Tue 13 Aug, 2013 9:39 am
GPSGuided wrote:I think it was the manner by which this T&C issue was raised that has scuttled any productive discussions on the issue. Hostility leads to intractable conflict and revolutions, not sensible resolution.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:09 am
GPSGuided wrote:... Don't feed the troll.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:12 am
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:28 am
Nuts wrote:Hmmm, and i read the comments and read the blog. Can't see what I or others said made any difference.. should have said I was a satanist rather than a dontcareist.. pretty sure i'm not being held in a nipple cripple?
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:37 am
tasadam wrote:GPSGuided wrote:... Don't feed the troll.
Yep. Works for me.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:48 am
colinm wrote:And the amusing thing is, it works in the T&C of this site, and the mods can't step in as long as nobody responds openly to the troll. If you luck out and somebody calls you out on your passive aggression, it's likely to be able to be construed as unfriendly, and you can get a mod to do your work for you.
It's kind of an inverse trolling ... where a troll trolls to generate a response, any response, the trolls here are trolling to shut down responses, call the motives of their posters into question, derail and disrupt the threads they don't like.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:51 am
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:56 am
ILUVSWTAS wrote:but you forgot to add not notifying the offending poster (or troll) as to why the post they made has suddenly gone missing, or what breach of rule 86.4 1/2 was made.....
ILUVSWTAS wrote:Polite and friendly, yeh i know... unfortunately that's not the way of the world. No matter how much we'd like it to be.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 11:50 am
ILUVSWTAS wrote:colinm wrote:And the amusing thing is, it works in the T&C of this site, and the mods can't step in as long as nobody responds openly to the troll. If you luck out and somebody calls you out on your passive aggression, it's likely to be able to be construed as unfriendly, and you can get a mod to do your work for you.
It's kind of an inverse trolling ... where a troll trolls to generate a response, any response, the trolls here are trolling to shut down responses, call the motives of their posters into question, derail and disrupt the threads they don't like.
This sounds familiar to me... but you forgot to add not notifying the offending poster (or troll) as to why the post they made has suddenly gone missing, or what breach of rule 86.4 1/2 was made.....
Polite and friendly, yeh i know... unfortunately that's not the way of the world. No matter how much we'd like it to be.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 11:54 am
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 12:16 pm
tasadam wrote:Goes for anyone really, if you are friendly, polite, and clean it's pretty hard to get the rest wrong - so you won't be running foul of any rules.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 12:34 pm
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 1:03 pm
This site is a game run for profit derived from herding IP addresses for sale.
No, your a troll!1!!eleven!!
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 1:20 pm
colinm wrote:So let's see if I got this right ... friendly, polite and clean: "I am saddened by the lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion and grammatical correctness evident in many of the posts here. You know who you are. You're mother would probably cry if she read what you said. I'm only posting this too stop you're going too hell. Which you surely will, unless you take my friendly advice."
It ticks all the boxes, can be dropped in just about anywhere, and if repeated often enough with variations will throw sand in the wheels of any conversation. I even threw in a few egregious grammatical errors. All it's missing is a reference to Nazis.
colinm wrote:Look, as to "what is enough" ... I dunno. If you're talking about this thread: My primary point was made in post #1: "To the extent this site is a community, you are probably not in it." I think I made a reasoned case in support of my point. I have not seen much in the way of substantive rebuttal, but if anyone has a rebuttal I'm here for it, pro tem.
Of course, if you're actually talking about when is "enough enough" in terms of when you'll feel sanctioned to decide to wield the ban-hammer ... in a "how much can a koala bear" kind of way ... one could interpret that within the thesis too.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 2:25 pm
tasadam wrote:You continue to flout this forum with disrespect.
You add a signature -This site is a game run for profit derived from herding IP addresses for sale.
I remove it and message you, but you respond that you do not know why I removed it.
tasadam wrote:Now you set another signature -No, your a troll!1!!eleven!!
tasadam wrote:You hope that moderation action will ensue, so you can flame us. You tempt me with your ban-hammer comment like you think it gives me joy to ban anyone on this forum. It does not.
tasadam wrote:I will not be banning you, I am leaving any moderation to that level for the forum owner to do should it be necessary - at his request. He differs from me in thinking you will settle down and post something about, maybe, bushwalking.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 3:45 pm
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 3:47 pm
Son of a Beach wrote:colinm wrote:So let's see if I got this right ... friendly, polite and clean: "I am saddened by the lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion and grammatical correctness evident in many of the posts here. You know who you are. You're mother would probably cry if she read what you said. I'm only posting this too stop you're going too hell. Which you surely will, unless you take my friendly advice."
It ticks all the boxes, can be dropped in just about anywhere, and if repeated often enough with variations will throw sand in the wheels of any conversation. I even threw in a few egregious grammatical errors. All it's missing is a reference to Nazis.
Your argument might be a bit more persuasive if it was more realistic and less over-dramatised. It would certainly be less offensive (to the Nazis, I mean, of course).
