A suggestion about trolling...

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

ONW...

Point taken. Apologies

[Matnum PI]

Again Matt, he is not a referee. He is a moderator, who in my view isn’t doing his job properly. Worse, by your own acknowledgment, he is applying a subjective double standard to ONW. That is simply wrong.

I heard your point, passed it onto to Admin, and Admin hears your point, too. What more do you want to happen?

[njbill]

1. Lock the ONW thread. That does not penalize or censor him. He would be free to post the exact same content anywhere else. Perhaps ONW could consent to this as a peace offering to the board.

I am not asking that you guys limit him to his own thread, although I suspect there are some number of posters on the women’s board who would advocate for that. In my view, he should be free to post whatever he wants. By the same token, others who are [choose your own word] by his posts should be free to express themselves in response without getting whacked. If they are annoyed by his incessant posts, they should be free to say that.

2. Stop giving ONW special treatment. He is not the poor, picked upon kid from grade school who needs extra protection. He is fully capable of defending himself.

3. Apply an objective standard to the issuance of warnings and suspensions. No reasonable person would consider the use of the word “tedious” to be a personal attack at such a level as to warrant a warning, notwithstanding the fact that ONW reported and complained about the post.


Thank you for letting me express my opinions.

[Matnum PI]

1. Lock the ONW thread. That does not penalize or censor him. He would be free to post the exact same content anywhere else. Perhaps ONW could consent to this as a peace offering to the board.

I am not asking that you guys limit him to his own thread, although I suspect there are some number of posters on the women’s board who would advocate for that. In my view, he should be free to post whatever he wants. By the same token, others who are [choose your own word] by his posts should be free to express themselves in response without getting whacked. If they are annoyed by his incessant posts, they should be free to say that.

2. Stop giving ONW special treatment. He is not the poor, picked upon kid from grade school who needs extra protection. He is fully capable of defending himself.

3. Apply an objective standard to the issuance of warnings and suspensions. No reasonable person would consider the use of the word “tedious” to be a personal attack at such a level as to warrant a warning, notwithstanding the fact that ONW reported and complained about the post.


Thank you for letting me express my opinions.

2 and 3 are the same thing and Admin heard you. As for 1, locking the thread does penalize ONW. And I don't see the benefit.

[njbill]

Well, we are going around and around.

I don’t see no. 1 as a penalty. If a reporter writes a story and the paper runs it on page 5 as opposed to page 1, the reporter isn’t being penalized. But even if locking the ONW thread is a penalty, it is warranted here.

I have explained a couple of times why I don’t think it is a penalty. Why do you think it is?

Numbers 2 and 3 are not the same though there may be some overlap. Admin “heard me” but evidently isn’t doing anything.

You asked me what I wanted. You have rejected all of my suggestions. It doesn’t seem to me that any effort is being made to solve the problem. There seems to be no movement whatsoever on the part of you and admin.

[Brownlax]

That's intent to annoy.

Jimmy annoys people at school. Just not a popular kid. So he homeschools for a year. Then comes back. Is his coming back intent to annoy? I dunno. Maybe but doesn't strike me as provable without more information.

Interesting analogy.

Jimmy had incessant behaviors that others found annoying. Kicking the kid in front of him, making fun of another kid, making googly eyes at another, interrupting class over and over and over again...other kids get annoyed and tell him to knock it off...Jimmy goes to teacher and complains that he's "being bullied".

It continues. But then he comes up with a solution that allows him to act the same way, but now in his own very special classroom, named by him, after him.

Jimmy didn't homeschool, he just went into another classroom where others were free to join him, or not.

He told those he'd been annoying that he wouldn't come back to their classroom, would leave them alone, acknowledging that he'd been annoying, but wanted to continue to do the same behavior...but just not in their faces everyday, unless they chose to visit him.

Peace reigns.

He then decides to go back into their classroom, telling the others there that he doesn't care if he's annoying them, has every right to do so, and goes right back to asking teacher to punish others who get annoyed when he kicks someone and they say stop.

