Suspension & Banning

[Max]

Mods,

Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
marginal posters here.

Or at least that's what I think it is.

Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
two?

You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
measure for the Mods to deal with. And in many circumstances, banning
seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.

So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
could it be introduced?

Max

[OldMan]

On May 4, 11:46 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Mods,
>
> Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
> forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
> the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
> thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> marginal posters here.
>
> Or at least that's what I think it is.
>
> Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> two?

We do have the ability to prevent a member from posting.

>
> You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
> that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
> measure for the Mods to deal with. And in many circumstances, banning
> seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.
>
> So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
> could it be introduced?

GoogleGroups allows us to ban members, prevent them from posting, or
moderate them (requiring us to approve every post), or just allow them
to freely post. All new members are moderated until their first post
and then generally either banned or allowed to freely post. While
there is certainly nothing technically that would prevent us from
lifting a persons ability to post for a period of time, off the top of
my head I am not sure how effective it would be, nor how we would
determine when to suspend and for how long.

I am at least interested in hearing what others might have to say
about it.

>
> Max

[Brock]

On May 6, 10:04 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 11:46 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> > two?
>
> We do have the ability to prevent a member from posting.
>

> I am at least interested in hearing what others might have to say
> about it.

Hi OldMan,

I think Max makes a good point:

> I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> marginal posters here.

I think group owners, moderators and members could develop a policy
for a judicious use of this kind of sanction. I would be interested
in more specifics, too.

Regards,

Brock

[kenandkids]

i'll support this as soon as you are no longer a mod, you turd.

[Max]

OM, my thoughts in practice would be to allow Mods (only) an option to
suspend a poster, but only on a majority vote basis (obviously). I
understand the existing tensions with the mods about who is who etc,
but if the theist / atheist Mod mix is 50/50, then any vote resulting
in a suspension, clearly would be as a result of the posters
behaviours, not on their stated beliefs or non beliefs.

I would be more than satisfied with the judgement of the Mods, and
with other members offering their opinions to the mix for
deliberation.

It's a bit like a yellow card / red card thing.

If a poster (like e_space) simply spam trolls and doesn't enter into
any meaningful debate, then to me, a simple suspension to e_space as
an example, means a recognition to all, that this behaviour won't be
tolerated. If it's a week on the bench, and then he/she comes back to
the forum and posts 'some' meaningful debate (with or without
profanity, satire or whatever), then all's good.

If the errant behaviour continues unabated again, then another longer
suspension period or banning could be enforced.

And personally, I trust the Mods to be entirely philosophically
unbiased in their calls too. If I wasn't confident of this, I would be
calling for new Mods.

Anyway, if others have ideas or wish to tweak the idea further, (or
dismiss it entirely) then that's AOK with me.

Max

[dead kennedy]

sent to the sin bin for fucking swearing then cunt?

[trog69]

I think group owners, moderators and members could develop a policy
for a judicious use of this kind of sanction.  I would be interested
in more specifics, too.

Yeah, you know Brocko is just wringing his hands in gleeful anticipation of sending us filthy mouthed atheists to the penalty box for a couple of millennia. That way, he and his believing buddies can have some nice, agreeable discussions, without all that reason and logic crapola.

--
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

[Brock]

On May 6, 10:56 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> OM, my thoughts in practice would be to allow Mods (only) an option to
> suspend a poster, but only on a majority vote basis (obviously). I
> understand the existing tensions with the mods about who is who etc,
> but if the theist / atheist Mod mix is 50/50, then any vote resulting
> in a suspension, clearly would be as a result of the posters
> behaviours, not on their stated beliefs or non beliefs.
>
> I would be more than satisfied with the judgement of the Mods, and
> with other members offering their opinions to the mix for
> deliberation.
>
> It's a bit like a yellow card / red card thing.
>
> If a poster (like e_space) simply spam trolls and doesn't enter into
> any meaningful debate, then to me, a simple suspension to e_space as
> an example, means a recognition to all, that this behaviour won't be
> tolerated. If it's a week on the bench, and then he/she comes back to
> the forum and posts 'some' meaningful debate (with or without
> profanity, satire or whatever), then all's good.
>
> If the errant behaviour continues unabated again, then another longer
> suspension period or banning could be enforced.
>
> And personally, I trust the Mods to be entirely philosophically
> unbiased in their calls too. If I wasn't confident of this, I would be
> calling for new Mods.
>
> Anyway, if others have ideas or wish to tweak the idea further, (or
> dismiss it entirely) then that's AOK with me.

Your comments seem reasonable and well thought out to me, thanks for
sharing them, Max! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Max]

No problem. I suppose it's just a waiting game now for the other Mods
to contribute and then a decision is made from whatever quorum is
needed. I also assume a reasonable period needs to elapse to allow AvC
members to comment too.

Max

[Max]

Troggy & DK..,

Swearing on it's own is not justification for suspension or banning.

Shit, I'd be well and truly benched for 40 weeks outta 52 given my
form. It's more about expanding the scope of sanctions available to
Mods to make the forum a more workable and less disruptive experience
(without the whole process becoming overly bureaucratic). The
additional sanctions can punish 'trolling spammers' or 'spamming
trolls', who adversely manipulate the free speech mandate of this
group, with a choice of punishment that more appropriately reflects
the disruptive behaviour.

These types (spamming trolls) use forums only as a mechanism to
interupt or spoil with the majority (if not all posts) unrelated to on
topic material. My submission does not differentiate posters
philosophical bent as this is about behavioural issues, not a topical
issue, in which they do not provide bone fide debating material or
argument.

When arbiters, judges or tribunals hear a case, they have a range of
penalties to reflect the nature of the 'offence'. To have only two
sanctions i.e bugger off for good or stick around and say what you
like OT or not, really limits the efficacy of the Mods work.

I think that some posters can & do actively spam, but not in the
traditional way. They are spamming, simply by their serial trolling
posts which ad zip to the group.

This is why a suspension, based on a majority vote of Mods (so long as
there is a 50/50 mod mix) is a viable approach in my opinion.

I'm not big on GG suicide myself, so when I start on an adversary with
some heavy expletives, I'm not of the mind that, that alone should get
me sin binned. If I did nothing other than swear at people without
offering a debating position or told only one group that they are
voiders or incapable of understanding their own position (yet refusing
to expand on it themselves) then they have a case to answer.

And to have a range of sanctions for the Mods to implement (or not) is
more equitable for all, in my ever so humble opinion :)

Cheers

Max

[Max]

Damn.....just noticed something. I'm not big on IT thingamebobs, but
I've been using an old email address that died over 12 months ago. I
just noticed that a number of direct emails have been sent to me, but
obviously, they've been lost in the ether. I've just changed my email
address to one that works. Clever me eh?

Max

[trog69]

Troggy & DK..,

Swearing on it's own is not justification for suspension or banning.

Obviously, you haven't been keeping up with things, 'cause Ol' Brocky has let it be known that he is quite amenable to deleting posts due to swearing; All he's waiting on is the OK from his peers here.

[Assent]

Thanks Troggy

 

Oh, is that right. Thanks for the heads up. Even if this was the case, he’d always be outvoted everytime anyway, based on the current Mod mix. And even if the vote went with anyone’s belief or non belief, it’d still be a draw, so no call would need to be made, I suppose.

 

It’s easy enough just to say that swearing does’t count anyway, so that’d keep him in his box I would think, but if you & others aren’t convinced, fair enough, leave it be.

 

Cheers

 

Max

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.19/2099 - Release Date: 05/06/09 17:58:00

[Max]

Thanks Troggy. Shit I'm a dill when it comes to this IT thingy. I
changed my email address & I got an email from you so I responded,
then got another 6 or so, then realised that these emails come every
time someone posts. I think I've stopped that now, but now I'm back to
'Go' again. Wrong place & all that, but how do I allow certain posters
to email me or more appropriately, how do I freeze out some others?

Sorry about the GG 101 for Maxie. Anyone?

Cheers

Max

[Trance Gemini]

On May 5, 2:46 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Mods,
>
> Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
> forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
> the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
> thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> marginal posters here.

