Flame Wars (1 Viewer)

[Brianwarnock]

... If it is deleted, then nobody, not even the "culprit" has no idea why because the mods never give reasons.
Col

I don't know Colin for a self promoted guardian of the Queen's English what are you thinking of? You are beginning to sound like a true Scouser.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

i'm completely at a loss...

WHY IS DELETING A THREAD A NO-NO? i just don't get it!

Shame you don't get it but good that you admit to your failings

 

[ajetrumpet]

In order to have some resemblance of transparency I think it should be a rule for all.

what the heck is this? a republican talking to me now!? transparency, transparency, transparency!!!

yeah...whatever that means...

 

[Adam Caramon]

I'd say no to flame wars section, that's simply encouraging flame wars. I would suggest adding a code of conduct that specifies the rules of posting and a separate code of conduct for moderators so that they know what is expected of them.

Colin's suggestion of locking threads & posting an explanation for the lock instead of deleting them is a good idea.

You may also want to consider adding a few more moderators. I've seen a handful of people who have demonstrated the levelness that is needed to be a moderator. Such people are able to fairly arbitrate issues that will occur without bias.

I think the whole censored/uncensored thing is a bad idea as once again it encourages bad behavior.

 

[ColinEssex]

It would also help if we knew who the moderators were, and which part of AWF they are responsible for.

It seems to me that there is no co-ordination as to who is doing what, therefore, there is no consistency of the "tolerance" levels of mods. In other words, an American mod may be offended at something a UK mod will accept as normal for the UK and vice-versa.

It's just a hotch potch system at the moment.

I heard that some mods won't view the 'cooler because they don't like it and don't want to get involved. (That may or may not be true)

Col

 

[dan-cat]

I think you're missing the point of what a flame war is.

It's an eruption of heated exchanges on any given topic.
You can't restrict it to any given board.

It's futile to ask members to only post on a certain board if they plan on either baiting somebody, plan on being baited or simply losing their temper.

Talking of baiting, I think alot of people have twigged what was going on and are ignoring it. If more regulars would venture back to the "social" boards and contribute while ignoring what they consider "inflammatory", I'm sure they could be restored to their former glory.

 

[Rich]

And perhaps those who start with inflammatory posts should refrain from doing so

 

[dan-cat]

And perhaps those who start with inflammatory posts should refrain from doing so

I think there is more success in not lending said posts much weight.

 

[Vassago]

I think there is more success in not lending said posts much weight.

It may work, but the problem is those who make such posts don't let things go. They typically keep whining until someone pays attention to them, like they have a feeling of entitlement. It reminds me of a child crying for attention from his parents.

 

[Rich]

I think there is more success in not lending said posts much weight.

But I've told you umpteen times not to post provocative remarks thus starting a flame war

 

[pbaldy]

If more regulars would venture back to the "social" boards and contribute while ignoring what they consider "inflammatory", I'm sure they could be restored to their former glory.

dan-cat, this sounds good on the surface, but the problem is two-fold. First, while I can and do have people on "ignore", when someone else rises to the bait and responds, they often quote them (hint-look above). If I don't have the second person on ignore, I now see it all anyway.

Second, these inevitably turn into an endless barrage of back-and-forth nonsense. While I could certainly ignore that, I don't want to wade through 5 pages of it to find the occasional "good" post buried underneath. It simply ceases being a productive or enjoyable use of time.

 

[dan-cat]

It may work, but the problem is those who make such posts don't let things go. They typically keep whining until someone pays attention to them, like they have a feeling of entitlement. It reminds me of a child crying for attention from his parents.

Well here's my point.

Many left the WC because of it. Which means many can recognise what can cause trouble and ignore it.

I'd prefer individuals to contribute to the social boards and not shun them.

The onus is on the contributors to ignore what they find distasteful for the good of the board. It's a burden but then that's the difference between social and anti-social behavior. The expense of effort for the common good.

