We've got a major problem...

Trollheart · 08-17-2013, 05:35 PM

Having jsut watched Match of the Day, can I try to frame this in a football context?

Let's say we're all in a team. They're doing okay; not great, mid-table maybe, possibly sliding closer to the relegation zone. (This is soccer, American members use your own interpretations. It amounts to the same basic thing) Manager calls all the team --- subs and all --- in and asks for ideas. Lots of guys have them. A player, let's call him Joe, is known for not having played much and not been involved in many matches. He's never been on a winning side. He thinks the team sucks. He's simmering.

When asked, he says he has some great talents if only someone would give him a chance on the pitch. Boss says ok, put your money where your mouth is. You're on next Saturday. Joe says okay, BUT I get to choose the team, I set the strategy, I'll accept no red or yellow cards or any decisions against me. Oh yeah, and I want the whole board changed to people I want running the club. THEN I'll play, and you'll see us win the Premiership.

What do you think happens? Think he gets to play, or that he's back on the bench, preferably on the transfer list?

Not terribly accurate I know, but it gives you an idea of the frustration we feel when one member --- and one only --- constantly puts down everything we do, nixes all ideas and suggestions, laughs at our efforts to improve the place while doing absolutely nothing himself.

You're playing week in week out with this guy. How would you feel? Honestly. And let me add, the whole team has explained the situation to him many many times but he just won't listen, so don't say you'd sit down and talk to him. It's been tried.

And in a broader sense, how good do you think having him in the team is for morale, and therefore performance?

Tore, you HAVE to hold sop responsible for this: he's the only one who has created the drama. People didn't jump on him right away; that came later after we had got tired of listening to his endless rants, sulks and refusal to face any sort of fact, while inventing his own to suit his agenda.

And again I realise that had the other thread stayed open, we would all be in there rather than here. So what is the answer? If people ignore sop what's that going to achieve? Nobody's gonna agree with him just to keep the peace, and he's already demonstrated that he's the type of person who will browbeat, or try to, anyone who gives him an inch. So he's not getting an inch. Or a centimetre, if you prefer. There's no reason on this good green Earth why the behaviour of people who have hitherto been innocent of any drama should be called into question, and his behaviour brushed under the carpet, the blame shifted and the whole situation skewed to make him the victim.

Guybrush · 08-17-2013, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I would agree with this. We shouldn't be arguing, but instead should be just handing out punishments for whatever crimes.
But the thread was meant to be a discussion between everyone. How will the mods, who are also members, make their positions known on the issue we're trying to solve, if we're not allowed to point them out?

Of course you're allowed to point them out! I do think that admitting the difficulties you have with moderating undermines your authority, but on the other hand it is better to talk about problems so that we can come up with solutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Regarding your troll thing... let me use my own analogy.

If a person walks into a store and steals an item, then someone yells "shop lifter!" and he gets caught, are they wrong for doing that? Are they socially stigmatizing the shop lifter? After all, they did shop lift. Like you said, it's down to the personal responsibility of those taking an action. Others should not be penalized for enforcing a rule by calling a goat a goat, rather than a hair 4-legged mammal with horns.

I don't think your analogy is that great in that it's not illegal to call someone shop lifter, but it is "illegal" to troll here. But regardless, using your analogy, if shouting "'shop lifter!" is going to cause others in the shop to attack that person violently and trigger a fight, then it would be better to simply send a message to the potentially omnipresent police force so they can sort it out quietly. There's less chance of innocent bystanders getting hurt or traumatized and justice still gets served.

In other words, people should report!

Guybrush · 08-17-2013, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Tore, you HAVE to hold sop responsible for this: he's the only one who has created the drama. People didn't jump on him right away; that came later after we had got tired of listening to his endless rants, sulks and refusal to face any sort of fact, while inventing his own to suit his agenda.

And again I realise that had the other thread stayed open, we would all be in there rather than here. So what is the answer? If people ignore sop what's that going to achieve? Nobody's gonna agree with him just to keep the peace, and he's already demonstrated that he's the type of person who will browbeat, or try to, anyone who gives him an inch. So he's not getting an inch. Or a centimetre, if you prefer. There's no reason on this good green Earth why the behaviour of people who have hitherto been innocent of any drama should be called into question, and his behaviour brushed under the carpet, the blame shifted and the whole situation skewed to make him the victim.