That's deliberate. It's because we don't interfere in anyone's right
to express themselves, assholes or not.

You and others have the freedom to ignore the trolls.

They will likely go away if you do.

I agree that's not always easy and I get sucked in constantly as well.

However, that is the solution.

>
> Or at least that's what I think it is.
>
> Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> two?
>
> You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
> that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
> measure for the Mods to deal with.

Please provide specific and detailed criteria for determining exactly
what "trolling shit" is other than stuff which annoys you personally.

Then provide specific and detailed criteria for what "punishment"
should be applied to what "trolling shit" item.

> And in many circumstances, banning
> seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.
>
> So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
> could it be introduced?

Frankly I'm surprised to see this coming from you Max.

>
> Max

[Trance Gemini]

On May 6, 10:56 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> OM, my thoughts in practice would be to allow Mods (only) an option to
> suspend a poster, but only on a majority vote basis (obviously). I
> understand the existing tensions with the mods about who is who etc,
> but if the theist / atheist Mod mix is 50/50, then any vote resulting
> in a suspension, clearly would be as a result of the posters
> behaviours, not on their stated beliefs or non beliefs.

1. There is no tension amongst the Mods.
2. We disagree with and object to Brocks recent behavior, he has been
censured, and asked to provide an assurance that he will not make the
same mistake again and will be unbiased in his actions and he has
stated he will.
3. Why do you assume that a 50/50 mix is required for an unbiased
decision to be made?
4. Are you implying that the current atheist majority is biased? If
so, please prove that this is the case.

>
> I would be more than satisfied with the judgement of the Mods, and
> with other members offering their opinions to the mix for
> deliberation.

Please provide the detailed and specific criteria you wish to have the
Mods use to determine whether someone should be "punished" for
something and the exact punishment associated with each specific crime
and how we are to determine that said crime has occurred.

>
> It's a bit like a yellow card / red card thing.
>
> If a poster (like e_space) simply spam trolls and doesn't enter into
> any meaningful debate, then to me, a simple suspension to e_space as
> an example, means a recognition to all, that this behaviour won't be
> tolerated. If it's a week on the bench, and then he/she comes back to
> the forum and posts 'some' meaningful debate (with or without
> profanity, satire or whatever), then all's good.

Please define "spam troll" specifically, how one determines whether
someone is a spam troll, how one judges specifically which punishment
should be assigned to each specific criteria used to identify a spam
troll.

Please provide a specific and detailed definition of "meaningful"
debate so that the Mods can determine how to judge what constitutes
"meaningful" debate and what doesn't.

>
> If the errant behaviour continues unabated again, then another longer
> suspension period or banning could be enforced.
>
> And personally, I trust the Mods to be entirely philosophically
> unbiased in their calls too. If I wasn't confident of this, I would be
> calling for new Mods.

Then why are calling for a 50/50 mix?

This would seem to imply that you think the current Mods are biased.

[Max]

Clearly you're reading something in this suggestion that is not
there.

1. The 50/50 Mod mix (which I'm assuming it is what it is now) would
mean that if a poster is suspended on a majority vote, then it would
have to be done without any possible bias being 'alleged'. by anyone.
Not that there is bias, simply that an individual Mod cannot be
accused of bias by any member, who may dissent to the decision.

Example:

Max trolls for 50 successive posts saying that e_space is a voider &
further Max presents no arguments or offers debate

Max is reported to the Mods for the spam trolling behaviour

4 Mods deliberate (2 theists / 2 atheists) If there are more, I'm
unaware of it.

Decision: Vote 3 to 1 to suspend for 1 week

Max is benched for a week

NB: If dissenting atheist members say it is a biased decision, it
cannot hold true as at least one atheist would have to vote to
suspend. The reverse would apply if a theist/spiritualist was
suspended. i.e. at least 1 theist must have voted to suspend.

In both cases the Mods cannot be charged with any bias.

If it's a two all issue, as I said, then no call is made for
suspension.

2. The issue I raised that there is some tension in the Mod ranks is
only based on reading the posts between them i.e the two camps. I'm
only calling it the way I see it. If it's all rosey between Dev &
Brock & Dev & OM, then fine, I'll stand corrected. I got it wrong. But
I can read and interpret the language and realtionship between the
Mods. I also mentioned this issue only as the platform for the
rationale behind the process's ability to negate bias. No other
reason.

But clearly I rankled you and that was not my intention.

So fuck it.....it's too fuckin' hard anyway. I'll take me bat & ball &
go home.

Leave it as is.

Max

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. We disagree with and object to Brocks recent behavior, he has been
> censured,

To be clear, if there has been disagreement with my position
(dictionary.com entries 3 & 4 for censure), there has been not been a
formal or official reprimand from a representative body (entry 2).

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> So fuck it.....it's too fuckin' hard anyway. I'll take me bat & ball &
> go home.
>
> Leave it as is.

*shrug* ... I thought it was a worthwhile suggestion, Max, and that
your reasoning was thoughtful and made sense.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Clearly you're reading something in this suggestion that is not
there.

1. The 50/50 Mod mix (which I'm assuming it is what it is now)

It's not.

 

would
mean that if a poster is suspended on a majority vote, then it would
have to be done without any possible bias being 'alleged'. by anyone.

That's not what you said though and we've been maliciously attacked by morally bankrupt theists who are blatantly lying about our so-called bias. 

So I for one am feeling a little defensive when people imply such things as you did, intentional or not.

 

Not that there is bias, simply that an individual Mod cannot be
accused of bias by any member, who may dissent to the decision.

When they have in the past it's been a blatant lie and we should stop catering to pathological liars.

 

Example:

Max trolls for 50 successive posts saying that e_space is a voider &
further Max presents no arguments or offers debate

Max is reported to the Mods for the spam trolling behaviour

4 Mods deliberate (2 theists / 2 atheists) If there are more, I'm
unaware of it.

Decision: Vote 3 to 1 to suspend for 1 week

Max is benched for a week

NB: If dissenting atheist members say it is a biased decision, it
cannot hold true as at least one atheist would have to vote to
suspend. The reverse would apply if a theist/spiritualist was
suspended. i.e. at least 1 theist must have voted to suspend.

You are introducing a concept to this Mod Board which I and others object strongly to.

This is a Mod Board and none of us represent a "side" here.

There is no such thing as an Atheist or Theist Mod.

We are expected to be OBJECTIVE Mods and NOT represent a side.

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Trance Gemini]

You were censured in the thread criticizing your actions in regard to KK.

Perhaps OM should send you an official email so you actually get what the criticism was and what is expected of you since you seem to have missed the entire point of that conversation.

You were legitimately criticized for NOT responding to KKs question and instead abusing your position as Mod to push your own agenda regarding restrictions of free speech.

This is WHY OM asked you if you could make unbiased decisions even though you disagreed with the policy.

I call that a censure.

If you don't then I request OM immediately send you an email clearly stating how you violated AvC policy and clearly instructing you not to do so in the future.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You were censured in the thread criticizing your actions in regard to KK.

To be clear, if there has been disagreement with my position

(dictionary.com entries 3 & 4 for censure), there has been not been a
formal or official reprimand from a representative body (entry 2).

> Perhaps OM should send you an official email so you actually get what the

> criticism was and what is expected of you since you seem to have missed the
> entire point of that conversation.

Not at all. I took OM's comments for what they were, but it it would
be a mistake to misunderstand the use of censure to indicate the
dictionary.com entry #2.

> I call that a censure.

Certainly censure is appropriate if the usage is dictionary.com
entries 3 or 4; of course you disagreed with my position. But my
point is that it would be inaccurate to conclude dictionary.com entry
#2.

> If you don't then I request OM immediately send you an email clearly stating
> how you violated AvC policy and clearly instructing you not to do so in the
> future.

Perhaps you possibly confuse a statement of position by a member,
moderator or group owner with a formal or official reprimand from a
representative body.

