System That Chums The Water – SPLIT II

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

... your biggest thing seems to be that it posed an inconvenience to you...

No, I never advanced the idea of convenience as a reason why people should identify themselves.

 

[Anders123]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

I don't know how you would know it's safe to say the COC hasn't been enforced based on the number of infractions issued. I believe only the mods have that information.

The COC mentions "abuse" and "harassment". I don't see how a code based on "microagressions" could ever be fairly or rationally enforced. If someone believes they are being harassed by another member, shouldn't they simply report it?

You may have misinterpreted. The analogy I made to microagressions had nothing to do with the CoC, I was simply explaining to dpnice that even though it seems members self-delete over small things, it's usually a result of those seemingly insignificant things building up over time and nothing being done about the people who keep deliberately poking at others.

In response to your first two lines, it was more about how many infractions people should have if what Jason posted before the split was deserving of one. My point was that, unless infractions are completely meaningless, certain members should have far too many to be allowed to stay based on the nature of their postings. Either that or the mods are very, very inconsistent in giving them out.

About the CoC though, I think two things need to be added.

1. No deliberately baiting or taunting other members (it's arguable whether this falls under harassment or not. I don't believe the mods consider it does, and I think it's why a lot of people manage to toe the line and drive so many people away without actively breaking the rules).

2. Do not drag arguments or personal issues from one thread to another.

The addition of these two rules would mean that there'd still be JUB drama, and disagreements, and discussion, but it would prevent users from poking at each other to bait personal arguments that are unrelated to the threads at hand, and it would lessen the amount of times we'd have to see the exact same personal arguments show up again and again in completely different threads. I think the only issue that would arise is that the mods would have to make value judgments in deciding what is and isn't considered baiting/taunting. It would require that the mods have an active presence on the boards, and it would require that they're aware of/understand users' histories with each other. Unfortunately, I don't think that's feasible currently as the mods just aren't active enough.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

2. Do not drag arguments or personal issues from one thread to another.

That's already added.

...

You see how enforced it seems to be.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

1. No deliberately baiting or taunting other members (it's arguable whether this falls under harassment or not. I don't believe the mods consider it does, and I think it's why a lot of people manage to toe the line and drive so many people away without actively breaking the rules).

I'd disagree with that one on the grounds that during debate when people have radically opposite opinions disagreement itself seems to (usually) be considered by the 'opposing' participant to be baiting and/or taunting. "Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to" and all that. In forums where I've seen that rule it's only capable of being enforced on the surface which lets things fester - the result is a forum tends to be much nastier when it explodes. Instead of having fairly controlled mini-battles you'll get a total forum-incinerating war where the only survivors will be yes-men and lurkers, if any survive at all. There's also various cultural and intellectual variations on what one person considers baiting or taunting than another.

 

[Anders123]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

I can't really post examples of what I mean when I say baiting without causing more drama with direct call outs. The struggle.

In regards to people considering opposing viewpoints baiting when they're not though, that's why I said the moderators would have to make value judgments about it. That's part of being a moderator, or at least it should be. I think knowing the history of regular users and their interactions with each other would help, as would being active on the forum. Both of those things would make it easier to understand motivations (i.e. why people post the things they do) and how certain comments are clearly references to (or intended to bait) certain users in particular. It seems like all of the active members are aware of when people are deliberately baiting or taunting others, but the mods don't do anything about it until said people say something truly abhorrent to somebody. It's like they're incapable of seeing that somebody has a toxic presence on the forums until they step way across the line they've been toeing, and I think it's because the CoC as it is currently enables toxic users to be toxic. The mods can shy away from making value judgments and wait until somebody makes a blatant threat or directly wishes ill on another person to act, because anything even slightly less than that doesn't seem to fall under harassment/abuse.

I don't think that's the right approach, especially not for a forum as small as this, and I've seen the consequences of it unfold over the years I've been here.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

BTW, that whole "making new accounts" thing is a new addition to the CoC, and I see two posters in this thread alone that are still here that prove that's NEVER enforced.

I was surprised when I saw this discussed, because I didn't know about that rule. But, then, I hadn't read the CoC in a few years - it's one of those kind of things which very seldom changes.

As for members posting under changed ID's (whether or not after a deletion/hiatus), I agree that I'd *LIKE* to see people identify what their previous username is, BUT THAT IS PURELY MY PREFERENCE. That preference and $4 will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks. If I really want to know, I'll send a PM. But whether or not to identify previous aliases is ENTIRELY up to each individual who may change his/her username, and I respect whatever their reasons are...and I also don't have any need to know the reasons either.

I did change my username a few years ago, because I happened to come up with another username which I felt was much better, nothing more nothing less.