Yes, intent.
Maybe compulsion. Maybe obsession.
But that doesn't mean no intent.

+1000%

[Matnum PI]

Why do you think it is?

ONW likes to post a lot. Others think he posts too much. If he posts within his own thread, people are substantially less bothered. Thus, locking him out of that thread precludes him from being able to post a lot. That's a punishment.

Numbers 2 and 3 are not the same though there may be some overlap. Admin “heard me” but evidently isn’t doing anything.

What do you want him to do with relation to 2 and 3? It seems like the only action you want to happen is to lock ONW's thread.

[Brownlax]

Why do you think it is?

ONW likes to post a lot. Others think he posts too much. If he posts within his own thread, people are substantially less bothered. Thus, locking him out of that thread precludes him from being able to post a lot. That's a punishment.

Numbers 2 and 3 are not the same though there may be some overlap. Admin “heard me” but evidently isn’t doing anything.

What do you want him to do with relation to 2 and 3? It seems like the only action you want to happen is to lock ONW's thread.

Matt - how is it possible that almost an entire board of posters has complained about ONW and his trolling and nothing is done about it? So many people including NJBill and MDlax have detailed to you the issues involved and some have gone on to lay it out in scenarios. Yet nothing is done and ONW has free reign to do what ever he wants and annoy whoever comes into contact with him. Very frustrating. Maybe all of us "other" posters should report every post that ONW makes - maybe the admin would act then. YOu guys are taking something that we all have so much love and passion for and letting one person ruin it for everyone else.

[njbill]

Matt, if you are going to call something a “penalty” that objectively is not a penalty, there’s no point in discussing that further.

Are you saying admin is now going to implement nos. 2 and 3 differently, or is it simply going to be administered the same way as it has been? If the former, that would be good progress, although the proof will be in the pudding. If the latter, well . . . .

[Matnum PI]

Maybe all of us "other" posters should report every post that ONW makes - maybe the admin would act then.

Brown, what do you want Admin to do? Ban ONW? Put him in the penalty box? If yes, for what? So, yes. That is exactly what I'm suggesting. When he has a post that merits a penalty, report it along with an explanation of what the infringement is.

[Matnum PI]

Matt, if you are going to call something a “penalty” that objectively is not a penalty, there’s no point in discussing that further.

What penalty are you referring to?

Are you saying admin is now going to implement nos. 2 and 3 differently, or is it simply going to be administered the same way as it has been? If the former, that would be good progress, although the proof will be in the pudding. If the latter, well . . . .

Former.

[njbill]

You said locking ONW’s thread would be a “penalty.” That is what I was referring to.

[Matnum PI]

You said locking ONW’s thread would be a “penalty.” That is what I was referring to.

got it...

[MDlaxfan76]

You said locking ONW’s thread would be a “penalty.” That is what I was referring to.

got it...

I don't think it's a penalty to lock the thread. There's no longer a need for that thread, at least not according to the thread creator's stated intent on creation.

That said, sure as heck would prefer that he go back to his self-discipline of sticking to that thread. But he's stated now that he's not going to do so and he doesn't care whether his posts annoy others. And there's no rule to keep him there...

So, no need for the special thread, either.

As to annoying posts being flagged as such, I think that's going to need to happen in due course.

Just ask Admin to be skeptical of ONW's getting his nose out of joint if someone pushes back on one of his assertions.

[DMac]

You said locking ONW’s thread would be a “penalty.” That is what I was referring to.

got it...

I don't think it's a penalty to lock the thread. There's no longer a need for that thread, at least not according to the thread creator's stated intent on creation.

That said, sure as heck would prefer that he go back to his self-discipline of sticking to that thread. But he's stated now that he's not going to do so and he doesn't care whether his posts annoy others. And there's no rule to keep him there...

So, no need for the special thread, either.

As to annoying posts being flagged as such, I think that's going to need to happen in due course.

Just ask Admin to be skeptical of ONW's getting his nose out of joint if someone pushes back on one of his assertions.

