abusive posting crackdown

[STEVE BURNS]

Due to the inflammatory nature of some user posts in recent weeks and complaints from various members about this the committee would like to highlight the following exert from the minutes of the 2011 AGM below

Forum moderation and acceptable practice
The committee thought that moderation had been quite ‘loose’ basically a process of ‘cautious moderation’. In the past we had been criticized for ‘over moderation’ but now we were struggling with the ‘throw back’ of this.


It was suggested from the floor that a process of ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ should be adopted and publicized on the site along with the constitution.


It was decided that we would move ‘posts’ giving concern into storage immediately from now on and avoid the aggravation of discussing them whilst ‘live’. Proposed Vaughan Hughes Seconded Neil Marsden. Again this was voted ‘in’ with no objectors.

Although until very recently there has been little need to do this officially as the forum posts had been well self moderated by the posters but due to the trend in the last two weeks the following infraction system has been put in place

• offence.....................................points..... time
  Spammed Advertisements.........1 ...... 10 Day(s)
  Insulted Other Member(s )..........1...... 12 Month(s)
  Signature Rule Violation.............1...... 10 Day(s)
  Inappropriate Language .............1...... 10 Day(s)
  Harassment of other members....1...... 12 Month(s)
  Inciting arguments .....................1..........3 Month(s)
  Posts / links of a sexist, sexual,
  lewd, explicit or racist nature.......1..........3 Month(s)

The committee regrets the need to have to take this action due to the lack of restraint by certain users of the site and will cramp down on any anti-community posts of any nature to ensure the harmony of the site

On behalf of the Z Club committee
This will also be sent out as a mass pm to everybody in the next few days to ensue all user will be aware of the new policy

 

[zbloke]

Sounds good to me and long overdue too

Who decides when/if/how a member has been insulted though? some of us have quite thick skins

 

[Gaz 300]

Read and understood Steve

 

[SeanDezart]

Sounds good to me and long overdue too

Who decides when/if/how a member has been insulted though? some of us have quite thick skins

Ditto and how to avoid pre-judging - Mr Gaskin and Arkwright appear to think EVERYTHING I say is inflammatory............

These are the three open to too much personal interpretation :

Insulted Other Member(s )..........1...... 12 Month(s)
Harassment of other members....1...... 12 Month(s)
Inciting arguments .....................1..........3 Month(s)

And if someone calls me an ar*e and I don't complain - where's the problem ?

Be careful of the distant Big Brother, the unknown and all-powerful censor....in short - Sauron !

 

[status]

Well put Sean baby,yet again 1 rule for some,ect,i wont go on, you bloody ****

 

[johnymd]

The moderators do not have an easy job and they do it for no reward other than feeling they are doing their bit for the club. They often can't win with the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" principle. "with great power, comes great responsibility" also springs to mind. There will be obvious infringements, like the one I highlighted a couple of days ago, and there will be marginal ones that "split the voters" but in general this should make the site a better place and encourage us to play nicely together.

The difficult call will be differentiating between inciting argument and inciting debate. We don't want to loose the debate or banter but do want to make this site a better place. The moderators won't please all the people all the time but I'm sure they will do their best.

 

[morbias]

imo all infractions should carry a mandatory time-out period. Shouldn't 'spammed advertisements' result in an instant ban?

 

[RichardSmith]

Read and understood Steve - plus I am in full agreement with the committee's stance on this.

Richard

 

[SeanDezart]

All of 40 posts Richard - one assumes with a cleaner forum that we'll see more of you then.........

Nobody disagrees.........but some question the interpretation possible of banter etc

 

[STEVE BURNS]

Nobody disagrees.

.

I am glad that seems to be the feeling of all that have posted on here so far

but some question the interpretation possible of banter etc

IMHO I really hope that there is no need to question any interpretation of any posts as I hope that all users when they post think before hand that if they were talking to people in their living room face to face would they be offended by what they said? Bearing in mind different people have different thickness of skin

In an ideal world the matter of how a post is interoperated should be down to the person who makes the post and should be the posters responsibility to ensure that their post could not give any specific user offence

 

[SeanDezart]

I really hope that there is no need to question any interpretation of any posts as I hope that all users when they post think before hand that if they were talking to people in their living room face to face would they be offended by what they said?

