Forum moderation & locked threads

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Maybe we should simply suggest that some get outside more often and away from their keyboards  ...

Isn't that what many members are advising Isaac to do, go out and take some pictures, instead of whining to moderators? And post them here later, of course. Come to think of it, I should not be using that word (post - as in fence post), so how about "upload" them instead.

[BJL]

If you want me banned, Isaac, fine... grow out of that kindergarten, be a man and say so.

Isaac can bannish Slobodan from his version of this site (and vice versa) by blocking Slobodan's posts from appearing when he reads the forum. Given the very low level of problems here of late (especially compared to most internet forums) that should be the only banning we need.

By the way, there was an outbreak of far more serious and disruptive trolling here some years ago from a flood of new accounts, and then some bannings really were needed.

[BJL]

Come to think of it, I should not be using that word (post - as in fence post), so how about "upload" them instead.

The correct warm and fuzzy verb is "share", but i wouldn't expect a curmudgeon like you to know that!

[Schewe]

Let's see if there can be an equally well-considered discussion about this topic. I am looking for guidance. This forum is essentially self-moderating and the lock thread tool is used infrequently and only when I consider the dialogue within a topic to have become a total waste of everyone's time - particularly mine when having to read and judge the content.

Should short-term bans be used instead?

I think short terms bans if used very infrequently, might help moderate the extreme troublemakers. But people will be people and they say what they say and it reflects on them–sometimes poorly.

Personally, I've decided to self-censor myself and to try harder to be more positive and stay out of frays where there will not be any minds changed. Healthy debate, even aggressive debate is still useful. Juvenile histrionics not so much. There are ways to diffuse situations such as ignoring a user or simply refusing to allow people to get a rise  out of you.

[Rand47]

There are ways to diffuse situations such as ignoring a user or simply refusing to allow people to get a rise  out of you.

+1  Life's too short to allow petty stuff to be a "take down" on my joy in the realm of photography that I love so much.  I was once baited by a passive-aggressive person on this board and was thankful to see how nicely the "ignore" function works.  That person is still "here" but not in my world.  
 
As one of my motorcycle riding friends used to say regarding our sport-touring group, "Life is great, participate! And don't sweat the small or stupid stuff!"

As to what to do in the here and now... my opinion is that I'm a guest in this house and the owners of the house can and should set the "house rules" as they see fit - both in terms of "fairness" as they perceive it, and also in terms of "ease of operation and house-cleaning."

Rand

[Isaac]

Sometimes though, LuLa degenerates into kindergarten -- "Here we go again...running to hide behind mommy's skirt."

If you want me banned, Isaac, fine... grow out of that kindergarten, be a man and say so.

How self-obsessed you are!

How comical that you think mouthing kindergarten insults shows you're a man!

How sad you have so little to say!

Isn't that what many members are advising Isaac to do, go out and take some pictures, instead of whining to moderators?

Those members should take their own advice.

fyi I did not complain to Chris.

[MatthewCromer]

There is a small percentage of people who don't know how to behave themselves online.

I think giving warnings and, if repeatedly ignored, temporary bans, is a better solution than locking threads.

[dreed]

Want to change anything, disallow people from signing up with an alias, at least allow their full names to be shown when clicking on their info. An alias can get banned, then just sign up as some other alias which is pointless. 

That has been shown to not work.

If a person is determined to be anti-social, there are few totally effective measures (from an absolute point of view) that work because the Internet is just too ... "flexible."

However I would encourage experimenting with removing privileges for people to post new topics and replies because even though it may not be a perfect wall, it does send a strong signal to the offender. If you make it harder for people to be obnoxious then at least they can't do so whilst being lazy.

[drmike]

fyi I did not complain to Chris.

No, as Slobadan knows it was me, a relative newbie who did so. I did it, and now to some extent regret doing it, as if this was 'my' forum I would be very unhappy that such a thread might welcome a new member. In my opinion it looked like bullying (by more than one person) although others might suggest it's just good natured rough and tumble as bullies frequently do.

It was, in my opinion, unedifying and I thought a mod should at least cast an eye over that thread.

Maybe in future I'll just ignore it but I have seen the same sort of thing on other threads which interested me and I suppose if it gets too much I'll just drift away which will be no loss except to me.

Mike

[Isaac]

Maybe in future I'll just ignore it but I have seen the same sort of thing on other threads which interested me and I suppose if it gets too much I'll just drift away which will be no loss except to me.

I doubt you would be the first to drift away because of the bullying and the loss is to LuLa -- the loss of your fresh voices and opinions and excitement about photography.

[Isaac]

We are free to come or go...to listen or not... free to shoot off at the mouth or make a reasoned plea.

None of that changes. You moderate the overall noise level as you see fit.

What changes is that, when you decide it's gone too far, the others still get to play while the naughty children are excluded.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I find the "ignore" feature works well for me. The people that I don't want to read are put on my "ignore" list, and I can still read their posts on an individual basis whenever I want to. And sometimes I remove a name when that individual seems to have cooled off a bit.

I think the level of moderator intervention on LuLa has been superb. I trust Chris and the gang to make reasonable decisions. Whatever they do should not add perceptibly to their workload as we should all prefer them to be concentrating on providing more good content rather than doing policing of the forum.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I find the "ignore" feature works well for me. The people that I don't want to read are put on my "ignore" list, and I can still read their posts on an individual basis whenever I want to. And sometimes I remove a name when that individual seems to have cooled off a bit.

