I'm too scared to gripe. I think the mods have not only been watching me more they have been talking about me. Talking a lot about me.
This has been my opinion on the subject on pretty much any discussion forum I've been a part of, moderator or not: I think that, just as in real life communities, there are people you are going to find obnoxious, that you are thrown together with and that break no rules that can get them removed from your presence. Whether it's a neighbor or a co-worker or whatever. I think people have somewhat unrealistic ideas of what can be filtered out, even online. I'm sure that in some cases, it's crystal clear to an individual that someone else should be "filtered out" (removed so they can't post) but with so many individuals, what is clear to one or some is not going to be clear to others. I think individuals have to have some kind of self-filter...skimming past people they know annoy them or reading them without caring. Just as in the work place or in your neighborhood you can walk away or, if not, listen without caring. We all have this ability in real life...while the Internet as a medium gives us some powers that we don't have in real life, I don't really think it gives us the power to literally delete annoyance or annoyers. In this case, I think the net mirrors life: we have rules or laws and there is a police force, but the police can only intervene when actual laws or rules are broken. Having the police intervene because you find someone obnoxious creates the same problems online as in real life (problems of favouritism, mob rule, etc) just with less serious consequences. To some, the "less serious consequences" make it perfectly reasonable to get caught in the problems of policing annoyance that isn't rule-breaking...or, in other words, deviating from an objective code of conduct on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion, it's still not a good idea. Especially since we all can filter on an individual level. That's just my viewpoint. I have no input on the overarching policy of the forum, nor do I seek any, so it's not a "moderator viewpoint." It's just what I, personally, believe.
When I see a thread derailed, for whatever reason, my solution is to simply ignore the flow of the thread and make a post close to the root topic and hope others follow. I should note that it's rarely successful, however.
if we could ban for catching feelings on the net this place would be dead. seriously, its a forum - use the ignore, move on - let people breathe. for all the people that bash the 'trolls' and complain non-stop etc they are the ones 'feeding' them by keeping their threads alive n kicking. if it really is THAT much of an issue, some self-restraint might help?! myself, i have no issues with anyone posting whatever. to be honest, the overboard homerism which often infests the board is often a lot harder to digest for me - but then again i really dont care enough to talk about it at any length. if its nothing im interested in or agree with, meh.... next thread! it's pretty weak things have gotten personal around here imo.
I come away from this poll thinking at least 40% of the posters pretty much like things the way they are, and 60% want some kind of change. The majority would be happy with a more aggressive banning policy provided a super majority of people approved of a particular ban/suspension. (Keep in mind I used the term "ban", which is stronger than "suspension." You'd probably see an even more popular support for an increase in suspensions.) If I were running this site, I'd probably look at being more aggressive with bans/suspensions, purely from a self-interest perspective. Given the pole numbers, it's hard to see how such a policy could lead to an exodus from the site (always the biggest fear when considering more aggressive mod activity), but it'd probably draw back in some posters who've gone away because of the changing tenor of the site. More people posting = more content = more viewers = big bags of money.
Its 50% to 43%. Also, the spread within the ban via vote is worth noting. Furthermore, with a vote, how would you ensure that you'd even have 51% or 75% or 95% "of the forum" vote. Who even gets to vote? I can get people to sign-up and vote in my favor and then the losing side can cry me a river about voter fraud. A vote isn't a bad idea, but its massively impractical. If you don't post on the soccer forum or here, I don't know who you are, but I can vote on wether or not you get to stay? I think a forum vote would work for picking a moderator and similar positions, but not for a ban. Community standards are what they are and the moderators and administrators should hold us to them. If someone is pissing me off, I can report them with that handy little button at the bottom of every post or I can ignore them. I shouldn't get to vote on their continued participation on this site.
I think the poll is ok for getting a "sense" of the forum. There's hardly enough votes to consider it a sense of the whole forum, and it's questionable if a bare simple majority (which I don't see, just a plurality against) should be the deciding factor. It's obvious to me from the way mook made the poll that he doesn't particularly see a simple majority being the deciding factor either, since he has super majority answers like 75% and 95% in the poll. A couple years ago, we banned a poster because several others swore to me that he was driving off posters and that they'd been in contact with those posters and they'd come back if we did the ban. We did, and nothing changed. It was a FAIL in every regard. In fact, it pissed off many posters who were loyal to the site.
That was a totally different situation because it was a certain former staff member lying to you in order to handle their own personal issue. In the Blazers forum, the mods seem like they refuse to support any ban, even if it's somebody that was already banned that comes back under another name.
We should have a poll about banning the Blazers from losing all season. Also banning injuries. I'd be in favor of banning both.
