Advice for Moderators
-
In another forum I regularly visit the moderators there have a way to keep the discussion healthy and constructive even in heated debates which is by simply deleting posts containing clear negative PERSONAL attacks toward other members and warning the posters about the decisions to delete their posts through PMs. This way forum members will be forced to come up with arguments which are purely directed at the arguments presented by other members without involving personal attacks thus resulting in what I said healthy and constructive debates.
I know of course it will take extra work by the moderators because they will have to go through every single new post, but I think it will make this forum more pleasant for everyone. And I also know this rule will irritate some members but hey who cares about them. People who defend the right to personally attaack other members should be banished from the forum in the first place anyway.
Peace,
-
I don't like deleting posts unless they are clearly just to antagonise, which is rare in the big picture. Mostly, the posts are a mixture of insults and a valid point of view, which makes it difficult to justify deleting. Secondly, editing someone's posts for minor infractions is not taken well by many people. I think this is a mostly free forum and people should be responsible with and for what they write; unless the member is totally wild and insulting people left right and centre, then we step in. I don't agree with deleting and/or modifying people's posts unless its requested by them for different reasons or a black and white case of swearing or just insults.
-
I don't like deleting posts unless they are clearly just to antagonise, which is rare in the big picture. Mostly, the posts are a mixture of insults and a valid point of view, which makes it difficult to justify deleting. Secondly, editing someone's posts for minor infractions is not taken well by many people. I think this is a mostly free forum and people should be responsible with and for what they write; unless the member is totally wild and insulting people left right and centre, then we step in. I don't agree with deleting and/or modifying people's posts unless its requested by them for different reasons or a black and white case of swearing or just insults.
Trust me the rule works great. You dont have to delete the whole posts. You could just write a message on the post and crossed out the personal attacks part. Anyway people who object to the filtering of personal attacks are probably those who personally attack others in the first place anyway.
Edit Can someone please insert a poll on this thread to see if people agree with this?
-
I don't think polls work jankren , but post your options/choices for the poll and I'll see if I can slip it in your original post. The thing is, what may be a popular choice here and now, can be something totally unpopular tomorrow. Also, sometimes a little leeway can be a good thing. Iono, mostly I guess I'm leery of spoiling the flow for people on minor things like a spat or two .
-
Salam SC
A "spat or two" will stay like that if the other person does not respond with three or four spats, then you delete or take action, which would seem unfair and would portray the second party as the aggressive one. You should delete whatever post containing personal insult and ask the concerned party to re-phrase their message excluding insults. And let's have the principle of zero "not one or two" tolerence towards this behaviour; and that avoiding "evil" has the priority over providing "good".
-
Salam SC
A "spat or two" will stay like that if the other person does not respond with three or four spats, then you delete or take action, which would seem unfair and would portray the second party as the aggressive one. You should delete whatever post containing personal insult and ask the concerned party to re-phrase their message excluding insults. And let's have the principle of zero "not one or two" tolerence towards this behaviour; and that avoiding "evil" has the priority over providing "good".
Basically I got one vote for my suggestion ;D. By the way I forgot to mention the re-phrasing requirement part which is raised by Samia.
-
Peace Samia,
I agree that spats usually have a tendency towards lingering especially if there is no resolution or previous issues intrude. The problems with deleting every post with personal insults and asking people to rephrase everytime in these situations (if one is making it across the board/with everyone) could be
a) The mods aren't there or didn't read the thread when it happens and it escalates into a full blown battleground. The ending being the same in this case as in the other where we don't delete and/or ask to rephrase, it gets taken to the disciplinary process
b) The members don't think that they posted anything that was a personal insult. Time wasted trying to point out but it really was! and then after the inevitable refusal and insults towards the mods too! (in my experience this is most common with the gung-ho posters), we take action anyway as in a case where we don't delete and/or ask to rephrase
c) Zero tolerance in some cases might end up exacerbating people's feelings, making them antagonistic towards the mods and the other member further, when there could be a good chance that they might resolve things on their own. Additionally, not every member picks fights or spats but sometimes it just happens which is understandable, and people aren't being very reasonable and/or objective when they are all riled up. They might dislike the peacemakers too, because it might become a situation of are you with me or against me? regardless of the objective and neutral observer's advice. (in my experiece this has happened twice or thrice). I've been in a couple of situations where I've been involved in spats with other members and after blowing off steam and/or just ignoring some stuff and using humour, we both kinda became friends and avoided issues where we'd conflict or do so with a lot of consideration for each other and agree to disagree at the endThe most efficient way I've seen is to deal on a case by case basis. Some are gung-ho about their posts period and some are pretty reasonable, so a varied technique depending on members seems to work. We firstly always try the reminder route or asking them to use a different strategy/wording, in my own experience when I'd come up with a blank wall or someone being unreasonable, then I'd use the other. Of course all steps taken are with mutual consultation with the other mods/admin, one doesn't just singly go ahead and do something. This way we have a varied group giving reasoned opinions about how something should be resolved. The practical way of dealing with a large group with diversity with the most effective results has been in my experience, to deal with on a case by case basis.
-
I like it and thus it shall stay. Behold the corruption of the mods!
-
...On the other hand, the problem is How do you define (clear negative PERSONAL attack)? If you are in a discussion, and a responder commenets Nonesese; the mose obselte thing I ever read; ..etc, would this count as a clear negative attack (underlying meaning you're stupid, foolish)? Would a statement as (Sudanese are a bunch of blood-thirsty criminals) or (Arabs are stupid racists) be considered personal or not (in my case for example)?
Mind you, I do not mind any of the above statements, and would not consider them as insults, not because they are true, but because they talk about who wrote them, not me.
-
The thing is, lines are usually blurred thus it's better to go with the consistency with which it is used by a poster imo. One can usually tell if a poster is consistently hostile or aggressive and uses intimidation or shock tactics etc. It's better to have rules that deal with the poster rather than dealing with individual remarks. Some use these sort of remarks more often than the others, some don't use them at all. Generalised remarks that are derogatory, used often enough will lead to a bad place I would think, as would personal remarks.
edit to add personal
-
...On the other hand, the problem is How do you define (clear negative PERSONAL attack)? If you are in a discussion, and a responder commenets Nonesese; the mose obselte thing I ever read; ..etc, would this count as a clear negative attack (underlying meaning you're stupid, foolish)? Would a statement as (Sudanese are a bunch of blood-thirsty criminals) or (Arabs are stupid racists) be considered personal or not (in my case for example)?
"Your comment just shows how childish and stupid you are."
Or
"You are such an idiot for saying that."
The above is what I consider clear negative personal attack. -
I've seen on this forum someone calling liars to others simply because of having different point of view, that I think is clear negative personal attack which needs a reform.
Peace all, Hamsa