Apparently he deleted as Fade2Black already a few days ago and returned again as Fade2Black the same day,

Another surprise, too, seeing this. Not very long ago, mostly in September and until a ways into November, I had a second account here, which was being used as a "TEST" account. This was back when the daily thread digests (subscriptions) were being sent...but I was not receiving any of them at all on most days. That problem was solved after a few weeks, but from laziness I didn't get rid of the test account right away and I so HAPPENED TO NEED IT AGAIN when, soon after, the same daily thread notifications were coming into my gmail account without usable links, which made things difficult. Having the test account (as "prairielooner" which was Ye Olde Username of mine) allowed me to monitor the behaviour of the two accounts [SAME SUBSCRIPTIONS - but different emails
AND different browsers and different computers] so I was able to post some troubleshooting tips.

I dumped the alternate account when some people (Johaninsc and some others) started getting some malware from logging into JUB, and I had started getting some computer freezes from it as well. I'm still not sure, but I suspect that it was because the test account was a FREE one (compared to this which is a VIP account) and Live Chat and/or the we()bcam would load and I think there was malware there?? (And, though I don't see it, that may be why non-VIP members are getting a different homepage than before, as I understand it.)

WHY THE ABOVE IS EMPHASIZED, is that when I deleted the test account, it said that the deletion - once initiated - was irreversible, and the username couldn't be reclaimed for 90 days. So, if fade2black deleted and came back the same day, how was that possible?

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

In regards to people considering opposing viewpoints baiting when they're not though, that's why I said the moderators would have to make value judgments about it. That's part of being a moderator, or at least it should be. I think knowing the history of regular users and their interactions with each other would help, as would being active on the forum. Both of those things would make it easier to understand motivations (i.e. why people post the things they do) and how certain comments are clearly references to (or intended to bait) certain users in particular. It seems like all of the active members are aware of when people are deliberately baiting or taunting others, but the mods don't do anything about it until said people say something truly abhorrent to somebody.

I've been a moderator on various forums and chatrooms (I know, they're not the same, they take different styles of moderation, and it wasn't here, obv). I'm aware of value judgments. Interaction with anything living takes a value judgement. There's a difference between obvious harassment, 'internet stalking' thru threads et cetera and judging the intent of words instead of what the words actually say.

I believe that where you see a strong reason to have such judgments about behavior extended to discerning between taunts, insults, actual confusion and disparity between what is said/what is shown by looking at 'regular user interaction' is, at best, a biased idea. Social capital will get in the way- human nature demands it and demands it especially when picking and choosing what is 'offensive enough' and whether someone really meant what was said how it was said in the manner it was said. Social interaction hinges heavily on social capitol, including online. It's the reason the most successful forums don't fall into the trap of trying to judge intent instead of statements. Lack of social capitol scares away newbs already, changing it will make that particular situation worse.

Humanity is piss-poor at judging intentions. A while back I asked Jpghost if English wasn't his first language - this was during a contentious thread where he tried out comedy on a serious subject. It fell....flat, to put it generously. Due in mostly but not entirely in part to how people converse online there's quite a bit less ability than people usually have to judge whether something is accidentally insulting, deliberately insulting or a hashup on both ends. For instance, it didn't occur to me for several days that Jp might've taken the English language question as an insult and it took him a bit to figure out everyone else found what he said offensive despite no one having ill intentions.

There's also that you won't get rid of professional trolls by instituting judging intent but that involves an essay on the various types of troll and how to get around the changes. Which is more than possible - it actually makes it simpler for the trolls to work.

 

[mikemizanin729]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

About the CoC though, I think two things need to be added.

1. No deliberately baiting or taunting other members (it's arguable whether this falls under harassment or not. I don't believe the mods consider it does, and I think it's why a lot of people manage to toe the line and drive so many people away without actively breaking the rules).

2. Do not drag arguments or personal issues from one thread to another.

The addition of these two rules would mean that there'd still be JUB drama, and disagreements, and discussion, but it would prevent users from poking at each other to bait personal arguments that are unrelated to the threads at hand, and it would lessen the amount of times we'd have to see the exact same personal arguments show up again and again in completely different threads. I think the only issue that would arise is that the mods would have to make value judgments in deciding what is and isn't considered baiting/taunting. It would require that the mods have an active presence on the boards, and it would require that they're aware of/understand users' histories with each other. Unfortunately, I don't think that's feasible currently as the mods just aren't active enough.

Infractions eventually expire. Depending on the seriousness of the infraction, but if it's childish name calling, but not to aggressive then it earns about 1-3 points on your account. I suspect if both member are at fault, then they either go unpunished or both receive an infraction.

The mods look at the situation before making any decisions as to what actions should be taken. If that member is arguing with another member that makes them just as bad. When a mod reviews the situation they look at both sides of the argument so what that user sees as baiting it's likely the other member feels baited too.

There was an incident a few months back where me and another member (I'm sure most of Jub already knows) started arguing way too much and it started to become out of control to the point where the mods had to step in which resulted in a three day ban and a warning for the both of us. I did admit to my part in that a few times in the forum will he ? Probably not, but I can tell you that the mods DO give warning to those who they feel may be going to far.