I am not suggesting we brush disruptive elements under the carpet. But dealing with them - or getting rid of them - is a job for moderators, not members. If we heckle anyone off the forums, we should own up to heckling. It's that simple.

What sort of system of justice do you get if you hold people responsible for other people's actions? It's like the Dubais thread over again - putting someone in jail because someone else raped them. It's like a guy getting punished because someone stole his wallet. The guy who got his wallet stolen may be Hitler, but it's still about the principle of the thing. Without principles, we have no standards. Without standards, we have no moral integrity. Without integrity, you won't earn the respect you need in order to efficiently enforce rules.

In other words, I am not defending you-know-who as much as I am trying to point out that we have to take responsibility for what we choose to say and do.

Freebase Dali · 08-17-2013, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Of course you're allowed to point them out! I do think that admitting the difficulties you have with moderating undermines your authority, but on the other hand it is better to talk about problems so that we can come up with solutions.

Agreed, but the trump card is that moderators still have the authority whether or not it's undermined in some people's perspectives. And when we come up with solutions, we'll still have the authority to ensure those solutions are enforced. Sometimes letting people know that we're all humans with the same desires and limitations is better than making them think the authority is some unreasonable, unquestionable force outside the realm of collaboration. Especially when the mods here are very much members here who also have to live in the same environment.

Quote:

I don't think your analogy is that great in that it's not illegal to call someone shop lifter, but it is "illegal" to troll here. But regardless, using your analogy, if shouting "'shop lifter!" is going to cause others in the shop to attack that person violently and trigger a fight, then it would be better to simply send a message to the potentially omnipresent police force so they can sort it out quietly. There's less chance of innocent bystanders getting hurt or traumatized and justice still gets served.

In other words, people should report!

It's not illegal to call someone out for trolling on these boards. It's "illegal" to troll. Just as it's not illegal to call out someone for shoplifting, but it's illegal to shoplift. I'm not sure why you didn't make that connection.

And regarding the other bit, while I would also recommend reporting, which most people do, in threads where the discussion actually involves the behavior, it isn't outrageous for people to let another person know what they think is going on, as it is relevant to the issue being discussed.

Trollheart · 08-17-2013, 05:51 PM

I just don't get it. Are you now saying that because we responded to nasty behaviour by sop that we should be held responsible, but not that he should be held to account for his behaviour?? To echo your own question, what kind of justice system is that?

And did you read my football analogy? What do you think of the situation when placed in that context?

Also, this thread has pulled mods' attention away from approving my latest post in "Classic Albums I have never heard" and... and .... it's ....
SLAYER!

Paul Smeenus · 08-17-2013, 05:53 PM

Two points

1. I agree with GB, to the final syllable
2. The mods, all of them, have my earnest respect. I've been a moderator of another type of board (that also used vBulletin,) under times of member unrest, it is an absurdly difficult, thankless job and an impossible balancing act, and I think they're doing a great job. And I couldn't give a microparticle of a rubbery FUCK if anyone wants to call me a brown noser, I've been there and I'm really remembering those days right now. They're doing a fantastic job.

Guybrush · 08-17-2013, 06:00 PM

TH, I think you-know-who has to face the consequences of his actions for which he is accountable just like we all do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Agreed, but the trump card is that moderators still have the authority whether or not it's undermined in some people's perspectives. And when we come up with solutions, we'll still have the authority to ensure those solutions are enforced.

Yes, indeed. My point is really just that the perception of the moderators influences how people behave. If they are respected or even feared, their presence alone in a thread could discourage rule breaking, just like you probably wouldn't want to do anything illegal under the gaze of a police officer.

Having more respect for your authority as moderators may improve behaviour around here in general.

Quote:

It's not illegal to call someone out for trolling on these boards. It's "illegal" to troll. Just as it's not illegal to call out someone for shoplifting, but it's illegal to shoplift. I'm not sure why you didn't make that connection.

In my own example, I specifically used myself trolling Hitler as an example of an action that I have to take responsibility for. Trolling, not calling Hitler a troll. I assumed you were making an analogy that you felt would be relevant in pretty much the exact same way.

Freebase Dali · 08-17-2013, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Yes, indeed. My point is really just that the perception of the moderators influences how people behave. If they are respected or even feared, their presence alone in a thread could discourage rule breaking, just like you probably wouldn't want to do anything illegal under the gaze of a police officer.