Regards,

Brock

[Max]

Trance

1. I honestly thought that the number of Mods was 4. If it's an odd
number, it wouldn't work anyway, so as I said, fuck it....give it a
miss.
2. This was an honest & genuine attempt at offering a suggestion to
the group that imo, may have provided an alternative to the limited
options (2) you have now, particuarly with a view of evolving the
methodology to handle spamming trolls such as e_space. If you choose
to retain the status quo, that's OK with me. But to discuss options is
not a federal offence and to be accused of accusing Mods of
bias....well that just pisses me off.
3. If you had collegiately asked me if my intent was to assert that
Mods are in fact biased, I would have clarified the position for you.
As you know I would have & did after being dressed down!
4. I posted this suggestion with deference and endeavoured to write
the material in way to not offend anyone. I clearly indicated that it
is the Mods decision, so in future, I'll show greater care and
consideration if I think to address the Mods forum again.

And I'll tell you one other thing Trance.......you know how I operate,
but you still managed to give me a fuckin' serve like I'm some nasty
prick lookin' to undermine you and your integrity......like I've
demonstrated that type of behaviour in over two years I've been on
this thing...

I know you've had it bad recently, but fuck me......

Max

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Trance

1. I honestly thought that the number of Mods was 4. If it's an odd
number, it wouldn't work anyway, so as I said, fuck it....give it a
miss.
2. This was an honest & genuine attempt at offering a suggestion to
the group that imo, may have provided an alternative to the limited
options (2) you have now, particuarly with a view of evolving the
methodology to handle spamming trolls such as e_space. If you choose
to retain the status quo, that's OK with me. But to discuss options is
not a federal offence and to be accused of accusing Mods of
bias....well that just pisses me off.

I'm defensive about it. I agree. And if I came off as being unusually harsh it was unintentional and I apologize.

However, your approach of considering the Mod Board as some sort of atheist / theist divide is exactly what these theists who are lying about us are doing and that's what set me off.

I would simply suggest you give that and the following some thought.

It's why I'm upset about your remarks so as a friend I hope that you will take these comments in stride and the intent is simply to explain not attack you.

If you read our Mod policy and the thread by OM outlining Mod responsibilities you will see that we are very deliberately not accepting this concept of an atheist / theist divide.

From the start theists were brought on board for no other reason than to cater to the pathological liars (not you) in order to refute the perception of bias not the existence of bias since none occurred.

And up to that point we were begging for theists to join the Mod Board and they consistently refused so their lack of representation had nothing to do with the atheists but the fact that they had no interest.

I take responsibility for instigating that process and instigating the process which established Rapp and OM as owners to further refute that incorrect perception which has been created by pathological liars.

So, the point I'm trying to make is that the percentage of atheists to theists is irrelevant to whether the board is objective (which you seem to understand because you said that was what you meant) and that we as board actually reject that notion and do not operate that way.

What we will do, is make a decision and if that decision goes against an atheist, it will be announced by an atheist. If that decision goes against a theist, it will be announced by theist.

The only purpose for this is to take the wind out of the wind bags.

The only one who is not really fitting into this mold is Brock.

The rest of the Board is quite united and works together quite well, irrespective of Dev's jabs against OM.

 

3. If you had collegiately asked me if my intent was to assert that
Mods are in fact biased, I would have clarified the position for you.
As you know I would have & did after being dressed down!
4. I posted this suggestion with deference and endeavoured to write
the material in way to not offend anyone. I clearly indicated that it
is the Mods decision, so in future, I'll show greater care and
consideration if I think to address the Mods forum again.

You don't need to show greater care just be your usual honest self. 

Just because I get pissed doesn't mean you shouldn't say what's on your mind.

Seriously Max, I don't hold grudges.

If someone deliberately malicious targets me I fight back but I can handle disagreements amongst friends without a problem and I hope that you can too.

 

And I'll tell you one other thing Trance.......you know how I operate,
but you still managed to give me a fuckin' serve like I'm some nasty
prick lookin' to undermine you and your integrity......like I've
demonstrated that type of behaviour in over two years I've been on
this thing...

Regarding the issue of speech, I agree I was harsh and again I didn't need to be as harsh as I was but I've been fighting this out with Brock recently (on this board) so I'm sure you can understand how frustrating *that* was since he plays stupid games and will never engage honestly on the issue.

At any rate, that's not your fault.

The point I'm making by asking you to define terms is that the entire process of defining terms like "meaningful" debate and "spam" trolls is full of pitfalls and is a sliding slope to censorship. 

This, of course, is what Brock and other sanctimonious, and morally bankrupt individuals would like to do here.

This would give them the control they want to censor free speech and shut the opposition up.

People like Nicole can then lie pathologically about how their feelings were hurt because Trance told her to run home to Mummy and Trance can now sit in the corner and be forced to shut up for a week while Nicole sanctimoniously carries on calling her a fucking bitch because she was mean to her and hurt her feelings.

Brock will be oblivious to the fucking bitch comments because after all Trance brought in on herself by being a big meanie and daring to disagree with Nicole or be conned by her childish and immature temper tantrums.

This is Brock, XNun, Nicole and others' wet dream.

I know you've had it bad recently,

Thanks for understanding that. (not being sarcastic).

[Trance Gemini]

Just to clarify one more point.

Max. I understand your concern and why you brought it here.

Our site is being disrupted and in my opinion quite deliberately.

However, we need to brainstorm other solutions that won't involve changing the fundamental nature of our site.

I would love to hear ideas from people that involved strategy on how to deal with these trolls.

Maybe we can come up with a way of getting rid of them using strategy while maintaining the nature of our site.

Any ideas?

[Walt]

When I was in school, they tried other, less severe punishments before
escalating to suspension. Maybe we should make e_space eat Ontario
poutine from Havey's? Or repeat "humankind is not the measure of all
things" one thousand times? A video on YouTube would be required as
proof that the contrition was actually carried out.

On May 5, 2:46 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

When I was in school, they tried other, less severe punishments before
escalating to suspension.  

Well we don't really have the means to give them an after school detention ...

 

Maybe we should make e_space eat Ontario
poutine from Havey's?

He/she is not likely to fall for that given their location which shall remain highly classified and secret.

But if that were not the case, this is the first brilliant suggestion I've heard from you.

Congratulations, sort of.

 

 Or repeat "humankind is not the measure of all
things" one thousand times?  A video on YouTube would be required as
proof that the contrition was actually carried out.

How about a posting. One thousand lines of AvC Rocks in Ascii art?

 

On May 5, 2:46 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Mods,
>
> Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
> forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
> the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
> thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> marginal posters here.
>
> Or at least that's what I think it is.
>
> Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> two?
>
> You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
> that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
> measure for the Mods to deal with. And in many circumstances, banning
> seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.
>
> So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
> could it be introduced?
>
> Max

[Answer_42]

On May 6, 10:21 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think group owners, moderators and members could develop a policy
> for a judicious use of this kind of sanction.  I would be interested
> in more specifics, too.

If Max presents us with the kinds of specifics you graciously provided
when asked about ten times to do so regarding your stance on vitriolic
language, then we will go nowhere fast.
_______________________________
No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you
and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear,
greed, imagination and poetry.
-- Edgar Allan Poe

[Answer_42]

Of course you did, you dishonest biased prick, you revel in
punishment.

[Answer_42]

On May 5, 2:46 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
> forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
> the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
> thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> marginal posters here.
>
> Or at least that's what I think it is.
>
> Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> two?
>
> You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
> that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
> measure for the Mods to deal with. And in many circumstances, banning
> seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.
>
> So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
> could it be introduced?

I do not think that this would lead to a healthy group.
Can you imagine the extra work for the mods, to start with?
Because as soon as such a policy is in place, there will be suspension
requests by every little small minded person who imagines that they
have been abused in some way...

Also, imagine how the relations would be between "returned from being
suspended"/"about to be suspended"/"not suspended" posters...
I believe it would increase, not decrease, the traffic of useless
posts.

So, either someone can participate is some relatively meaningful
manner to the debate, or they refuse to debate, in which case they
should be banned.

[trog69]

From the start theists were brought on board for no other reason than to cater to the pathological liars (not you) in order to refute the perception of bias not the existence of bias since none occurred.