Most likely not because :

a) you'd see their face and expression
b) you'd probably know them and how they are before you'd let them in your living room
c) I could say hairy whatsits to you face and you'd laugh - if I wrote it here I'd be racked !

Bearing in mind different people have different thickness of skin.

So we have to protect the sun-factor 50s by priority - ie preserve decorum 'cos some are more easily upset than others ?

In an ideal world the matter of how a post is interoperated should be down to the person who makes the post

No - how it's interpretated (spell check) is down to he who interprates ie the reader and more specifically, he (or she) to whom the reply is directed !

and should be the posters responsibility to ensure that their post could not give any specific user offence

No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so being upset is the readers' perogative (or not). Deliberate provocation aside, there has been since the beginning a reporting button on the top rh side - if he (or she) who is offended reports a post - it should be looked at BUT.....and this is a BIG BUT, let the offended person report what offends them and not others 'defending' someone else in the assumption that they need defending !

I agree that writers have an obligation BUT I'm still scared by over-moderation - it nearly killed off this forum a few years ago.

Be very careful please moderators of your PERSONAL interpretation of any thread feeling.....some of the most entertaining and enlightening threads here have boiled up - let them simmer down again as people let off steam and see sense.

No big hammers just a clear up of the rules, guidelines and penalties.

 

[Dale]

.In an ideal world the matter of how a post is interoperated should be down to the person who makes the post...

No - how it's interpretated (spell check) is down to he who interprates ie the reader and more specifically, he (or she) to whom the reply is directed !

No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so being upset is the readers' perogative (or not).

Prerogative Sean.

 

[STEVE BURNS]

No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so being upset is the readers' perogative (or not). Deliberate provocation aside, there has been since the beginning a reporting button on the top rh side - if he (or she) who is offended reports a post - it should be looked at BUT.....and this is a BIG BUT, let the offended person report what offends them and not others 'defending' someone else in the assumption that they need defending !

Thank you for pointing that out as the committee wasn't aware of that
In the last two/three weeks there has been one reported post one official complaint pm and two or three complaints in the open forum but hey maybe the committee and the moderators are just 'defending' someone else in the assumption that they need defending

So 4/5 complaints of some sort on the forum in one form or other in the last couple of weeks so action is being put in place on those complainants behalf

And to be honest if I have made any spelling mistakes I do not really care as long as long as the main points of my posts get across as spend enough time trying to keep all the balls in the air on here in an attempt to keep all on here reasonable happy

 

[RIDDLER]

The moderators do not have an easy job and they do it for no reward other than feeling they are doing their bit for the club. They often can't win with the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" principle. "with great power, comes great responsibility" also springs to mind. There will be obvious infringements, like the one I highlighted a couple of days ago, and there will be marginal ones that "split the voters" but in general this should make the site a better place and encourage us to play nicely together.

The difficult call will be differentiating between inciting argument and inciting debate. We don't want to loose the debate or banter but do want to make this site a better place. The moderators won't please all the people all the time but I'm sure they will do their best.

Well said Johnnymd. What always amuses me is how some people write something offensive about someone else, then stick a smiley face after it as though that somehow makes it all right. This is presumably because there isn't a two-faced smiley?

It's a good policy, Steve and thanks for all your hard work.

 

[SeanDezart]

Thank you for pointing that out as the committee wasn't aware of that
In the last two/three weeks there has been one reported post one official complaint pm and two or three complaints in the open forum but hey maybe the committee and the moderators are just 'defending' someone else in the assumption that they need defending

So 4/5 complaints of some sort on the forum in one form or other in the last couple of weeks so action is being put in place on those complainants behalf

And to be honest if I have made any spelling mistakes I do not really care as long as long as the main points of my posts get across as spend enough time trying to keep all the balls in the air on here in an attempt to keep all on here reasonable happy

Thanks Dale for the humility check.

Steve - I DON'T KNOW who reports the posts as offensive - are they the people on the receiving end - did whathisname complain about The Counts' remarks ? or are they other particpants, casual observers or moderators wading in ?

Us plebs don't know my friend so look at the situation from an ordinary forum or club memners' view and not with the inside knowledge.

And remember that I'm a moderator on two other Datsun forums so I know how hard it is to remain impartial, how thankless it is (from those antagonists mostly) and how one is nevertheless 'tainted' as favourising someone or other.....!

