intfiction.org

Some of you may have noticed that a new thread was posted this morning, in the ongoing saga of Conrad Cook v. World.

I deleted the thread and banned Conrad from the forum. The ban is meant to be temporary, and with any luck he will rejoin us in a few days and we can all move on. In the meantime you can catch up with him on rec.arts.int-fiction.

I believe this marks the second time a real user has been banned. It is not a happy milestone for me. At the same time it felt like the right call, and as a moderator on a forum with no hard and fast rules, all I have to rely on is my judgment.

Deleting the thread may have been a mistake. I did it because the content was virtually unchanged from the previous posts on that topic, and contained the same objectionable elements that had resulted in the thread locks. I did it because I specifically asked Conrad not to start another thread, and told him that it would be deleted if he did.

As a rule, if a spammer starts a new thread, I delete the entire thread. I always feel bad if I remove a response from a real person this way, but frequently they quote the spam post and its links, and obviously that is just as problematic as the original content.

Here are the things that will get you banned, as I understand them today:

• Spamming
• Writing obscenities in 72 pt font
• Death threats and blackmail

If you feel strongly that this list is incomplete, or conversely that it stifles your creative expression, I am happy to discuss it. As always, if you have an issue with the moderation policies or specific decisions, you should feel free to PM Merk. I am just as much a guest here as anyone else.

I've said this elsewhere, but since you've asked for commentary, I'd like to request that intfiction.org take a harder line toward trolls. I'd like intfiction.org to be the sort of place where uncivil discourse is deleted, and troll users are secretly banned.

In my personal opinion, intfiction.org has already crossed the line into an "unsafe place."

I feel like "unsafe" is a good word to describe a situation where a few people in control have license to censor discussion based on ill-defined criteria like "civility" and "trolling."

_________________
we gotta move these refrigerators

What do you mean by "unsafe," exactly? If you're referring to general issues of civility, it seems to me that the flame levels on the forum are still generally rather low, especially compared to other parts of the internet. If you have something more specific in mind, that might be a concern. (You can PM me if there's something you don't want to talk about in open forum, though obviously I have no Special Powers so there might not be any point in doing so.)

As this debate works itself out, I find myself becoming more comfortable with a more restrictive level of moderation.

Having said that, I don't mind a higher level of hostility on the "General and Off-Topic" forum than in the actual content-oriented areas.

Well said. Let's go pro-active on the trolls and ban those who make a point of causing trouble and acting like idiots simply to antagonise other people. Yes, Pudlo. I'm looking at you here.

I am sympathetic to the request. Many others have urged a similar policy and I agree with your concerns and respect your intentions.

However, I am really not the right choice for that job. I don't like locking threads or banning people or wielding any of the other moderator powers. But if the community finds someone else to handle those duties and Merk approves it, I obviously won't fight it.

Heartily seconded.

I think that the level of moderation has been fairly close to right, myself. I use the Foe feature liberally, and it's not difficult to work out which topics to ignore.

I'm definitely pro-light touch. This board is quite civil, both by general standards and by that of the internet in general. Ben has dealt with the recent issues in a calm and moderate fashion, and more generally the board is kept clean of spam. I don't see as there's anything wrong. I don't think the positing atmosphere would be improved if a pro-active threat of banning was hanging over people's heads.