Having more respect for your authority as moderators may improve behaviour around here in general.

The thing is, we have no problem with the ability to enforce the rules. It's that when we do, the complaints go from one arena to another. The issue is balancing this, not simply taking a hard line... not if we want a community that can feel free enough to discuss things comfortably, but also be personally responsible for not taking things too far. And I think this is not in the hands of solely the moderators, but the community in general, which you seem to be absolving any responsibility for.

But ultimately, this is beside the point. The original discussion presented here was about the community itself being prone to more drama than music. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that removing the source of drama is well within our abilities and should be well within our priorities. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be black and white, across the board. It just needs to be contextual, and we just need to balance decisions carefully, not haphazardly in an effort to become "feared", at the cost of expression.

Quote:

In my own example, I specifically used myself trolling Hitler as an example of an action that I have to take responsibility for. Trolling, not calling Hitler a troll. I assumed you were making an analogy that you felt would be relevant in pretty much the exact same way.

When your analogy is placed against Sopsych trolling, it reinforces my point, which is why I was unsure what you were actually trying to say.

sopsych · 08-17-2013, 06:21 PM

I too have seen the red text used for public notices, and I like it. Editing out inappropriate content would encourage third parties to police themselves and sometimes would reduce the need for deletions and the drama they can cause. Also, I like tore's suggestion of gradual implementation. I think changes should take place slowly, with formal punishment (infractions and bans) not possible for a while. Things could even be rolled out one sub-forum at a time, and perhaps at first some editing should only happen if members Report misbehavior. I don't want more bans around here.

The hard part is deciding to how to de-gray the gray. I think images are the first place to start. It should no longer be okay to post images to insult or mock members. Including posting pictures of trolls. In addition, it should not be okay to publicly accuse someone of trolling (in that case, the red text should be like "Please report that, with evidence, to a moderator instead of saying it here"). Another suggestion is to delete posts that publicly celebrate others' attacking words

An even harder part is that moderators would have to refrain from doing any of those bad things themselves. Otherwise, credibility would be damaged and people would disregard the rules.

I've been waiting to hear other ideas re post #355.

Guybrush · 08-17-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

The thing is, we have no problem with the ability to enforce the rules. It's that when we do, the complaints go from one arena to another. The issue is balancing this, not simply taking a hard line... not if we want a community that can feel free enough to discuss things comfortably, but also be personally responsible for not taking things too far. And I think this is not in the hands of solely the moderators, but the community in general, which you seem to be absolving any responsibility for.

But ultimately, this is beside the point. The original discussion presented here was about the community itself being prone to more drama than music. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that removing the source of drama is well within our abilities and should be well within our priorities. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be black and white, across the board. It just needs to be contextual, and we just need to balance decisions carefully, not haphazardly in an effort to become "feared".

Generally speaking, I think the best way to get good behaviour is by encouraging good behaviour. I have the naive, positive belief that if people are allowed to become closer as friends, they will be friendlier. Maybe members meeting up in real life or hanging out on plug.dj or chatting with eachother over Skype would make people friendlier. I think it's too bad MB can't do more to facilitate that (ex. have a skype/plug.dj-ish chatroom as part of the site). If you have a simple karma system that allows you to +1 members for good posts, perhaps that could contribute to things getting friendlier.

People behave in part according to the environment they find themselves in and in this simple forum solution, there are not that many ways of promoting good behaviour besides moderation. I know I'm repeating myself here and sorry if you've heard it before, but I think a change of environment could lead to an environment with less need for strict moderation in order to achieve general niceness.

As MB is now, more power to more decisive and stricter mods seem to be the most feasible way of getting a more friendly environment in my opinion, but I wish there were better ways.

edit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I too have seen the red text used for public notices, and I like it. Editing out inappropriate content would encourage third parties to police themselves and sometimes would reduce the need for deletions and the drama they can cause. Also, I like Tore's suggestion of gradual implementation. I think changes should take place slowly, with formal punishment (infractions and bans) not possible for a while. I don't want more bans around here.

