intfiction.org

Regarding the topic of board polices and moderation --

I agree with Peter: I saw nothing racist in the post. Emilian, that's not the first time you've brought up racism where none is evident. In regards to that, and in regards to what you see as threats against CYOA, you seem intent on setting yourself up as a victim, even going out of your way to put yourself under the proverbial cart.

As for re-posting the very post I deleted, that's something that on some boards is expressly against policy and can even get you banned (eBay comes to mind). I was inclined to let the original stand until there were complaints, and so I'm inclined to let the re-post stand (as Peter points out, it can serve as a cautionary tale). Here, it's not expressly against policy since there have been no defined policies -- yet. I will say, though, that common sense should suggest that if a post was actually deleted, re-posting it so that you can demonstrate that you were victimized seems unwise. As we move toward defining whatever polices are needed here, this may be something to consider.

Also, on reflection, I can see that implying "Aina Grey" was a troll must be what dragged me into the same outburst. The outburst itself, however, only serves to prove it.

As for deleting such posts, and as for policies and moderation, let's discuss. I don't see any one answer as fitting every scenario. Letting a post stand and locking the topic might be okay, depending on the topic and the post. But suppose one post intentionally spoils an otherwise productive thread? Locking the topic prevents further on-topic discussion, and letting the single post stand means it's there in view of many who don't want an anything-goes board.

One idea might be to move the post to a "rants and trolls" board, which would be excluded from the board-wide RSS feed but could be subscribed to individually, or viewed in the board list. Maybe the original post could be changed to link to that off-topic topic, so that a placeholder is still there in the flow of posts (i.e., a header saying "this post was against board policy, and has been moved. Click here to view it anyway.")

Amazon.com's message boards put this in the hands of the users, although phpBB doesn't (to my knowledge) have functionality like that. the post remains -- it just collapses as "x number of members don't consider this post as contributing to the discussion." It can be expanded, but otherwise does not show up in the flow of reading the topic. Something like that, if the board could be extended, might do the trick.

And that brings up another point -- moderators. If this is going to become an ongoing problem, as I suspect it may, I certainly don't want to be the only one making these decisions. Ideally, I wouldn't make them at all. It's been nice that so far that spam has been about the extent of the problem. But I think some users are out to prove a point, or push to test the boundaries, and as that continues, a board with no policies at all isn't going to work if the idea is to promote safe and productive discussions.

One size won't fit all, unfortunately, but I think it needs discussed. I do not want the policies to restrict heated discussions, disagreements, or in any way make posters feel that it's a stifling environment. At the same time, posts like the one in question are not legitimate discussions, and are an aggressive way of trying to twist things into a stifling environment. And I do not want the board to degenerate into a mess of radical outbursts like the one I deleted, where the forum couldn't even be recommended to friends, family, kids, or others without a taste for that kind of nonsense.

So let's discuss!

I'd replied to this in the previous thread, seconds after you'd posted there. It's just a little side-note and disclaimer, but here goes.



It's better than deletion, certainly, but is it that bad to have locked threads in the board they were originally posted in? I understand that the existence of certain threads, with certain kinds of behaviour, may dampen many users' enjoyment of the forum. But if they get to the end of the thread and see it has been neatly dealt with, they would surely be able to just gloss over the thread themselves?

Also, if you move locked topics - topics which started off well, but ended up in flames - you risk losing good, interesting posts. No one is going to want to read the "board of locked abusive threads", after all.

Anyway, I've said my piece. I also realize that my standard for forum moderation is AGS, where users have seen it all and are happy to snark and laugh at, with sarcasm, irony and logic, any offender. In this forum, however, users may not be of that particular ilk, and may prefer indeed that certain kinds of behaviour be taken away cared of. So in the end, my advice has to do with a certain type of poster that may not be the type of poster we find here.

No, I didn't mean I'd move locked topics. I meant I'd move single posts within a topic, and maybe link that single post to the moved one. But I've come up with an even better way of accomplishing the same thing. With CSS (and you can see it in action using the "rant" and "spoiler" UBB codes), the topic or parts of a topic could be wrapped in a collapsed DIV, prefaced by a moderator or administrator comment. The entire original discussion flows as normal. The offense bit remains -- it's just collapsed except for those who want to go ahead and expand it -- like Amazon's method. The chief problem is it would take an administrator or moderator to add the markup to a given post, since I don't think there's a way for popular vote to flag posts in phpBB.

The bigger problem is just identifying what qualifies as an offensive post. No two people are likely to agree, evidenced by the complaints I got that Aina Grey's outburst should be deleted contrasted against those who believe deletion was excessive. I don't want this to be strictly my decision, and I don't want the policy to be too restricted and stifling. At the same time, I don't think anybody will benefit from a board that devolves into a troll-fest.

I think you should just pick moderators well, who are flexible, accommodating and reasonable, and then let them moderate as they see fit (you too Merk, as one of them.) If people can see the moderators are like that they'll respect them, even if they might disagree with the occasional decision.

I don't have necessarily any good ideas but I'd hate to see the forum turn into r.a.i-f as far as trolling goes. I stopped posting there long ago when sooner or later every discussion turned into a troll bringing the gas and otherwise sane people throwing the matches. So I'll support any measures that prevent this from happening.


Was the latter group against deletion or did they actually think a "fuck you" in meta-200 pixel high font and a direct death threat is not offensive? I can't believe anyone would think it would be ok, but I can see people not wanting any posts deleted (especially since in comparison no-one can delete Usenet posts once they're sent.)

Sounds like a swell idea. The post is still there but marked negatively, unreadable by default but at the click of the mouse.

Of course, the question of "what qualifies" is perfectly valid. The solution might be as simple as: democracy doesn't really work in these situations, so go forward with the dictatorship. Set up a moderator - or a group of moderators - in whom you *trust* to do a good job and leave it up to them. It's not easy to put all control of such matters into a single person or groups of people, but neither is it good to try to please Greeks and Trojans.

But of course, if posters could "vote" for that, as you daydream about, it would be even better.




In my case, and I think in most people's case, I think it was extremely offensive, a personal attack, and way over the line and out of context. But it was there, it was said. If it's removed, the author doesn't have to take the consequences anymore, and I can't be fine with that. Also, people might think they can say whatever they like, because if it gets them in trouble, it'll be removed. I don't like that. Finally, deleting information really goes against my grain, especially in forums, in which a curious sort of social interaction takes place - long conversations over long periods of time. I want to see every bit of that conversation, as long as I'm taking part of it. Even the bits I don't like. After all, we're talking about an extreme case now. Some other times, it isn't that extreme, and it's harder to see whether, for instance, someone is being racist, sarcastic, or just making some sort of point.

Honestly, I wish there was just more interesting discussion in general. I'd favor any decision that leads to that.

Trust your judgement in determining which posts are discussion and which are just verbal diarrhea. I think editing the post with some type of collapse-tag seems like a pretty good way to go about it. Then the post is still there if people wish to view it, so even if the decision to hide it was excessive in that particular case, the posters words haven't really been lost.

If it becomes too burdensome, ban the constant offenders or appoint more moderators. I would hope it would be a rare situation anyway.

I think the problem with a voting mechanism is up/down votes start to translate into "I agree/disagree with this post."

Very true. So much for democracy.

Anything that has nothoing to do with IF should be deleted. Period. If someone posts something, anything, that's personal in nature....delete it.

Topics that are a clear provication should just be deleted.

If people want to rant, send them to usenet.

David C.