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 3:53 pm
Nuts wrote:I'd have to admit that (as for SBS) i'm not an expert with the rules. I do occasionally go and look for one that suits the purpose
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 6:10 pm
colinm wrote:I'm not sure how many people know that Private Messages are subject to the same scrutiny as public messages, for no good reason of which I'm aware. So, when the T&C say you should try to resolve a dispute in PM, you really *have* to be aware that the usual conventions of privacy in dispute resolution do not apply here, and your words can be thrown in your face. So if I may chip in here, as a public service: I'd just say that it's crucial that you pretend friendliness in PM as much as in public.
Colin.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 6:23 pm
tasadam wrote:colinm wrote:I'm not sure how many people know that Private Messages are subject to the same scrutiny as public messages, for no good reason of which I'm aware. So, when the T&C say you should try to resolve a dispute in PM, you really *have* to be aware that the usual conventions of privacy in dispute resolution do not apply here, and your words can be thrown in your face. So if I may chip in here, as a public service: I'd just say that it's crucial that you pretend friendliness in PM as much as in public.
Colin.
To clear this point.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 6:32 pm
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 6:50 pm
blacksheep wrote:Why stay if it is not your scene Colin? You are articulate, intelligent and dissatisfied .. Why put up with it?
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 7:13 pm
andrewbish wrote:colinm wrote:
If I were to find a thread pointless, I would not read it.
The above is surely the most useful and constructive comment in this entire thread.
I'm off to re-read Wayno's link about testicle-chomping fish
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 7:17 pm
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 8:02 pm
colinm wrote:I think, given the "Private" part of "Private Message" and given the exhortation in the T&C to try to resolve disputes using Private Messages, it is very important that people know that, unlike comparable situations in real life, in actual dispute resolution, they can have no expectation of actual privacy.
If people understand that they have exactly the same palette of expressions to resolve disputes in public and in "private," they can probably avoid the worst excesses of dysfunction in the moderation system here. I note that the T&C were recently modified to make this a little more patent, which is a good thing. I'm glad people have the opportunity to be clear on it, here and now.
In these rules, 'content' refers to everything that users may contribute to the site, including, but not limited to: Text and links within forum posts, private messages and profiles.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 8:16 pm
wildwalks wrote:I have learned a lot from reading this. One practical tip is that as moderators we need to be clearer when we post - it should be clear if we are posting as a moderator or a member. This is great feedback thanks. We will discuss this and see how we can improve.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 8:44 pm
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 8:59 pm
Nuts wrote:That would be a good discussion, let's not attribute anything here to mistakes in the way this has been handled. To me, a longer ban might have been easier in hindsight... for everyone's sake. From what I saw of how this was moderated the process couldn't have been more 'community-minded'.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 9:20 pm
colinm wrote:Communities have members, social media sites have livestock. Members have some say in how communities are run, livestock merely has value to those who run a site.
colinm wrote:I have reached the conclusion that this site does not represent a community as a result of an enforcement of the Site Terms and Conditions, which is misleadingly called the Site Rules Page. I refer to them below as T&C, short for "Terms and Conditions" because that is all they are. I am unsure of the last edit date of the T&C (because the page's modification date is not public,) but I suspect they have been modified since the actions and processes to which I refer, and that those modifications serve to retroactively justify those actions.
colinm wrote:I am hamstrung in discussing my reasoned critique with you because T&C 25 explicitly forbids discussion of a specific moderator action. That T&C has the effect of preventing any member of the community, outside a self-selecting elite, from participating in or even fully understanding the T&Cs by discussion within this site. I believe that T&C 25's chilling effect is intentional.
colinm wrote:If you are interested in the specifics of the case I am more than happy to discuss them on my blog, where there is a page dedicated to the specific issues in detail.
http://panchrestomatic.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/corrosive-crypto-christianity.html
colinm wrote:I think that a community which conducts secret processes of judgement is not worthy of the name. A collection of people subject to these secret processes do not, themselves, participate in the formation or evolution of the standards by which conduct is judged, and indeed might not, collectively or individually, even agree with those standards - how would they ever know? How would *you* ever know?
colinm wrote:Enforcement of the T&Cs is conducted without the informed consent of the people using this site, but the term 'community' to describe the site falsely implies that the actions are collectively sanctioned. I know of no actual communities with analagous structure, outside of the reactive artificial communities in prisons. Prefacing the terms and conditions of the site with a plea to and pretense of community is profoundly misleading, almost cruelly so.
colinm wrote:I post this message, in this topic, out of a feeling of community which is clearly at odds with the T&C. That's simply because those are not rules of a community, but are only the terms and conditions of use of a site. The difference between a site and a community which uses a site is precisely that the cultural norms of a community are shared, whereas site conditions are imposed.
colinm wrote:However, I do not deny that there is a community on this site. I merely assert, with plenty of evidence, that you are probably not part of it.
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:05 pm
wildwalks wrote:It breaks my heart when people leave feeling our community feeling picked on because other people choose to breach rules. I am not sure how to respond this this case - with you. It seems you have struggled to find your place in this community since been moderated (maybe before). I believe that communities have a responsibility to it members to help them when they have bad days. It seems that you have chosen to believe that the values of the community are different from those clearly stated. If this is the case then it seems you have chosen to step out of the community. If this is the case then the choice is your - I wish for you all the very best. I am not sure what responsibility I have as a community member in this case? If you want help settling into the community, please just ask for it. I have already offered to have coffee with you - the offer still stands. I am happy to join you for a day walk.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.