The hard part is deciding to how to de-gray the gray. I think images are the first place to start. It should no longer be okay to post images to insult or mock members. Including posting pictures of trolls. In addition, it should not be okay to publicly accuse someone of trolling (in that case, the red text should be like "Please report that, with evidence, to a moderator instead of saying it here"). Another suggestion is to delete posts that publicly celebrate others' attacking words

An even harder part is that moderators would have to refrain from doing any of those bad things themselves. Otherwise, credibility would be damaged and people would disregard the rules.

I've been waiting to hear other ideas.

It may be social suicide

But I generally agree with this.

08-17-2013, 05:35 PM	#391 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,970	Having jsut watched Match of the Day, can I try to frame this in a football context? Let's say we're all in a team. They're doing okay; not great, mid-table maybe, possibly sliding closer to the relegation zone. (This is soccer, American members use your own interpretations. It amounts to the same basic thing) Manager calls all the team --- subs and all --- in and asks for ideas. Lots of guys have them. A player, let's call him Joe, is known for not having played much and not been involved in many matches. He's never been on a winning side. He thinks the team sucks. He's simmering. When asked, he says he has some great talents if only someone would give him a chance on the pitch. Boss says ok, put your money where your mouth is. You're on next Saturday. Joe says okay, BUT I get to choose the team, I set the strategy, I'll accept no red or yellow cards or any decisions against me. Oh yeah, and I want the whole board changed to people I want running the club. THEN I'll play, and you'll see us win the Premiership. What do you think happens? Think he gets to play, or that he's back on the bench, preferably on the transfer list? Not terribly accurate I know, but it gives you an idea of the frustration we feel when one member --- and one only --- constantly puts down everything we do, nixes all ideas and suggestions, laughs at our efforts to improve the place while doing absolutely nothing himself. You're playing week in week out with this guy. How would you feel? Honestly. And let me add, the whole team has explained the situation to him many many times but he just won't listen, so don't say you'd sit down and talk to him. It's been tried. And in a broader sense, how good do you think having him in the team is for morale, and therefore performance? Tore, you HAVE to hold sop responsible for this: he's the only one who has created the drama. People didn't jump on him right away; that came later after we had got tired of listening to his endless rants, sulks and refusal to face any sort of fact, while inventing his own to suit his agenda. And again I realise that had the other thread stayed open, we would all be in there rather than here. So what is the answer? If people ignore sop what's that going to achieve? Nobody's gonna agree with him just to keep the peace, and he's already demonstrated that he's the type of person who will browbeat, or try to, anyone who gives him an inch. So he's not getting an inch. Or a centimetre, if you prefer. There's no reason on this good green Earth why the behaviour of people who have hitherto been innocent of any drama should be called into question, and his behaviour brushed under the carpet, the blame shifted and the whole situation skewed to make him the victim. __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

08-17-2013, 05:51 PM	#395 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,970	I just don't get it. Are you now saying that because we responded to nasty behaviour by sop that we should be held responsible, but not that he should be held to account for his behaviour?? To echo your own question, what kind of justice system is that? And did you read my football analogy? What do you think of the situation when placed in that context? Also, this thread has pulled mods' attention away from approving my latest post in "Classic Albums I have never heard" and... and .... it's .... SLAYER! __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

08-17-2013, 06:21 PM	#399 (permalink)
sopsych Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: indoors Posts: 722	I too have seen the red text used for public notices, and I like it. Editing out inappropriate content would encourage third parties to police themselves and sometimes would reduce the need for deletions and the drama they can cause. Also, I like tore's suggestion of gradual implementation. I think changes should take place slowly, with formal punishment (infractions and bans) not possible for a while. Things could even be rolled out one sub-forum at a time, and perhaps at first some editing should only happen if members Report misbehavior. I don't want more bans around here. The hard part is deciding to how to de-gray the gray. I think images are the first place to start. It should no longer be okay to post images to insult or mock members. Including posting pictures of trolls. In addition, it should not be okay to publicly accuse someone of trolling (in that case, the red text should be like "Please report that, with evidence, to a moderator instead of saying it here"). Another suggestion is to delete posts that publicly celebrate others' attacking words An even harder part is that moderators would have to refrain from doing any of those bad things themselves. Otherwise, credibility would be damaged and people would disregard the rules. I've been waiting to hear other ideas re post #355. __________________ If you have ideas or feedback for the site, visit The Musicbanter Improvement Thread. Last edited by sopsych; 08-17-2013 at 06:32 PM.