Now do you get it, mate? They refuse to cater to your pathologically lying ass. Comprende?

I'm kidding...Ouch! Stop stop it, TG, I said I was kidding...OW!

[kenandkids]

SUSPENDED!!




lmao

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

From the start theists were brought on board for no other reason than to cater to the pathological liars (not you) in order to refute the perception of bias not the existence of bias since none occurred.

Now do you get it, mate? They refuse to cater to your pathologically lying ass. Comprende?

I'm kidding...Ouch! Stop stop it, TG, I said I was kidding...OW!

LMAO!

[Max]

Fair enough, but finally, I know what your concerns are BUT, the even
number or 50/50 mix voting idea was ONLY about ensuring that the Mods
cannot be accused of bias as explained earlier. There was never any
intent on my behalf implied or explicitly stated to the contrary. i.e.
this was part of my follow up post to OM.

"but if the theist / atheist Mod mix is 50/50, then any vote resulting
in a suspension, clearly would be as a result of the posters

behaviours, not on their stated beliefs or non beliefs." (i.e. no bias
can be attributed to Mods)

& later in the same post

"And personally, I trust the Mods to be entirely philosophically
unbiased in their calls too. If I wasn't confident of this, I would be

calling for new Mods." (Stating unoquivically that I trust the Mods to
be unbiased)

So how you arrive at the notion (when it's me writing it) that I
reckon the Mods are biased is beyond me? Further as the Mod panel has
more atheists than theists (which again I didn't know, but of course
you didn't know, that I didn't know) and I'm an atheist, where's the
sense of me inferring a Mod bias when it's likely that if bias were
there, (DISCLAIMER - WHICH THERE ISN"T) it'd be a theist who would get
the chop. The only sense in this is that it's about your concerns of
not allowing anyone the scope to accuse Mods of bias, (DISCLAIMER - OF
WHICH THERE ARE NONE) hence the rationale behind the 50/50, majority
vote suggestion (DISCLAIMER - OF WHICH I WAS UNAWARE OF THE ACTUAL
MIX)

I don't hold grudges either and I also say what I say with honest
intent.

So imo, just shut this thread. If there are other approaches to deal
with non participatory dickheads & trolling spammers, fine, but
logically, the only thing you're got is all or nothing anyway. I mean,
what else can you do, unless you restrict access to the group in some
other variant to full banning. Think about it, you've parked your car
and haven't put money in the meter & you get pinged. If it were this
group it'd be crucifixion or that's OK madam, we can't do nuffin', so
if you don't want to pay, well we can't do nuffin' about it!!!

And finally....all this angst about whether it's right or wrong to
suspend someone doesn't gel with me. We all read most threads & have a
handle on what's going on. You know & I know what the intent behind
e_space & xnun etc is. Well fuck it, you're fuckin'
moderators.....moderate!

You've got the mandate to act......no-one accuses you mob of
bias......if a troll appears with an agenda........put 'em on the
bench for a week. No-one said this fucking place is a democracy. I
don't recall voting for Mods in the forum, so if someone is disrupting
the group, get together once every blue moon and serve it up to 'em
for a week. It's not like we've just shot their fucking kids as a
penalty.

For shit's sake.

But hey, if you guys need to committee it some more, and some more & a
bit more and get some feedback and ensure that it's 100% OK with
everyone & no-one can accuse you of bias (for a weeks suspension) then
I understand.

Cheers

Max






My mistake was my understanding that their were 4 Mods.

On May 7, 9:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify one more point.
> Max. I understand your concern and why you brought it here.
>
> Our site is being disrupted and in my opinion quite deliberately.
>
> However, we need to brainstorm other solutions that won't involve changing
> the fundamental nature of our site.
>
> I would love to hear ideas from people that involved strategy on how to deal
> with these trolls.
>
> Maybe we can come up with a way of getting rid of them using strategy while
> maintaining the nature of our site.
>
> Any ideas?
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Max]

Agreed....then ban the bastards without the fuckin' hoo har & angst.

Max

[Trance Gemini]

I agree that we need to deal with it and can't ignore it anymore.

For that reason I'm really glad you brought it up.

[philosophy]

On May 7, 11:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify one more point.
> Max. I understand your concern and why you brought it here.
>
> Our site is being disrupted and in my opinion quite deliberately.
>
> However, we need to brainstorm other solutions that won't involve changing
> the fundamental nature of our site.
>
> I would love to hear ideas from people that involved strategy on how to deal
> with these trolls.

My two cents worth is it is up to the posters, not the moderators. If
we posters were not to respond in any way (and I have to take my own
advice here, because it is sometimes hard to do), then the only people
they would have to speak to is among themselves. Sooner or later they
would turn on each other, because that is the inherent nature of the
beast.
I can see where Max is coming from, but bless him, he is an idealist,
and this board is far from idealistic.

>
> Maybe we can come up with a way of getting rid of them using strategy while
> maintaining the nature of our site.
>
> Any ideas?
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Max]

Ta phil. Me an idealist.....maybe....but hey.....so far everyone who
has said "you know, if you don't respond to the trolls, they'll just
go away" actually does respond to 'em just about in every thread, so
that argument just sucks.

To keep yourself in check is impossible in my opinion, if someone
intercedes on a discussion you are having with someone else
(essentially their butting in with trolling commentary & without
debating merit) I challenge almost anyone to not get stuck back in.

And besides, I ain't turning my cheek a la scriptual requirements. I'm
responding in kind or with other more subtle ways if appropriate.

BUT, if they are here to only disrupt, why in fuck should I (or anyone
else) tolerate that.

Bench 'em. No idealism there phil. That's called doing something.

Max

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM, philosophy <smwi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

On May 7, 11:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify one more point.
> Max. I understand your concern and why you brought it here.
>
> Our site is being disrupted and in my opinion quite deliberately.
>
> However, we need to brainstorm other solutions that won't involve changing
> the fundamental nature of our site.
>
> I would love to hear ideas from people that involved strategy on how to deal
> with these trolls.

My two cents worth is it is up to the posters, not the moderators. If
we posters were not to respond in any way (and I have to take my  own
advice here, because it is sometimes hard to do), then the only people
they would have to speak to is among themselves. Sooner or later they
would turn on each other, because that is the inherent nature of the
beast.
I can see where Max is coming from, but bless him, he is an idealist,
and this board is far from idealistic.

I don't disagree Philosophy, the problem is that it's just not working.

And as Max indicates it's becoming a huge problem.

[Max]

Or the vote must be unanimous.....no accusation of bias could be
levelled by anyone in that situation.

Max

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

On May 8, 9:11 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 11:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Just to clarify one more point.
> > > Max. I understand your concern and why you brought it here.
>
> > > Our site is being disrupted and in my opinion quite deliberately.
>
> > > However, we need to brainstorm other solutions that won't involve
> > changing
> > > the fundamental nature of our site.
>
> > > I would love to hear ideas from people that involved strategy on how to
> > deal
> > > with these trolls.
> > My two cents worth is it is up to the posters, not the moderators. If
> > we posters were not to respond in any way (and I have to take my  own
> > advice here, because it is sometimes hard to do), then the only people
> > they would have to speak to is among themselves. Sooner or later they
> > would turn on each other, because that is the inherent nature of the
> > beast.
> > I can see where Max is coming from, but bless him, he is an idealist,
> > and this board is far from idealistic.
>
> I don't disagree Philosophy, the problem is that it's just not working.
>
> And as Max indicates it's becoming a huge problem.

I agree they take up a lot of space, and are a pain in the neck. But,
what
we will then be left with is identifying who are the trolls - naming
them - and running
some sort of petition to ban them. There are problems with that as
well. However,
I don't see any other way around it. Personally, even if they do
interrupt, I mostly
don't respond. Let them have their say, it really doesn't bother me
that much.
However, to DO something about it means to me, to organize things so
that the
problem is eliminated. I think Max's idea is very fair, but it gives a
huge amount
of work to the Moderators. That's why I suggested the banning idea.
The subjectivity
of the ban, though, remains a problem.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Or the vote must be unanimous.....no accusation of bias could be
levelled by anyone in that situation.