I actually see locking the thread as a penalty to everyone else, not ONW. It's kind of like one designated area for a dog to crap, it's easier to avoid that area than letting him/her crap all over the yard. The only reason for ONW's very own thread is because so many found him to be incredibly annoying and irritating with his non stop bombardment of nonsense scattered all over the yard. If he's going to go back to spreading his crap all over the yard again, then absolutely shut his very own thread down, there's no need for it.

[Brownlax]

You said locking ONW’s thread would be a “penalty.” That is what I was referring to.

got it...

I don't think it's a penalty to lock the thread. There's no longer a need for that thread, at least not according to the thread creator's stated intent on creation.

That said, sure as heck would prefer that he go back to his self-discipline of sticking to that thread. But he's stated now that he's not going to do so and he doesn't care whether his posts annoy others. And there's no rule to keep him there...

So, no need for the special thread, either.

As to annoying posts being flagged as such, I think that's going to need to happen in due course.

Just ask Admin to be skeptical of ONW's getting his nose out of joint if someone pushes back on one of his assertions.

I actually see locking the thread as a penalty to everyone else, not ONW. It's kind of like one designated area for a dog to crap, it's easier to avoid that area than letting him/her crap all over the yard. The only reason for ONW's very own thread is because so many found him to be incredibly annoying and irritating with his non stop bombardment of nonsense scattered all over the yard. If he's going to go back to spreading his crap all over the yard again, then absolutely shut his very own thread down, there's no need for it.

Agreed 100% and I like the analogy as well. Keep ONW to his own thread.

[Matnum PI]

What if...

Post 9/11, literally days later and for weeks, months after, there was a post-er who would never straight out say he was pro-Al Qaeda but he was *very* pro-Iraq. If someone mentioned a victim of the 9/11 attack, he would post a picture or article about a baby or babies that were killed the US forces. Daily, he'd post pro-Iraq, "anti-war" articles. When asked, "Are you pro-Al Qaeda?", he would answer, "I'm anti-war, I'm anti-unnecessary, excessive violence." He simply side steps this poignant question. But even with this sidestep, this individual very much sympathizes with the Iraqis, sees the Americans as imperialist aggressors, and, though he won't say it explicitly, sees, at least, some level of justification for the actions of Al Qaeda, a blatant, whole-hearted, unapologetic terrorist organization. Obviously we promote free speech within our forum but, if a post-er was posting racist perspectives, would crack down on this. The same for homophobic, sexist, etc. We value free speech but not at the expense of making people of color, gays, women, etc. uncomfortable within our forum. With that said...

What do you all think would be done with this marginly pro-Al Qaeda post-er?

[44WeWantMore]

In principle, I can respect a free speech absolutist position, and would respect one here, given the availability of an ignore button. But, the mods have decided that building a harmonious environment is more important. I can respect that position as well. But once we make free speech a secondary concern, I think it is critical that moderation be a even-handed as possible (understanding that you will not please everybody).

To ban a post for an off-color joke, or lame humor, but to tolerate apologists for delighting in savage murders (if indeed the post does so; I have avoided the political threads, and detest when people drag politics into non-political threads with impunity), does not sound even-handed to me.

[Matnum PI]

...To ban a post for an off-color joke, or lame humor, but to tolerate apologists for delighting in savage murders (if indeed the post does so; I have avoided the political threads, and detest when people drag politics into non-political threads with impunity), does not sound even-handed to me.

We don't ban posts. We've moved posts/threads to Amsterdam, but we don't ban them. We also don't ban racist, sexist, homophobic posts but we don't tolerate them. We penalize those post-ers. The question is, Is ostensibly supporting Al Qaeda, Isis, Hamas fall into this same category?

[44WeWantMore]

If by racists, you mean actively supporting recent lynching of hundreds, including babies, then yes, those supporting racists and those supporting Hamas should be treated similarly.

If by homophobes, you mean actively supporting tossing homosexuals off tall buildings or dropping walls upon them, then yes, treat homophobes like Hamas supporters.

If by sexist, you mean actively supporting rape to the point of breaking pelvic bones, then yes, treat sexists like Hamas supporters.