Curiously, although I'm aware of that feature, I've never felt the need to use it. The scroll wheel on my mouse works well enough that I can whizz past posts from people if I'm in that mood; and I can read them quickly if I'm not. Even the worst offenders, who might merit being ignored, can occasionally make a point worthy of consideration.

I think the level of moderator intervention on LuLa has been superb. I trust Chris and the gang to make reasonable decisions. Whatever they do should not add perceptibly to their workload as we should all prefer them to be concentrating on providing more good content rather than doing policing of the forum.

I agree wholeheartedly. The signal to noise ration here is, in comparison to many sites (photographic or otherwise), phenomenally high, and the content of the site outside the forums is so good I'd rather Chris et al spend their time on that.

As to the original question, I find the rate at which threads are locked to be perfectly acceptable, although sometimes when I see a thread has been locked I wonder why anyone bothered. If a thread has deteriorated into infantile name-calling and ad hominem attacks, I just stop reading it. It's easy enough to do and there's little fundamentally wrong with a creche: how much bandwidth or storage does it take up? Then again, a few people who inject unnecessary vitriol into every thread they touch can be sent packing. I've frequented this site for over ten years and can count them on the fingers of one hand. Warn; suspend; delete.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... fyi I did not complain to Chris.

I messaged Chris...

Though I am sure that your hairsplitting persona would argue that "messaging" is not "complaining."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I find those urges by some members to regulate, stifle, control, punish, censor, police, exclude, and corral everyone into their own notion of what is right and wrong, what is "anti-social," "disrupting," "bullying," etc., simply nauseatingly totalitarian. Disgusting, in other words.

If you do not like what you see, move on, scroll down, put on ignore list, but for god's sake stop shoving down everyone else's throat your own sense of morality or hiding behind political correctness.

[TomFrerichs]

If you do not like what you see, move on, scroll down, put on ignore list ...

Some background, at the time of the great Adobe CS6/CC dustup, I asked that my account be removed. I was so angry and frustrated that I did not trust myself to be civil.  These days I just don't give a damn...although I'm still not a CC subscriber.

I recently asked for an account again, primarily because it makes navigation so much easier. Because I am a lousy photographer, an uneducated lout, and a poorly informed critic I do not contribute anything. I am, however, a reader, and I enjoy reading many of these posts.

I see no reason to change the current policies for these forums. Yeah, there are personal attacks, but those can be spotted by the author and the fact that they generally come in clusters. I can scroll past those quickly, just as quickly as I can ignore the endless discussions about "street" and "ambiguity" and (looks back to see if Ray is about) "perspective." It's simple to ignore the posts that are nothing but quotes from Famous People or demands to "post your photos."  If only the level of spam in my e-mail inbox were as low!

When I have seen a thread locked, and that has been rare, it's because the only people posting are those interested in winning points in a pointless game. They have nothing new to say, not even new ways to insult each other.

Putting it briefly: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Tom Frerichs

[Christopher Sanderson]

...I recently asked for an account again...

Welcome back!

[Chris Kern]

The signal to noise ration here is, in comparison to many sites (photographic or otherwise), phenomenally high

Yes, indeed!  And, for the most part, disagreements are aired in a relatively civil (dare I say "Canadian"*) manner, which is one of the things that originally attracted me to this site and keeps me coming back.

And, truth be told, I have to confess I find even the pissing matches rather entertaining—perhaps because of the technical expertise of the antagonists ... or maybe it's just the creativity of their invective.
___
* I'm from south of the border, where bombast and vituperation are endemic.  Don't believe it?  Check out out our current national political discourse.

[daws]

Should short-term bans be used instead?

The management of any forum can decide that a condition of posting on the site is that all members must remain civil to each other and civil to the management -- that members may argue the topic of any thread to the hilt, but are prohibited from resorting to ad hominem arguments against each other or the management.

Management can decide that users who, in the opinion of management, violate the conditions of posting will receive n number of friendly warnings via PM, followed by suspensions of increasing length, followed by a permanent ban.

Management can do that -- or not. It depends on how much management wants an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect to be an attribute of their site, and how fed up they are with members who repeatedly bash, mock, belittle and disparage other members for no reason other than having a different opinion than their own. Members who make personal snark a hallmark of their posts.

My opinion is that LuLa management should give every member who resorts to poking other members a clear and fair opportunity to cease and desist said poking. If they don't, then they get suspensions of increasing length. And if they still don't, they're banned.

I don't see any downside to doing this (other than the additional time it will take management). I don't see how regulating ad hominem posts and disciplining the behavior of ad hominem posters can possibly diminish the readability and reputation of the Luminous Landscape forum.

[mjrichardson]

I find those urges by some members to regulate, stifle, control, punish, censor, police, exclude, and corral everyone into their own notion of what is right and wrong, what is "anti-social," "disrupting," "bullying," etc., simply nauseatingly totalitarian. Disgusting, in other words.

If you do not like what you see, move on, scroll down, put on ignore list, but for god's sake stop shoving down everyone else's throat your own sense of morality or hiding behind political correctness.

Slobodan

I know this is going to sound like an absurd suggestion but rather than people moving on, blocking, scrolling down or any other reaction, wouldn't it be easier if you just simply stopped writing juvenile, antagonistic, drivel which has no purpose other than to provoke other people? Just a thought.

Have a nice day.

Mat