# Forum Standards



## TehSean (Aug 23, 2009)

Are we not allowed to argue on this forum anymore?

How are we going to have any discussion if the threads keep getting locked for being 'derailed and "ARGUING"?

I've already spoken directly with a forum mod ( Carenath ) about this because I feel it's too aggressive and it often comes without forewarning. A lot of threads are getting locked because a lot of people are behaving in a normal manner. (Yes, you read that right.)

I've suggested to the moderator that he contact the offending people directly, or wait for the original poster of the thread to report the offensive persons in their discussion, or allow its participants to report them if there is a problem.

My grievances here are simple:

The mods are too aggressive to lock other users out of decent threads.
The mods can't accept that people actually argue?
The mods are being lazy by not temp-banning repeat offenders and punish everyone involved for a minority population's screw-up.

All this would be cleared up if they just warned the persons directly and temp-banned them for continuing to de-rail.

You're lowering the forums quality by discouraging debate outside of the rants forum (which is a cesssspoooool)

Example:

Two people are mudslinging and shitting up a thread inwhich dozens of users are involved. A moderator locks the thread even though it was obvious to everyone that the users involved did not know or care to know that the moderators lock threads because of that. They don't learn their lesson and repeatedly do it.

How the example could have been handled:

It's obvious that two people are ruining a thread. Nobody has contacted a moderator about it. The moderator enters the thread and asks the users to take their personal mudslinging to private messages because, hey, they're messing up the thread. Even better: Contact the original poster of the thread and let them decide if what they're doing is on or off-topic. It's their thread afterall.


(Another way this could start is: The users of the thread ask them to take their bullshit to PMs. They refuse, so they call in a moderator because IN THAT CASE: They actually WANT THE MODERATOR to participate)

The users REFUSE.

The moderator temp-bans them for 24 hours or whatever time they feel is necessary to get the message across.

The users come back from their ban and commit another offense. They get banned for THREE DAYS, a WEEK, TWO WEEKS, A MONTH, then PERMANENTLY.

===========================

A lot less threads would be locked. A lot more conclusions would actually be reached, and a lot more people would feel comfortable about a person-to-person precision instead of this grand-sweeping nonsense.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 23, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Two people are mudslinging and shitting up a thread inwhich dozens of users are involved. A moderator locks the thread even though it was obvious to everyone that the users involved did not know or care to know that the moderators lock threads because of that. They don't learn their lesson and repeatedly do it.


 Yes, I saw this happen quite a lot. And I entirely agree with you.

However, can we really force mods to change their moderating style? The easiest way to solve this issue would probably be to be more careful during the next stage of staff recruitment, and look for specific criterias related to the problem present in individuals applying for the position.


----------



## Grimfang (Aug 23, 2009)

FrancisBlack said:


> The easiest way to solve this issue would probably be to be more careful during the next stage of staff recruitment, and look for specific criterias related to the problem present in individuals applying for the position.



The only problem with that is you never know how someone will react to shiny buttons. It's a judgment call based on how long the user has been around, and what they post, heh.



FrancisBlack said:


> However, can we really force mods to change their moderating style?



No, but you can always raise issues just like this. If users' issues go unacknowledged, then I guess said users will get pissed and stop frequenting this place.
And we don't want that.



			
				TehSean said:
			
		

> The mods are too aggressive to lock other users out of decent threads.
> The mods can't accept that people actually argue?
> The mods are being lazy by not temp-banning repeat offenders and punish everyone involved for a minority population's screw-up.



I think I agree in that some topic-drift or heated debate shouldn't result in a thread being closed. And I mean decent threads. There are times in which threads just didn't get the chance they may have deserved.

god.. I need to stop lurking with an incomplete post. I'll have more to say in a bit.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Heh, I wonder who this sounds like :roll:

Can you post some threads that you think should of been handled differently? A few threads I've seen REALLY needed to be shut down...

EDIT:


Grimfang said:


> I think I agree in that some topic-drift or heated debate shouldn't result in a thread being closed. And I mean decent threads. There are times in which threads just didn't get the chance they may have deserved.



DAMN IT GRIM! ... snipers...
XD Well I really agree with this, though best thing I really want to say is get a way to create second opinions on the matter.


----------



## Aden (Aug 23, 2009)

And then Xaerun didn't care. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

I do agree it is getting annoying how often threads are locked for stuff like derailment. I never understood that on FA. It's like, why punish OP and others, when you could wipe the derail posts, and warn the people personally, to stop that. If it does not stop, temp ban.

It's another thing though with OP chooses to participate in thread derailment. Then I understand the lock.

