?]. Flaming Forum was a permanent area where threads and posts deposited (or indeed started )there, remained there. So you could resurrect and find thread/posts easily. It also encourages to keep momentum on the thread going as you know where it is and where it will be when you come back to find it. Also from the name its quite clear what is going to be going on in there, so anyone who doesn't care for in-fighting, arguing and off topic litter/rubbish can see and avoid.

No. It is sub-forum what is invisible for searchengines and to visitors without login. Moving to there is permanent. May be I will change name soon to "Trash can" or to "Serpentarium".

[newalaan2]

No. It is sub-forum what is invisible for searchengines and to visitors without login. Moving to there is permanent. May be I will change name soon to "Trash can" or to "Serpentarium".

No please DON'T do that. Name it Flaming Forum. One side effect of the flaming forum previously was that it DID attract big numbers, some of those 'numbers' did then check out and post on the main forum, it actually helped overall to get momentum going. Some who said they hated the infighting still went there to 'look' like the proverbial train crash scene where many don't really want to look, but do anyway. The thing is, they had no comeback to complain about anything there as they knew they would be told...well don't click-on! But they still looked!

If it attracts traffic for whatever reason that can't really be bad can it?

[colmx]

I find it incredulous that the "rules" do not allow the removal of posts that threaten physical violence or ill will upon a person.

Surely they should be modified to stop this kind of threat. There is a level of decorum and respect that these forums should have and its not difficult to see when someone has stepped over the line

We all know that BBB is a nutcase, but a harmless one at that. On the other hand other members have shown themselves as being quite volatile.... and nobody knows if they are really a Chihuahua or a Rottweiler

On another forum I use the moderators use a rule "what would you do if someone said that about your grandmother/father" when deciding whether to moderate

So:
=>Your granny is a pig pink fat wrinkly elephant = Probably true and just banter, therefore allowed

=>Your Grandfather is a bald haggis eating maniac from Scotland = probably true and just banter, therefore allowed
=> I hate your granny, she's a stupid c*nt = possibly true and just banter, therefore allowed, but poster may be asked to tone down their language

On the other hand:
=>If I ever see your granny I will punch her, unless someone puts her in a shallow grave first = this kind of comment is inappropriate and offensive and should be removed

=>Your grandfather was a leader in the scouts and he was probably interfering with all the younger scouts = this kind of comment is inappropriate and offensive and should be removed

=>Your grandmother is a fucking retard = this kind of comment is socially unacceptable and offensive and should be removed

You remove the content of the offending post, but leave a moderator comment to not ruin the flow of the thread.
The offender gets a yellow card or infraction - which lasts 7-30 days. If they offend again during the yellow card period they get a red card and a 30 day ban.

On their return from the 30 day ban, they may have 2 more infractions (yellow/Red) before being permanently banned

Its not rocket science... in fact the forum software probably has this built in already?

[scottish-guy]

That is exactly what I mean about "having policies" - but apparently that is not the kind of "idea" which is welcome.

It's one thing having "rules" but you must also have a policy (which is clear and agreed upon by all the moderators), on how to enforce those rules and on the sanctions which apply when these rules are deemed to have been broken.

The problem at the moment seems to be that, with an apparent lack of any policy, the moderators are each interpreting the rules in a different way, confused about how many it takes to reach a decision, and totally clueless about what to do once they eventually agree that 'something must be done'.

The reason it (largely) worked with jinks ("no capital J please") was that he was not trying to moderate by committee as seems to be happening now - he just called it as he found it.

There is nothing inherently wrong in having 2,3, or even 4 mods - but only if there is a policy for them to follow and be consistent upon.

So my "idea" is that the 3 of them get together, decide what constitutes a 'punishable' offence - as Colmx has outlined above, decide on the disciplinary pathway, stick to it, and apply it to new and old members alike - with new members under active moderation for their first 2 weeks

[Moses]

You cannot run the Board by committee

I can. And I do it over 15 years on another forums. Wait a little bit. We are working about policies "on the go".

[arsenal]

It was moved Newalaan2 because Scottish behaved the way Scottish always does. If the shit that came your way yesterday comes his then he can contact A447 or Christian. As can NIrish for that matter. They're both on my ignore list and will remain there for the duration of my period as moderator. And they are free to whinge all day on my decision and to whomsoever they choose to whinge to. And whinge I have no doubt they will. Long and loud. The time I spent yesterday deleting posts about you by samebb amounted to over 3 hours. None of the mods fully understands the software here and so we didn't know how to temporarily ban him. So constant deletion was the only option.

[scottish-guy]

...Scottish behaved the way Scottish always does... As can NIrish for that matter. ... they are free to whinge all day on my decision and to whomsoever they choose to whinge to. And whinge I have no doubt they will. Long and loud... None of the mods fully understands the software here and so we didn't know how to temporarily ban him.

The "constant deletion" worked so well that I was able to still read the allegations whilst the Head Judge was busy setting up another thread to ask members how to deal with the problem. That's a fact which is simply undeniable.

That fact, together with the revelation that none of the 3 Mods understands the software points to a failure of policy and process. Again, it's self-evident but if pointing it out makes me the bad guy then so be it. I would have hoped that pointing it out might encourage the individuals to work to improve the situation - as no doubt the same scenario of trolls posting "shit" about members will re-occur in the near future.

I do not dislike Len in any way and I have had some good laughs over the years as well as lots of argument - but taking criticism is not his strong suit. He says he spent 3 hours working on the board, and I don't doubt it, but that's the job he he was happy to take and on occasion that necessity will arise.

The petulancy displayed in announcing that myself and NIrish are to be "ignored" and a virtual incitement to trolls to post "shit" about us which he then will not delete - is breathtaking and ill-advised. Moderators are supposed to be even-handed. Even if you totally loathe certain people or if certain other people are your bosom buddies, you must be seen to apply the rules equally and fairly to all.

I hope that he will reflect on his actions and output over the last 24 hours and instead of posting a tirade of misplaced self-justification, he will maybe just bring himself to admit that it could all have been better handled.

[Moses]

The "constant deletion" worked so well that I was able to still read the allegations whilst the Head Judge was busy setting up another thread to ask members how to deal with the problem. That's a fact which is simply undeniable.

So, how many time you click "red triangle" to call moderator? Let me guess: no one time.

- On this street, I was robbed three times and the police still have not found the villain!
- Did you report to the police?
- No

[scottish-guy]

So, how many time you click "red triangle" to call moderator? Let me guess: no one time.

Moses, the first I knew of the post which libeled Newalaan was when I saw Arsenal's subsequent thread entitled NEW MEMBERS (i.e. this thread)

On reading the thread I learned that an unidentified poster had posted "repulsive" content about Newalaan.

Being repulsive myself, my curiosity was understandably aroused - so I went to read the content (guessing it would be on his trip report thread), saw it was indeed grossly offensive and had been posted by SameBB.

Kindly bear in mind that, as I've made clear, this "repulsive content" was already known about, had already been dealt with (yet it was still there!) and that I'd effectively been directed to it by a Moderator.

So, given that the Moderator/s already knew about the post from SameBB, had decided it was "repulsive", but allowed it to remain - why would I click the "red triangle", as

a) It was already known about
b) It had allegedly been dealt with