I've never returned here to complain about a moderators decision to infraction/suspend my account because I think they do a decent enough job keeping the forum clean of arguments that may become too much. I also believe that as grown adults we should all be able to resolve the problem between us before more remarks are made that will only lead to more fights.

The mods use their spare time to moderate this forum and it wouldn't hurt to remember that sometimes.

 

[rareboy]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

Do not engage in baiting; either creating threads for that purpose, or in posts toward other members. Do not disrupt the flow of conversation by making statements or insinuations that are deliberately inflammatory or which expand a disagreement from one discussion to another.

From CE&P Posting Guidelines

 

[gsdx]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

I'd disagree with that one on the grounds that during debate when people have radically opposite opinions disagreement itself seems to (usually) be considered by the 'opposing' participant to be baiting and/or taunting.

There is a huge difference between having a discussion - even a heated one - and being deliberately baited or lured into an encounter. Baiting and trolling us usually easily recognised by many as such. Having a different opinion is not necessarily baiting.

 

[Vannie]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

Additionally, it is against rules to return under new names after self-deleting, so I'm also in violation of that, like numerous other reincarnations that currently post here regularly, and like the obvious double accounts that members are allowed to keep when posting ElroyAuto and the like.

Just for the record..... 2 cents


Fade2Black in the past has left me messages/comments stating that he knew I was ElroyAuto.I'm not ElroyAuto.I have "1" account (Vannie) on JustUsBoys.I don't know who ElroyAuto is,nor care.His presence here doesn't bother me tho,fake or not. Thanks for reading.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

I did admit to my part in that a few times in the forum will he ?Probably not, but I can tell you that the mods DO give warning to those who they feel may be going to far.

Nice.

.......

 

[sixthson]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

Just for the record..... 2 cents


Fade2Black in the past has left me messages/comments stating that he knew I was ElroyAuto.I'm not ElroyAuto.I have "1" account (Vannie) on JustUsBoys.I don't know who ElroyAuto is,nor care.His presence here doesn't bother me tho,fake or not. Thanks for reading.

You are pure as the driven snow, Andreus.

 

[Vannie]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

You are pure as the driven snow, Andreus.

Good Morning BostonPirate

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

There is a huge difference between having a discussion - even a heated one - and being deliberately baited or lured into an encounter. Baiting and trolling us usually easily recognised by many as such. Having a different opinion is not necessarily baiting.

I'm still doubting it. If it were easily recognized we'd be using the system. It's been tried in other forums and has failed miserably. I'd show you but it's still under lock-and-key and the damn thing died when I was....24? I think I was 24. Maybe 27. Point being, since it was lock-and-key everyone did know each other, at least as more than at a passing glance. There were around 700 members, around 400/450 active at any given point plus whomever was lurking. There were still horrific mistakes made.

And if that system is moved into an open forum, new people will be added - people no one can adequately guess intentions of since they're new and they can't accurately guess how everyone will react to what they type.

If I spelunk through heated discussions (here or anywhere perhaps barring a snark forum, actually no, that happened to flame and die three or so days ago on fetlife because of 'judging intent and heated discussion/insult'. That one you can actually look up, if you'd like, it's ccok. Although technically the embers are still a'burnin'. Excellent example of social capitol verse baiting verse judging intent of both new and old members) I find there's next to nothing that differs in modly capacity between baiting and 'heated discussions' when judging intentions.

I'd give examples here of the clear-as-mud issues but that would involve bringing up quite a few others as opposed to the very clear example of a personal mistake shown earlier.

 

[Telstra]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

I wonder what this title mean?

"System That Chums The Water"

 

[gsdx]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

I'm still doubting it.

I've been accused of trolling and baiting simply by asking a question which the person continued to ignore time and time again. I was not seeking confrontation. I was asking a simple question.

Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to tell whether a person is trolling, but, other times, it is blatantly obvious.

 

[Telstra]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

I've been accused of trolling and baiting simply by asking a question which the person continued to ignore time and time again. I was not seeking confrontation. I was asking a simple question.

Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to tell whether a person is trolling, but, other times, it is blatantly obvious.

If the person is ignoring the question and you keep on asking time and time again, it is called baiting.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Anti-gay group makes a 'Nobody is Born Gay' clanger

If the person is ignoring the question and you keep on asking time and time again, it is called baiting.

Mmhm. It's also considered baiting if you ask a question that you suspect or know (or that others suspect or know and you do not, that would be the recipient thinking that you're baiting/being an ass when you're not) that's a hot button issue with someone and makes them go on at great length in screeds. Even if the question is legitimate, on topic and not sarcastic - still considered baiting because of the expected response engendered.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: System That Chums The Water [SPLIT]

I wonder what this title mean?

"System That Chums The Water"

That would be a baiting title which implies that the current system is set up in favor of strife instead of dialogue - it isn't a neutral title asking about opinions on various systems of moderation.

Unless you're being facetious?

-mind you, I doubt gsdx meant it to be that way but he very well could've since he seems to severely dislike the current moderation efforts. Which illustrates my whole point, I suppose.