As for locking a thread for mud slinging, I would think the same applies. Wipe the mud slinging posts. Personally warn the people involved to stop that. Then if wont' stop, temp ban.

Just locking away is, to me, a lazy approach. Then again I can understand why mods may take it because to do things the correct way would take a lot of time considering how often we FAF posters (admit it people we do it so much) derail and start insulting each other.

So perhaps if people were to make a more honest effort to behave themselves more often, the mods (or more of the mods) would be more inclined to take the time to handle things correctly.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

Yeah those guys are assholes.


----------



## Azure (Aug 23, 2009)

Wah wah wah.  Go get some milk and cookies.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 23, 2009)

TehSean said:


> My grievances here are simple:
> 
> 1- The mods are too aggressive to lock other users out of decent threads.
> 2- The mods can't accept that people actually argue?
> 3- The mods are being lazy by not temp-banning repeat offenders and punish everyone involved for a minority population's screw-up.



#1 - Mods frequently lock topics because of necroposting.  Even if it was a decent thread, if it's dead there's almost nothing that can 'revive' it, so it's best left that way.

#2 - Depends on the argument.  If it's heating up in the direction of personal attacks/harassment, it actually can be better to cut it off early and separate the individual parties rather than allowing it to continue building.


----------



## TehSean (Aug 23, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> #1 - Mods frequently lock topics because of necroposting.  Even if it was a decent thread, if it's dead there's almost nothing that can 'revive' it, so it's best left that way.
> 
> #2 - Depends on the argument.  If it's heating up in the direction of personal attacks/harassment, it actually can be better to cut it off early and separate the individual parties rather than allowing it to continue building.



1: Fine.

2: If the entire thread is in an uproar, then sure, yeah. The whole thread is bunk at that point, but if it's just two individuals, then it's manageable. 

=============================================================

Re: AzurePhoneix

Cool profile, bro

Interests

Trollin 
LULZing 
Harassing


----------



## Grimfang (Aug 23, 2009)

Eli said:


> Heh, I wonder who this sounds like :roll:
> 
> Can you post some threads that you think should of been handled differently? A few threads I've seen REALLY needed to be shut down...
> 
> ...



Haha.. There are examples out there, but if it is at all avoidable, I'd rather not have us talking about a certain person's actions. A while back, I remember someone was lol'ing at me like "Grim's a mod? What do you even do around here?" That made me feel like "Oh god, I'm not deleting enough posts or something!" xD

It's needed sometimes, but if my poor, abused memory serves me correctly, I seem to remember a less strictly moderated FAF. I want to say thread locks were less common last year, but I don't really know. Circumstances have changed a lot too, and I also remember many rants about how understaffed the forums were back then.

I guess it's just finding a balance of some sort, and maybe coming to an understanding to create a reasonable consistency across the mods. I'm just one of many opinions though.



Trpdwarf said:


> I do agree it is getting annoying how often threads are locked for stuff like derailment. I never understood that on FA. It's like, why punish OP and others, when you could wipe the derail posts, and warn the people personally, to stop that. If it does not stop, temp ban.
> 
> It's another thing though with OP chooses to participate in thread derailment. Then I understand the lock.
> 
> ...



You've always got such a nice way of saying things (at least in situations you haven't been crossed). 
Hah.. And yeah, none of this sounds unreasonable to me.


oof.. I'm so slow today. I'm pretty sure I'm taking about an hour a post..


----------



## Azure (Aug 23, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Re: AzurePhoneix
> 
> Cool profile, bro
> 
> ...


Thx.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

You got mature adults trying to have mature adult conversations or, failing that, work out the stress that comes with being a mature adult and having to deal with the shit we deal with in our everyday life. And I think the mature adults have a mutual understanding that no matter how heated the argument gets, it's *just that, nothing more*. Even when it _sounds_ personal, it's not.

The problem is, we live in a different world than the people inserting themselves into our conversations. Every disagreement between people is ultimately personal to them, but likewise, every agreement is also personal. You're basically arguing from a completely different definition of "forum standards" than what's actually going on here will allow for. All that's happening is what happens on any online community where the owners of it try to be as much a part of it as a regulator of it, and that is, there's never any exception to this, they gradually turn it into _their_ community, not _our_ community.

It's kind of like these journals you see popping up on peoples userpages here from people who are absolutely dumbfounded that streaming sites that allow for adult content still b& furry porn, without actually stating this in their TOS. Well duh. What they're aiming for is to bring in as many people as possible, including furfags, and then have them continue to contribute content minus the furfaggotry, so they can have you help them create the site they want to create. Might as well since you've already registered an account, right?