I'm with you on that one.

[Trance Gemini]

Yes and I agree with your idea about banning and in order to minimize the subjectivity concern we would have to require a 100% agreement.

 

Max's idea as I explained is unworkable but I think he realizes that now. He just wants a solution like the rest of the us.

[philosophy]

On May 8, 10:38 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

And that's where it will fall down, because the trolls will just vote
against
banning one another. Maybe a clear 75% or 80% may work, but we would
all have to agree to it.

>
> Max's idea as I explained is unworkable but I think he realizes that now. He
> just wants a solution like the rest of the us.

Yup, I'm with you all.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Max]

Do you think so?

Scenario: Any poster or Mod suggests suspending banning someone & they
give their reasons in one (1) post only in the Mod forum, without
further recourse. Mods would clearly be aware of the scenario anyway,
then Mods vote. If all vote to suspend for a mandatory 1 week. This is
done....no appeal......If there is one dissenting vote....no
decision.

If the Mods are not biased (DISCLAIMER - WHICH THEY ARE NOT) and the
vote is carried unanimously, who could rationally argue the toss
anyway.

If a poster persists in trying to get someone suspended and fails
twice, then they will be suspended for one week for being a vexacious
litigant.

You could trial this for a period. If it works.....continue......If it
fails.......drop it.

And this is just off the top of my head. If you take the view that it
might just work......hell, we might able to deal with trolls such as
this. Shit, suspend me for a week.........& do you think the sky will
fall in......end times perhaps.....oh that's right, I'll come back,
guns a'blazin'. So what do you do, ban me for two weeks next time. I
might just get the hint eh?

What have you got to lose except being Mods who are either impotent or
executioners

Max

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

It's only the Mod Board that would vote. 

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Do you think so?

Scenario: Any poster or Mod suggests suspending banning someone & they
give their reasons in one (1) post only in the Mod forum, without
further recourse. Mods would clearly be aware of the scenario anyway,
then Mods vote. If all vote to suspend for a mandatory 1 week. This is
done....no appeal......If there is one dissenting vote....no
decision.

If the Mods are not biased (DISCLAIMER - WHICH THEY ARE NOT) and the
vote is carried unanimously, who could rationally argue the toss
anyway.

If a poster persists in trying to get someone suspended and fails
twice, then they will be suspended for one week for being a vexacious
litigant.

You could trial this for a period. If it works.....continue......If it
fails.......drop it.

And this is just off the top of my head. If you take the view that it
might just work......hell, we might able to deal with trolls such as
this. Shit, suspend me for a week.........& do you think the sky will
fall in......end times perhaps.....oh that's right, I'll come back,
guns a'blazin'. So what do you do, ban me for two weeks next time. I
might just get the hint eh?

What have you got to lose except being Mods who are either impotent or
executioners

It's a waste of time and energy and will not resolve the problem of people like E_Space and XNun who are hard-core trolls.

They should simply be banned without ceremony. It's obvious what they are and what they want.

As far as others go we already give warnings and offer people the opportunity to come to the Mod Forum and plead their case.

XNun and E_Space have been invited to do so and ignored us.

Unless you want to provide us with a detailed list of "crimes" and "punishments" your proposal is unworkable.

I'm not even interested in considering it unless you do that for us.

[OldMan]

Thanks Max. I believe your idea has potential. But I do not want to
implement something like this without a great deal of thought and
discussion. It is starting to look like we are going to have to do
something before AvC degenerates into something that has no value to
it's members, other than a form of amusement.

On May 6, 7:56 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> OM, my thoughts in practice would be to allow Mods (only) an option to
> suspend a poster, but only on a majority vote basis (obviously). I
> understand the existing tensions with the mods about who is who etc,

> but if the theist / atheist Mod mix is 50/50, then any vote resulting
> in a suspension, clearly would be as a result of the posters
> behaviours, not on their stated beliefs or non beliefs.
>

> I would be more than satisfied with the judgement of the Mods, and
> with other members offering their opinions to the mix for
> deliberation.
>

> It's a bit like a yellow card / red card thing.
>
> If a poster (like e_space) simply spam trolls and doesn't enter into
> any meaningful debate, then to me, a simple suspension to e_space as
> an example, means a recognition to all, that this behaviour won't be
> tolerated. If it's a week on the bench, and then he/she comes back to
> the forum and posts 'some' meaningful debate (with or without
> profanity, satire or whatever), then all's good.
>

> If the errant behaviour continues unabated again, then another longer
> suspension period or banning could be enforced.
>

> And personally, I trust the Mods to be entirely philosophically
> unbiased in their calls too. If I wasn't confident of this, I would be
> calling for new Mods.
>

> Anyway, if others have ideas or wish to tweak the idea further, (or
> dismiss it entirely) then that's AOK with me.
>
> Max
>
> On May 6, 10:04 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 11:46 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Mods,
>

> > > Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
> > > forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
> > > the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
> > > thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> > > a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> > > marginal posters here.
>
> > > Or at least that's what I think it is.
>
> > > Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> > > two?
>

> > We do have the ability to prevent a member from posting.
>

> > > You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
> > > that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
> > > measure for the Mods to deal with. And in many circumstances, banning
> > > seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.
>
> > > So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
> > > could it be introduced?
>

> > GoogleGroups allows us to ban members, prevent them from posting, or
> > moderate them (requiring us to approve every post), or just allow them
> > to freely post.  All new members are moderated until their first post
> > and then generally either banned or allowed to freely post.  While
> > there is certainly nothing technically that would prevent us from

> > lifting a persons ability to post for a period of time, off the top of

> > my head I am not sure how effective it would be, nor how we would
> > determine when to suspend and for how long.
>
> > I am at least interested in hearing what others might have to say
> > about it.
>

> > > Max- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

On May 8, 10:52 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay - but then, I don't know that I would want to put the Mods in
that position, because I know for sure that there would be a scream
of bias from the trolls. I know there wouldn't be, because the Mods
are supposed to be independent of that, and that's what I've seen.
However, whether I'd want to place them in such a position is
not one I relish.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

I don't really care what the Trolls whine about.

They're goal is to destroy and disrupt our group and interfere actively with our Free Speech rights to debate.

I don't think anyone on the Mod Board is concerned about their pathological lies.

What we should be concerned about is restoring an atmosphere where people can debate freely and openly without the constant abuse and harassment of Trolls who want to destroy our group.

That's what matters to me.

Not some lying sick fuck who's trolling our group for the purpose of disrupting it and whining about how persecuted they are.

They can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.

[philosophy]

On May 8, 12:13 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough.
If you guys want to go ahead with it, then I'm all for you to do so.
Cheers

> ...
>
> read more »

[Max]

Yep...I'm with you here.

If the historical & contemporary approach is to ban members only if
they spam then, the conundrum is what to do with spamming trolls, in
whose agenda is quite clear to everyone, then under our current rules
regime they sail right past the traditional spam definition.

The concern for 99% of regular posters (theist or non) is that, if we
ban these 'examples', then we're on a slippery slope.

But my argument is simple.......if someone refuses to behave (i.e.
debate, engage & not to simply spoil or troll) then fuck 'em, they've
lost the privelege (not a right) to participate.

The sanctions could then be extended to suspension &/or banning,
however if the latter is appropriate......as Nike say.......just do
it!

phil, you're a teacher........If you have 30 little darlings in a
class all chatting amongst themselves and working on a group project,
and one or two students who won't participate in the project, they
keep interrupting, yelling, or crapping on about nothing just to spoil
the lesson, what would you do?

You wouldn't ask the class to vote on what you should do and you
wouldn't expel them right up front either. You certainly wouldn't
tolerate the behaviour day after day after day either would you? You'd
warn 'em...then.....warn 'em again.....then send 'em out of the
class......then if it continues later......send them to
Principal.....then suspend.......then expel.

So how long do we vacillate on these types?

If you've got a problem suspending or banning them because we only ban
because of spam, then you must expect this sort of shit to continue ad
infinitum. And when the next lot of dickheads lob onto the forum and
see that it's AOK to spam troll (continually & without attempting to
debate) then this place will become unworkable.