 

[Rich]

dan-cat, this sounds good on the surface, but the problem is two-fold. First, while I can and do have people on "ignore", when someone else rises to the bait and responds, they often quote them (hint-look above). If I don't have the second person on ignore, I now see it all anyway.

Second, these inevitably turn into an endless barrage of back-and-forth nonsense. While I could certainly ignore that, I don't want to wade through 5 pages of it to find the occasional "good" post buried underneath. It simply ceases being a productive or enjoyable use of time.

It's called arguing and it's gone on on this forum for years, hell there are even arguements over opinions for Access, should we ban them too?

 

[Banana]

Ah, the bitter irony. How too well we knew ye!

 

[Rich]

Well here's my point.

Many left the WC because of it. Which means many can recognise what can cause trouble and ignore it.

I'd prefer individuals to contribute to the social boards and not shun them.

The onus is on the contributors to ignore what they find distasteful for the good of the board. It's a burden but then that's the difference between social and anti-social behavior. The expense of effort for the common good.

How many posts do you make on the main boards to reach your conclusions, oh and by the way apart from members coming and going over the years through natural wastage anyway most have left because of the speed of connection or other commitments.
Let's have some names to back up your theories

 

[dan-cat]

If I don't have the second person on ignore, I now see it all anyway.

This is a burden that a social has to carry. The inconvenience that an anti-social brings. Put simply, that's life.

Second, these inevitably turn into an endless barrage of back-and-forth nonsense. While I could certainly ignore that, I don't want to wade through 5 pages of it to find the occasional "good" post buried underneath. It simply ceases being a productive or enjoyable use of time.

Here is my argument.

The social boards are next to dead. The to-ing and fro-ing isnt happening anymore. Most have now twigged that it's no longer enjoyable. If those who shunned the boards returned to fill the boards with reasonable discourse armed with the knowledge of what made them shun the boards in the first place, there would be no more pages of trash to wade through.

People are just not biting anymore. Use the lull to retrieve the board!

 

[Rich]

.

People are just not biting anymore. Use the lull to retrieve the board!

Who do you call people?

 

[pbaldy]

The onus is on the contributors to ignore what they find distasteful for the good of the board. It's a burden but then that's the difference between social and anti-social behavior. The expense of effort for the common good.

Ah, but what if part of what the contributor finds distasteful is having to wade through all the blather to find the few posts with meat in them? Are you saying that someone who chooses not to partake in that type of thread is somehow anti-social? I'm a very sociable person, but as I said before, trying to wade through all that becomes a waste of my time and energy. I could even say it's more polite to stay out of the way when people are "enjoying" themselves in those threads. Why clutter it up with logic and common sense?

 

[dan-cat]

Ah, but what if part of what the contributor finds distasteful is having to wade through all the blather to find the few posts with meat in them? Are you saying that someone who chooses not to partake in that type of thread is somehow anti-social? I'm a very sociable person, but as I said before, trying to wade through all that becomes a waste of my time and energy. I could even say it's more polite to stay out of the way when people are "enjoying" themselves in those threads. Why clutter it up with logic and common sense?

I'm hoping my previous post addressed your point.

When anti-social behavior is dominant then of course it's preferable to avoid it rather than let it drag you down.

However, here is my point.

Anti-social behavior is no longer dominant on the social boards. It's run it's course. Those who shunned the boards could retake it by resetting the default behavior. That is to say, social behavior. It would be social posts that would be waded through.

Those who shunned the boards left begrudgingly. They wanted to contribute but didn't want to wade. It's an ideal time for a renaissance.

 

[pbaldy]

I'm willing to give it a go. I perhaps should clarify my earlier point about "wading through". Whether posting from work or from home, I am generally mixing in posting here with either work duties or having fun (see I am social!). Thus, when these little battles are running, I may see an interesting thread, post a thought, come back an hour later to find 3 pages of drivel have been posted, along with a couple of interesting posts. I have a limited amount of time to devote to posting here, so wading through that stuff is simply not worth it. In the same amount of time, I can help a few people with their Access problems or wade through that thread. I'll typically choose the former.