The logical conclusion of any and every online community is basically Facebook, where you needn't be hassled with things like differing and controversial viewpoints, discussions that force you to exercise your brain beyond your comfort zone and content that you aren't already interested in. I've been involved in a lot, _a lot_ of pre-FA and pre-social networking era online communities, and they _all_ talk about wanting to have diverse membership, and they _all_ eventually devolve into "staff and friends" and for the really determined ones, just "staff".


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Wah wah wah.  Go get some milk and cookietitties.



Fixed.

Threadshitting in a soon to be locked thread.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> A while back, I remember someone was lol'ing at me like "Grim's a mod? What do you even do around here?" That made me feel like "Oh god, I'm not deleting enough posts or something!" xD


 Bwahahah.. I remember that.



> It's needed sometimes, but if my poor, abused memory serves me correctly, I seem to remember a less strictly moderated FAF. I want to say thread locks were less common last year, but I don't really know. Circumstances have changed a lot too, and I also remember many rants about how understaffed the forums were back then.


Yeah... I actually like the levels its at right now, the current team does the job well. Maybe a few different approaches would be appropriate... 



> I guess it's just finding a balance of some sort, and maybe coming to an understanding to create a reasonable consistency across the mods. I'm just one of many opinions though.


 I think it isn't a balance issue anymore, You guys moderate quite well now, I think that the resulting consequences could be tweaked a bit to give users more... "incentive" to stay on track though.



AlexInsane said:


> Fixed.
> 
> Threadshitting in a soon to be locked thread.



Which reminds me of another point that really should be brought up, bringing greater consequences to those purposefully trying to get a thread locked


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't intend to get threads locked; that's not my style. Nor, despite what many of you must think, do I get my jollies from seeing threads get locked.

It's just that this thread will get locked anyway, since it's essentially just BAAAAAW.


----------



## Surgat (Aug 23, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Are we not allowed to argue on this forum anymore?



Bickering is problematic, not arguments in general.



> wait for the original poster of the thread to report the offensive persons in their discussion, or allow its participants to report them if there is a problem.



I don't see why it's necessary to wait for someone to report thread derailment to take action. That would just slow our response times.



> All this would be cleared up if they just warned the persons directly and temp-banned them for continuing to de-rail.



Infractions serve this purpose. We often give these to people who derail threads, but regular users can't tell when other people get them.


----------



## TehSean (Aug 23, 2009)

So would you like me to directly name for you two real life examples of disruptive user in this very thread, or can you find Waldo yourself, Surgat? 

I think it's pretty obvious, Surgat.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

TehSean said:


> So would you like me to directly name for you two real life examples of disruptive user in this very thread, or can you find Waldo yourself?
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious.



Pretty obvious is an oxymoron, like common sense.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 23, 2009)

Haven't been around long enough to see mods just auto-lock threads that just get a little out of hand. But I think they are doing a pretty good job at keeping the order.

Like ANY forum, it's hard to find mods that'll actually spend the time to wipe threads of certain posts/settling it down with users on a personal basis and keeps tab on users for temp bans and other infringements. They are like any people and would get aggravated that some of the constant shit people pull out.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 24, 2009)

TehSean said:


> I've already spoken directly with a forum mod ( Carenath ) about this because I feel it's too aggressive and it often comes without forewarning. A lot of threads are getting locked because a lot of people are behaving in a normal manner. (Yes, you read that right.)
> 
> I've suggested to the moderator that he contact the offending people directly, or wait for the original poster of the thread to report the offensive persons in their discussion, or allow its participants to report them if there is a problem.


And I took your suggestions and other feedback into account, I do appreciate when someone comes to me with useful feedback instead of just bitching me out over PM.



TehSean said:


> The mods are too aggressive to lock other users out of decent threads.
> The mods can't accept that people actually argue?
> The mods are being lazy by not temp-banning repeat offenders and punish everyone involved for a minority population's screw-up.


1. This is a judgement call by the moderator dealing with the thread in question.
2. We can I am sure, I certainly do, but when an argument is off-topic, harrassment and otherwise counter-productive to the topic at hand closing a thread is an effective firedamp.
3. Not all moderators can issue bans of any duration.



FrancisBlack said:


> However, can we really force mods to change their moderating style? The easiest way to solve this issue would probably be to be more careful during the next stage of staff recruitment, and look for specific criterias related to the problem present in individuals applying for the position.


Im pretty open to constructive suggestions from anyone on improving my moderation style, and I'm sure that applies just as well to the other moderation staff.