Which might just be the end game!

Bite the bullet, get your heads together and fuck them off, otherwise
what's the point of so called Mods. If being a Mod is solely about
spam killing, congratulations, you guys are doin' a great job. (And
you need 5 or more Mods to do that????)

I just like the idea of a Mod panel who show some teeth. You buggers
have the gig......you're on stage...........don't freeze on us now!!!

In my ever so humble opinion :)

Max

By the way....who are the spam killers here. TG, Dev, Brock & OM that
I know of. Who are the others?



On May 8, 10:13 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> phil, you're a teacher........If you have 30 little darlings in a
> class all chatting amongst themselves and working on a group project,
> and one or two students who won't participate in the project, they
> keep interrupting, yelling, or crapping on about nothing just to spoil
> the lesson, what would you do?
>
> You wouldn't ask the class to vote on what you should do and you
> wouldn't expel them right up front either. You certainly wouldn't
> tolerate the behaviour day after day after day either would you? You'd
> warn 'em...then.....warn 'em again.....then send 'em out of the
> class......then if it continues later......send them to
> Principal.....then suspend.......then expel.

I agree: various options for addressing complaints, with differing
degrees of severity, can help moderators and group owners effectively
but judiciously moderate behavior on the forum.

Regards,

Brock

[Max]

Yes, I agree. IMO the forum's efficacy requires some Mod decisions.
Whether individual Mods want to act or or not. It behoves them to act
as a panel.

Max

[trog69]

I agree: various options for addressing complaints, with differing
degrees of severity, can help moderators and group owners effectively
but judiciously moderate behavior on the forum.

Would that include cursing, Brock?

[Max]

It better fuckin' not Brock!

Max

[trog69]

Yes, I agree. IMO the forum's efficacy requires some Mod decisions.
Whether individual Mods want to act or or not. It behoves them to act
as a panel.

Wow, that's pretty nice of you. Just throw more work on the volunteers. Lots of other sites have the same problem, and handle it quite efficiently by no longer responding to serial trolls. ( First timers can be ridiculed at length, and when they don't stop, they too receive the cold shoulder.) Hey, if the mods want the extra responsibility and headaches that will come with this new standing order, fine with me, but I think it's a little rude to just pawn this off on the mods when we all are at fault for it continuing.

I also think that if you truly want to do something about serial trolls like xnun and e_space, then just ban the fuckers instead of this dancing around it shit. Plenty of sites to that as well.

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

l.

[Max]

Thanks Captain Obvious......(whoops I'm banned......)

Yes, suspend or fuck them off once & for all. I reckon I've said that
about 63 times today I think (sarcasm). The reason why it hasn't to
date (banning) is because the forum doesn't ban non spammers, hence my
half way there suggestion of suspension. I'm also just trying to
demonstrate that given the way bone fide trolls work and rather than
talk about it for the next 14 years, just fucking do it. One or the
other....!!!!!!

I'm sure I'm not a fucking orphan when it comes to thinking that the
Mods role is so hamstrung, & that it has less teeth than Grandma
McGillicutty, am I.

So Troggy....I'm not arguing against banning 'em.....I'm just
saying........stop friggin' around........do it. Load up....look down
the barrell.....BOOM.....problem solved. (Metaphorical, not
literal....don't want to be banned do I)

Max

[trog69]

So Troggy....I'm not arguing against banning 'em.....I'm just
saying........stop friggin' around........do it. Load up....look down
the barrell.....BOOM.....problem solved. (Metaphorical, not
literal....don't want to be banned do I)

No, that does NOT mean the problem's solved. Okay, so they ban the two stooges, no one with two brains cells to rub together has a problem with that. But what is the criteria for the next time? One trolling post is bannible? Four? Ten?

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Thanks Captain Obvious......(whoops I'm banned......)

Yes, suspend or fuck them off once & for all. I reckon I've said that
about 63 times today I think (sarcasm). The reason why it hasn't to
date (banning) is because the forum doesn't ban non spammers, hence my
half way there suggestion of suspension. I'm also just trying to
demonstrate that given the way bone fide trolls work and rather than
talk about it for the next 14 years, just fucking do it. One or the
other....!!!!!!

I'm sure I'm not a fucking orphan when it comes to thinking that the
Mods role is so hamstrung, & that it has less teeth than Grandma
McGillicutty, am I.

[trog69]

No, that does NOT mean the problem's solved. Okay, so they ban the two stooges, no one with two brains cells to rub together has a problem with that. But what is the criteria for the next time? One trolling post is bannible? Four? Ten?

And perhaps I've answered myself, as it seems that the way to determine when to ban someone is when it's formally brought up in this forum, so mebbe that's how we should approach it?

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:41 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

So Troggy....I'm not arguing against banning 'em.....I'm just
saying........stop friggin' around........do it. Load up....look down
the barrell.....BOOM.....problem solved. (Metaphorical, not
literal....don't want to be banned do I)

[philosophy]

On May 8, 3:16 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> > phil, you're a teacher........If you have 30 little darlings in a
> > class all chatting amongst themselves and working on a group project,
> > and one or two students who won't participate in the project, they
> > keep interrupting, yelling, or crapping on about nothing just to spoil
> > the lesson, what would you do?

Well now, since you asked..............
We have a behaviour policy at our school.
For persistent, serial offenders, we actually go through a semi-
psychological
profile. We have a behaviour teacher for such a purpose. The deal is,
if there
is a change in behaviour such that it is effecting and disrupting the
class, then
the child is put on a three strikes and you're out. Having said that,
it's not that
simple. There's three warnings given in the class before anything is
put into
place. Then the process starts:
Remember, this example is of a serial offender.
We usually find that if the child can't control themselves, there's an
underlying
issue. It usually boils down to experiencing bulling in school, or
home problems.
A little boy last week was a parental fight and separation. The kids
take all this
crap on, and the parents, although aware of the children, are more
focused on
their own problems - hence the kids take on the crap and effect
others. This is
especially so if we feel the behaviour is attention-seeking.
So, in the normal line of things we first team the kids up with a
Buddy. If that doesn't
work then second, we start with Detentions. If that doesn't work then
the third thing
kicks in with suspension for a day/two etc.
But remember, these are kids. Adults should know better.
A lot of effort goes into helping our kids. We work on the premise
that a child is
basically a good kid and if things are not okay, there's a reason for
it not being.
The process we go through allows us a clearer insight into the childs
problems.
There are kids who don't fit the criteria at all, ie they are little
shits, and usually
the parents are the same. Thankfully, they are a minority.
With the adults here, it's up to the moderators. If they want a three
strikes and
you're out policy then it's up to them. Nobody could possibly
complain about
it because it's more than fair.
It would entail more work for them, though, and they are all
volunteers.
A suggested parameter would be:
1. A warning with an explanation why that warning is being given.
2. Another warning, referring back to warning one, and then why
the second
one is being given, with a further reference to the fact that if this
(whatever it is)
particular behaviour does not change there will be no option left to
the Mods
that if there is a third episode, then a ban would be put into effect
on the
third infringement.
3. A ban with the explanation as to why that was effected,
referring back to
the two previous warnings.
Of course, at each warning, the offender is able to take the matter up
with the
mods on the moderator forum for any questions, arguments, etc.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

It's already getting unworkable.

We're not getting rid of the old trolls just adding new one's regularly.

XNun and E_Space are both way over the line and quite blatant about their shameless trolling.

Now we have a new guy Willett, a self-professed atheist, who's insisting on his "right" to advertise his competing debating forum in his sig and we have theists defending his "right" to do it. 

The whole think stinks like fish.

If he's too stupid or stubborn to put his Spam in his Profile, Fuck him.

He's bad news and will simply become another troll if he isn't already.

Now if people Want this NG overrun by Trolls, then they should just keep Defending the Trolls and Feeding them and that is exactly what's happening here.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

It better fuckin' not Brock!

Why not Max.

Frankly your proposal is identical to Brocks.

I'm opposed to both.

We should simply ban Trolls who fit the definition of Trolling.