 

[Albrecht]

A few points, if I may:

It seems I've been issued an infraction point, but I haven't been told for exactly what post / comment / observation it has been issued for. Since the thread concerned ( I'm guessing ) appears to have been deleted, is there any chance I can find out for exactly what I'm being punished...?

Is there any way to find out what other infraction points have been issued to other people participating in the same exchange of views? Perhaps you need to make the infraction notices public in order to be seen to be acting without bias?

It appears that one of the very people taking sides in a recent exchange of views is now at least partly responsible for the judgement and issue of my infraction. That's interesting.

What's the protocol for those receiving abusive and threatening PMs? Do I need to run to teacher?



Ta.

 

[SeanDezart]

Ah name and shame !

And are non club members allowed to complain in the first place ?

 

[Mr HollowPoint]

A few points, if I may:

It seems I've been issued an infraction point, but I haven't been told for exactly what post / comment / observation it has been issued for. Since the thread concerned ( I'm guessing ) appears to have been deleted, is there any chance I can find out for exactly what I'm being punished...?

Is there any way to find out what other infraction points have been issued to other people participating in the same exchange of views? Perhaps you need to make the infraction notices public in order to be seen to be acting without bias?

It appears that one of the very people taking sides in a recent exchange of views is now at least partly responsible for the judgement and issue of my infraction. That's interesting.

What's the protocol for those receiving abusive and threatening PMs? Do I need to run to teacher?



Ta.

As you haven't named and shamed and my name keeps getting dragged through the mud lately, I'd like to quite clearly and categorically state here in the open forum, that if you've received any threatening or abusive pm's, they were NOT from me! If you could just confirm that to all those on here who seem to think I'm some kind of murderer/rapist/master criminal, I'd appreciate it.

I too received an infraction for our little 'heated discussion' the other day. Also with no explanation as to why, but I've pm'd back the person who pm'd me the infraction asking exactly that, hopefully I'll get an answer and if not, I'll see him tomorrow in person anyway.

Unfortunately, it appears I made the mistake of judging your skin to be thick enough to take anything I threw at it and your brain capable of throwing just as much back (Which I still believe to be true), but some of the more 'delicates' out there, found something or other that I said upsetting and went crying to mummy. As soon as I find out what exactly the infraction is for, I'll be sure to tone my posts down to the mundane and boring level required, to satisfy those who are not even involved in a conversation, but might potentially, possibly, maybe find it distressing. Either that or I'll stick to 'Nice car mate' and leave it at that

 

[Albrecht]

As you haven't named and shamed and my name keeps getting dragged through the mud lately, I'd like to quite clearly and categorically state here in the open forum, that if you've received any threatening or abusive pm's, they were NOT from me! If you could just confirm that to all those on here who seem to think I'm some kind of murderer/rapist/master criminal, I'd appreciate it.

No, sorry. I can't confirm that for you.

I too received an infraction for our little 'heated discussion' the other day. Also with no explanation as to why, but I've pm'd back the person who pm'd me the infraction asking exactly that, hopefully I'll get an answer and if not, I'll see him tomorrow in person anyway.

What a nice cosy arrangement. I'm sure you'll get it all sorted out, and with that personal touch thrown in.....

]Unfortunately, it appears I made the mistake of judging your skin to be thick enough to take anything I threw at it and your brain capable of throwing just as much back (Which I still believe to be true), but some of the more 'delicates' out there, found something or other that I said upsetting and went crying to mummy. As soon as I find out what exactly the infraction is for, I'll be sure to tone my posts down to the mundane and boring level required, to satisfy those who are not even involved in a conversation, but might potentially, possibly, maybe find it distressing. Either that or I'll stick to 'Nice car mate' and leave it at that

HollowPoint thinks it's all about him again, then.

For the record, I've not complained ( "run to mummy" ) or made any claim to the moderators about anything or anyone. Yet.

 

[Mr HollowPoint]

So now you're deliberately making people think I pm'd you, when I did no such thing, thanks muchly, I clearly underestimated just how decent of a bloke you are, tops!

As for cosy arrangement, no, he'll just be at an event I'm at. He issued me an infraction just the same as you, so I don't quite understand why you think I'm getting special treatment. I didn't report you either, nor did I accuse you of reporting me, I'd actually assumed from what you'd already said that you hadn't, hence my entire post.

It isn't about thinking it's about me, I got an infraction for something, which was clearly for something I said/did, wtf!?