Aden said:


> And then Xaerun didn't care. :V


On the contrary, he is approachable and will listen to feedback.



Stratadrake said:


> #2 - Depends on the argument. If it's heating up in the direction of personal attacks/harassment, it actually can be better to cut it off early and separate the individual parties rather than allowing it to continue building.


That's usually been my approach with regards to some threads, and some users, just nip the argument in the bud by closing the thread and letting another one be created on the topic.


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> It's a judgment call based on how long the user has been around, and what they post, heh.


Or, as on my own case, based on your rugged good looks and you capacity to hold your breath.


----------



## Vekke (Aug 24, 2009)

i agree with op


----------



## Xaerun (Aug 24, 2009)

Aden said:


> And then Xaerun didn't care. :V


I H8 U </3

...But srsly, good call.



Carenath said:


> On the contrary, he is approachable and will listen to feedback.


I like to think so. The avatar was sort of a joke.
Like my user title.
There is much sand in my vagina TBH.

------
At the OP:

As Stratadrake said, it's amazing how many people don't understand the necro-post stuff, even when reasons are almost always given when threads are locked.

Also, have you ever read a thread that's been raped by the ol' "Delete Post" button? Not pretty. Not pretty at all. Sometimes it's better we burn the thread and allow a new, pretty one to rise from the ashes.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 24, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> Also, have you ever read a thread that's been raped by the ol' "Delete Post" button? Not pretty. Not pretty at all. Sometimes it's better we burn the thread and allow a new, pretty one to rise from the ashes.


The option is there to turn off deletion notices for regular users.


----------



## Xaerun (Aug 24, 2009)

Carenath said:


> The option is there to turn off deletion notices for regular users.



Not for me there isn't; probably that old green-name that gives you that. =c


----------



## Aurali (Aug 24, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> Not for me there isn't; probably that old green-name that gives you that. =c



I believe it's an admin panel setting.


----------



## TehSean (Aug 24, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> At the OP:
> 
> As Stratadrake said, it's amazing how many people don't understand the necro-post stuff, even when reasons are almost always given when threads are locked.
> 
> Also, have you ever read a thread that's been raped by the ol' "Delete Post" button? Not pretty. Not pretty at all. Sometimes it's better we burn the thread and allow a new, pretty one to rise from the ashes.




Necro-posting was addressed and resolved already and was agreed by all that it was ok to immediately lock them as those subjects were left to die for a reason: 

The public decided that the thread was over.


As for 'raped by deleted posts', I wouldn't erase any posts. At the very least, keep a record of them set off to the side on some wall of shame before deleting the original post.

Buuut...

 I'd leave the posts up and mark them, when you ban someone, as examples of a bad post, so that everyone can see why someone was banned and avoid that example of bad behavior.


----------



## Xaerun (Aug 24, 2009)

TehSean said:


> As for 'raped by deleted posts', I wouldn't erase any posts. At the very least, keep a record of them set off to the side on some wall of shame before deleting the original post.


So you don't want us to delete posts, but you don't want threads locked? The problem [that springs to mind] with only deleting the original post is if users have quoted the post (and many do), it's as if it was never deleted at all, which basically means nothing has been done to address the issue. We got hit by a spammer who posted HUGE ass images everywhere a while back, I had to delete them all (about 34 posts in all, but that's like... four clicks), but the frustrating part was where people had QUOTED THE POST. God-damn that was annoying. But that's just an example.

I don't understand what you mean by a "wall of shame"...



> I'd leave the posts up and mark them, when you ban someone, as examples of a bad post, so that everyone can see why someone was banned and avoid that example of bad behavior.


I think the bottom line is people are banned for not obeying the rules, and unless the banned user wishes to share with the class, the reason for the ban is only ever between staff and that user.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 24, 2009)

Well the reason the deleted posts was left on, was so users saw why it was deleted. Because people then bring up posts bawwing about why stuff is deleted.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well the reason the deleted posts was left on, was so users saw why it was deleted. Because people then bring up posts bawwing about why stuff is deleted.



Out of all honesty Arshes, they still do. :/


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 24, 2009)

Obviously but at least thy get a reason, not posts that vanish into air.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Obviously but at least thy get a reason, not posts that vanish into air.



Any way to have vbulletin compress all the duplicate (your post got deleted) messages into one?


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 24, 2009)

TehSean said:


> As for 'raped by deleted posts', I wouldn't erase any posts. At the very least, keep a record of them set off to the side on some wall of shame before deleting the original post.


FA's vBulletin already stores complete _edit histories_ of every post made to the forum, why would it _not_ also keep deleted-post history as well?