Anything else is unnecessary bullshit and will simply contribute to the destruction of the Free speech foundation of this Forum.

The Forum where that was implemented is called ACRD.

They are currently dead in the water.

Is that what you want to have happen here too?

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:49 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I agree. IMO the forum's efficacy requires some Mod decisions.
Whether individual Mods want to act or or not. It behoves them to act
as a panel.

Wow, that's pretty nice of you. Just throw more work on the volunteers. Lots of other sites have the same problem, and handle it quite efficiently by no longer responding to serial trolls. ( First timers can be ridiculed at length, and when they don't stop, they too receive the cold shoulder.) Hey, if the mods want the extra responsibility and headaches that will come with this new standing order, fine with me, but I think it's a little rude to just pawn this off on the mods when we all are at fault for it continuing.

I also think that if you truly want to do something about serial trolls like xnun and e_space, then just ban the fuckers instead of this dancing around it shit. Plenty of sites to that as well.

Exactly. Thanks Trogs.

This is my point.

ALL we need to do is ban the extreme Trolls based on the Wiki Definition.

Both E_Space and XNun match that definition to a tee and should be banned based on it.

Others can just be ignored until or unless they cross the line or get disruptive like both E_Space and XNun have been at which point they'll be considered for banning too.

Banning will require 100% vote from the Mod Board.

This will prevent people from being banned for personal reasons.

[Max]

That's just a crock of shit. 5 mods (or however many there are) would
still have to unanimously vote someone off, on a so called profanity
charge. Do you really expect me to believe that you or Dev would ban
or suspend someone for swearing.

I don't even know what this ACRD thing is anyway. That may seem
unbelievable to you (yes, I've seen the acronym before) but honestly
TG, I really don't give a fig about the soap operas of groups &
personalities. I really don't.

By the way, I've made my feelings known on the other thread you put
together.

As I said there, that's it for me on this topic. Please yourselves.

Max

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:40 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree: various options for addressing complaints, with differing
>> degrees of severity, can help moderators and group owners effectively
>> but judiciously moderate behavior on the forum.
>
> Would that include cursing, Brock?

I've stated my position with regard to that issue in the past, trog.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now we have a new guy Willett, a self-professed atheist, who's insisting on
> his "right" to advertise his competing debating forum in his sig and we have
> theists defending his "right" to do it.

OldMan's response is much more measured than this.

> The whole think stinks like fish.
> If he's too stupid or stubborn to put his Spam in his Profile, Fuck him.
> He's bad news and will simply become another troll if he isn't already.
> Now if people Want this NG overrun by Trolls, then they should just keep
> Defending the Trolls and Feeding them and that is exactly what's happening
> here.

Or perhaps, people like myself and OldMan and Max simply have
different ideas than you on what can improve the group experience.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>>
>> It better fuckin' not Brock!
>
> Why not Max.
> Frankly your proposal is identical to Brocks.
> I'm opposed to both.
> We should simply ban Trolls who fit the definition of Trolling.
> Anything else is unnecessary bullshit and will simply contribute to the
> destruction of the Free speech foundation of this Forum.
> The Forum where that was implemented is called ACRD.
> They are currently dead in the water.
> Is that what you want to have happen here too?

There is no reason to presume Max wants to "kill AvC" simply because
he articulated feedback for a different position than yours. He made
helpful suggestions, in a courteous way and on the appropriate forum.
It seems like you are taking offense too easily at what are simple and
legitimate inquiries and suggestions.

Regards,

Brock

[Max]

Speak for yourself only Brock. You do not speak for me. I do not align
myself with you in any way & you should reciprocate in kind. Do not
leverage my standing in the group to gain advantage or disadvantage
for any spurious reasons.

Max

On May 8, 7:40 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> Speak for yourself only Brock. You do not speak for me.

I haven't claimed otherwise. :)

Regards,

Brock

[trog69]

I've stated my position with regard to that issue in the past, trog.

And again sir, you are a liar.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:40 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree: various options for addressing complaints, with differing
>> degrees of severity, can help moderators and group owners effectively
>> but judiciously moderate behavior on the forum.
>
> Would that include cursing, Brock?

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>>
>> It better fuckin' not Brock!
>
> Why not Max.
> Frankly your proposal is identical to Brocks.
> I'm opposed to both.
> We should simply ban Trolls who fit the definition of Trolling.
> Anything else is unnecessary bullshit and will simply contribute to the
> destruction of the Free speech foundation of this Forum.
> The Forum where that was implemented is called ACRD.
> They are currently dead in the water.
> Is that what you want to have happen here too?

There is no reason to presume Max wants to "kill AvC"

I didn't say Max did.

I said YOU did.

Please stop prevaricating Brock.

It's unseemly and according to your doctrine it's a sin.

However, that doesn't seem to bother you Christians in the least for some reason.

 

simply because
he articulated feedback for a different position than yours.  He made
helpful suggestions, in a courteous way and on the appropriate forum.
It seems like you are taking offense too easily at what are simple and
legitimate inquiries and suggestions.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

That's just a crock of shit. 5 mods (or however many there are) would
still have to unanimously vote someone off, on a so called profanity
charge. Do you really expect me to believe that you or Dev would ban
or suspend someone for swearing.

None of which is the point.

Again your dodging the fact that as soon as you have graduated punishments you need to have graduated crimes and you refuse to do the work necessary to concretize that proposal which is identical to Brocks and Brock also refuses to concretize it.

[Trance Gemini]

Please provide proof that I have:

"Taken offense taking offense too easily at what are simple and legitimate inquiries and suggestions."

"Presume Max wants to kill AvC simply because..."

If you can't provide such proof then you shouldn't make such slanderous statements in a public news group.

 

Regards,

Brock

[Answer_42]

On May 8, 7:43 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no reason to presume Max wants to "kill AvC" simply because

Why is this jerkwad still a mod?
He cannot even comprehend simple sentences.
Trance NEVER stated that she thinks Max wanted to "kill AvC" in any
shape or form, idiot.

> he articulated feedback for a different position than yours.  He made
> helpful suggestions, in a courteous way and on the appropriate forum.
> It seems like you are taking offense too easily at what are simple and
> legitimate inquiries and suggestions.

And it seems you are not taking the time to READ, COMPREHEND and REPLY
correctly, which is way mroe problematic, especially coming from a
mod.
_____________________________________
Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True Christians are
made to be slaves.
-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

[Max]

You want practicalities so I note that in practice, no one would be
suspended or banned for profanity only, so you state that's is not the
point. I mustn't be able to read fucking English then.

I've just about had a fuckin' gutfull of this too.

Right....you want a prescriptive book on 'all' possible offences do
you, with the suspension penalties too eh? OK then, here it is. 1 week
for any offence that the Mods subjectively ascertain through their
experience and combined deliberations are deserved of a 1 week
suspension. To offer suspension (as opposed to banning) allows scope
for the first offender to have some opportunity for rehabilitation &
to promote the ideal of the opportunity for free speech.

Taking notice of e_space over in the forum now, one can see that in
fact, he is engaging in debate. Do we ban him still? Or do we wait for
the errant behaviours to start again, like he's playing us for a row.
Would it have been a mistake to ban him. I don't know Trance. But I do
know that your free speech plea would have sounded a bit hollow in
retrospect after he was banned. But even if he was banned, so fucking
what.

Anyway, a question for you! At what point do you & the other Mods
decide to ban for trolling. Is it a graduated process or does it occur
to every person who trolls once, twice, thrice or 20 times get banned?
Mmmmhhhh! Will you produce your graduated offence matrix please.
Sounds awfully like what I've been charged with.

As it happens, you mentioned on the other thread that there is some
aspect of subjectivity in the call. (I'm paraphrasing of course) and
it mirrors my suggestion. My use of the term spamming troll was
explained. You simply overlooked it. One can't distinguish it in a
defined quantitative measure such as, 23 successive trolling posts,
it's an appreciation of the posters intent (whether disclosed or not)
and their behaviours demonstrated as called by the Mods unanimously.
When a dancer or figure skater is judged for artistic merit, there are
benchmarks to work from, however there is subjectivity involved. I
only use the term 'spamming troll' as a catch all phrase for posters
that troll on a serial basis and the extent of their posts has the
'feel' of spam / irrelevant bullshit.