And then there's the obvious disclaimer that only privileged users/mods/admins can see what a deleted post was.  Deleted posts are not hung up in a gallery for people to throw tomatoes at.

Buuut...



> I'd leave the posts up and mark them, when you ban someone, as examples of a bad post, so that everyone can see why someone was banned and avoid that example of bad behavior.


Quasi-related Wikipedia topics on this matter:
- Don't delete the Main Page
- Don't stuff beans up your nose
- Deny Recognition


----------



## Carenath (Aug 25, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> Not for me there isn't; probably that old green-name that gives you that. =c


Nope, I'm not an admin.



Eli said:


> Any way to have vbulletin compress all the duplicate (your post got deleted) messages into one?


vBorg might have a mod for it..


----------



## Aurali (Aug 25, 2009)

Carenath said:


> vBorg might have a mod for it..


I couldn't find anything through a quick search, though someone more dedicated probably could. (I want a colored name o.o; and not a red one either XD)


----------



## TehSean (Aug 25, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> We got hit by a spammer who posted HUGE ass images everywhere a while back, I had to delete them all (about 34 posts in all, but that's like... four clicks), but the frustrating part was where people had QUOTED THE POST. God-damn that was annoying. But that's just an example.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by a "wall of shame"...



That's different. The spammer was most likely a bot and not an actual person beyond the point the account was registered! So that's ok and makes a ton of sense to do.

As for banning people for bad behavior, you'll probably encounter a lot of people who like to stretch the rules, so it's nice to have examples people can see of that to discourage people from testing the "limitations" of each rule's definition, and it'll just cut down on the amount of questions you'll have to answer from their friends when that user is banned because there will simply be a link stemming from their account saying "This person was banned" and a link going "for this post/reason". Or no link at all, who knows, but more information is better.

There are some responses I've read that seem to imply that we should protect the p r i v a c y of people we've banned? Why? The point of jail/punishment is to make examples of those people in the first place and by offering people a history of infractions on users, it can only do good to educate them on the forum's standards and policy.

Sooooo in the end, the wall of shame would just be a list of users who were banned with links to the posts that earned their ban/tempban/etc.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 25, 2009)

TehSean said:


> That's different. The spammer was most likely a bot and not an actual person beyond the point the account was registered! So that's ok and makes a ton of sense to do.



That sounds more like a Raid then a bot. >.>


----------



## Carenath (Aug 25, 2009)

TehSean said:


> There are some responses I've read that seem to imply that we should protect the p r i v a c y of people we've banned? Why? The point of jail/punishment is to make examples of those people in the first place and by offering people a history of infractions on users, it can only do good to educate them on the forum's standards and policy.
> 
> Sooooo in the end, the wall of shame would just be a list of users who were banned with links to the posts that earned their ban/tempban/etc.


Something like this? : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/banlist.php


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 25, 2009)

TehSean said:


> There are some responses I've read that seem to imply that we should protect the p r i v a c y of people we've banned? Why?



There's a line to draw between keeping it around as an _example_ of wrongful behavior, as opposed to a _tribute_ to it.

Remember the opening scene of POTC1 where Jack salutes the skeletons hanging off a sign reading "Pirates: Ye Be Warned" ?


----------



## TehSean (Aug 26, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Something like this? : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/banlist.php



Yeah, something like that, but made more obviously accessible to the public, such as in a sticky-post notice!


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 26, 2009)

TehSean said:


> How are we going to have any discussion if the threads keep getting locked for being 'derailed and "ARGUING"?


Good luck.
It's a common fad that all mods fail to realize that a discussion normal consists of a point, argument, and eventual derailment. It is also a well known fad of mods to be hypocritical about it too.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 27, 2009)

I wonder, Devious, do you have any personal experience of your own in moderating?  Maybe if you saw it from the other side of the badge....

Mods don't lock topics _just because_ of a 'derailment' or 'arguing'.  The mods probably don't even read half of the topics (statistically speaking) posted in the forums.  They do like any other user, they frequent certain sections of the forums, others they couldn't care less about and won't take any action unless it's specifically reported to them.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 29, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> I wonder, Devious, do you have any personal experience of your own in moderating?  Maybe if you saw it from the other side of the badge....
> 
> Mods don't lock topics _just because_ of a 'derailment' or 'arguing'.  The mods probably don't even read half of the topics (statistically speaking) posted in the forums.  They do like any other user, they frequent certain sections of the forums, others they couldn't care less about and won't take any action unless it's specifically reported to them.


Answer: Yes.

I'm saying that _any mod_ for the matter shares the qualities you just elaborated.


----------