But I'll tell you what I don't get. I've been a staunch defender of
you and have always tried to approach you and others with an even
hand. My suggestions immediatley were jumped on by you from the word
go and not in a detached and collegiate way. It was personal and
intense and argumentative.

Now Trance, I can 'go' anyone, you know that, however you have shown
me respect and friendliness in the past, so I am quite mystified about
the attitude you have with me about this issue. These last few weeks
with xnun for you have been heavy....I can see that....but perhaps
your anger and frustration may be misdirected in that I'm not fighting
with you, the Mods or the sanctity of the forum. I simply suggested
something and if other members used my suggestion as a vehicle for
their own agenda, that's not me talking. Further, if you have a deep
seated fear or suspicion that others in the forum are plotting the
downfall of the group, and are using this discussion as their Trojan
Horse, then for your sake, I'll drop it.

I of course, still feel that what I said had merit, but it ain't worth
you imploding about it. You obviously care more about it than I do.

And please, do not draw swords with me, unless you really want to.

Max

[Trance Gemini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

When you understand what an Internet Troll actually is by reading the above link I believe that your questions about what I am proposing will be answered (Hint: It has nothing to do with the number of posts).

[Trance Gemini]

And by the way, while I always appreciate the support of good, honest people, I don't rely on it nor do I assume it.

I've done quite well on my own without relying on anyone and that is the way I will continue my life both on this forum and off it.

In my opinion, anyone who makes the mistake of thinking that they can rely on others for anything and bases their life on that, is asking to have the rug pulled out from under them because it will be.

So, while I like a lot of people here including you, don't make the mistake of thinking that I give a shit what anyone thinks of me.

I don't.

I certainly don't determine my opinions on anything based on what anyone things of me.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

[Max]

I know what a troll is. I've read the link already some time ago.
You're point is?

[Max]

Your post speaks volumes for what it addresses & equally, what it
doesn't! I'll leave you alone now as that would be for the better.

Max

[kenandkids]

it's destruction of free speech whenever trance perceives someone
other than herself suggests it. because it came from you, it is of
course the ruination of the western world and men will be forcibly
having their tongues removed.
when it's her idea though, she is the valiant protector of free
speech, and flowers will soon fall upon everyones head as bach plays
in the background. it doesn't matter that you want discussion and
correction while she simply wants a definition to apply in order to
ban outright and with no questions allowed.

[Max]

Geez Kenny....you'll get me in the real shit if I say boo here!
Discretion is the better part of valour for me right about
now....otherwise, I'm fucked. I'm off to beddy byes anyway, like a
sook and will hope that I don't get a shelacking for arcing up.

Nighty night.

Max

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

I know what a troll is. I've read the link already some time ago.
You're point is?

You keep saying that it has something to do with the number of posts and that you want to have some sort of matrix applied to it so that people can be punished on a gradient of some sort.

That indicates that you haven't read it.

What you are not understanding is that A Troll is a Troll. 

There is no Matrix, no Gradient that can applied.

If one is determined to be a Troll then they are banned.

You can't be a half Troll or a quarter Troll.

You can negotiate with some people and I have no objection to that but if they won't negotiate then they should just be banned.

Ed Conrad and Fossil Lin were willing to negotiate and have stuck to the terms.

E_Scape and XNun have refused to negotiate on the Mod Board.

They should be banned.

[philosophy]

I would like to reiterate that if the Mods feel that trolls should be
banned, then let's go ahead with it. This can be posted in AvC policy
for all to see. The responsibility then falls on the individual
joining the group to "understand" what they are getting into. A
newbie can always be cautioned that they appear to be trolling and be
referred to AvC policy. The Wiki definition is quite clear on what
trolling is, and certainly e-space fits the description. S/he even
admits to being on the board only to have fun. Well, let him/her have
fun elsewhere.
Thanks again for your work TG. It is appreciated, even though not
always overtly recognized by all.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Max]

Read my comment again from a few posts earlier

"My use of the term spamming troll was explained. You simply
overlooked it. One can't distinguish it in a
defined quantitative measure such as, 23 successive trolling posts,
it's an appreciation of the posters intent (whether disclosed or not)
and their behaviours demonstrated as called by the Mods unanimously.
When a dancer or figure skater is judged for artistic merit, there are
benchmarks to work from, however there is subjectivity involved. I
only use the term 'spamming troll' as a catch all phrase for posters
that troll on a serial basis and the extent of their posts has the
'feel' of spam / irrelevant bullshit."

Now unless you can't read, which I know you can, how in hell am I
disagreeing with you on this point? You are trying to make a case
against me which is not there. Why?

And stop treating me like a fool. I think you're blinded with anger &
frustration for obvious reasons. I'm not making you lie, nor am asking
you to not have your own opinions. You have already apologised to me
for puttin' the dukes up from the get go on this issue I've raised.
I'm just asking you to look through the fog of your war with your
antagonists and calmly look what I'm saying, but without the attitude.

Here's the drum.

Ordinarily, if you had a difference of opinion with me, you'd say so
in a calm and measured manner. You are currently pissed big time, so
you're lashing out. You see, you're the only one that has fired up on
my suggestion. Sure, others disagree, but the other commentary is a
simple, nah don't agree or nah, won't work.

I'm afraid your line of 'debate' has another feel to it Trance.

Again, the only difference that we have (had) is that I suggested
using suspension as another tool rather than just banning.

You clearly saw that approach as me intentionally or unintentionally
providing the scope for arseholes like xnun an escape route, when
you're objective is to ban her.

I just walked into a shit storm, that's all.

Max

> ...
>
> read more »

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It better fuckin' not Brock!
>> >
>> > Why not Max.
>> > Frankly your proposal is identical to Brocks.
>> > I'm opposed to both.
>> > We should simply ban Trolls who fit the definition of Trolling.
>> > Anything else is unnecessary bullshit and will simply contribute to the
>> > destruction of the Free speech foundation of this Forum.
>> > The Forum where that was implemented is called ACRD.
>> > They are currently dead in the water.
>> > Is that what you want to have happen here too?
>>
>> There is no reason to presume Max wants to "kill AvC"
>
> I didn't say Max did.
> I said YOU did.
> Please stop prevaricating Brock.
> It's unseemly and according to your doctrine it's a sin.
> However, that doesn't seem to bother you Christians in the least for some
> reason.

I cited my source. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Ordinarily, if you had a difference of opinion with me, you'd say so
> in a calm and measured manner. You are currently pissed big time, so
> you're lashing out. You see, you're the only one that has fired up on
> my suggestion. Sure, others disagree, but the other commentary is a
> simple, nah don't agree or nah, won't work.
>
> I'm afraid your line of 'debate' has another feel to it Trance.

Speaking for myself, I agree with your analysis, Max.

Regards,

Brock

[simonsaysbye]

Max: your suggestion was appreciated and has been taken board as we
work out the best way to moderate trolls. Can I close this topic
now?
ssb

On May 5, 7:46 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Mods,
>
> Please excuse me here as I'm unsure about the protocol with the Mod
> forum. First post here for me I'm afraid. I've read plenty of stuff in
> the Mod forum (and actually was having a great laugh at the Walt / RO
> thread today) and I was thinking about how the Mods are handcuffed in
> a way about the 'black & white' sanctioning measures available on
> marginal posters here.
>
> Or at least that's what I think it is.
>
> Do the Mods have the 'power' to suspend a poster for say a week or
> two?
>

> You see, there seems to be plenty of close to the wind trolling shit
> that goes on here and then it becomes an arbitrary & subjective
> measure for the Mods to deal with. And in many circumstances, banning
> seems overly punitive where another measure may be more appropriate.
>
> So, is suspension something that is available to Mods and if not,
> could it be introduced?
>

> Max

[Trance Gemini]

I don't think Max will mind having this closed since the topic is
being handled more generally in OMs Free Speech thread.

So I'm going to go ahead and Close it.