Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Christopher Sanderson on August 20, 2015, 03:39:56 pm
-
I recently locked one of those too-common threads which had dissolved into puerile name-calling.
I received this considered response by PM:
"The same people derail and disrupt discussions in the same way over and over again (for sake of argument, let's say that I'm one of them).
Locking the thread obviously does not influence their behaviour -- they just do the same thing in a different thread
Locking the thread does prevent the people who are not disruptive from continuing their discussion.
Locking the thread punishes the ones who aren't disruptive and enables the disruptive to save face.
My guess is that the people derailing and disrupting discussions actually do wish to be allowed to post on LuLa discussion forums.
My guess is that being prevented from posting for 2-3 weeks would help them remember to show some consideration to other forum users, and put an end to this repeated behaviour."
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?
-
... Should short-term bans be used instead?
Only if you wish to suck the life out of LuLa and turn it into an accountants book club, or worse, PC police daily briefing. ;)
-
Only if you wish to suck the life out of LuLa and turn it into an accountants book club, or worse, PC police daily briefing. ;)
Agreed! One of the best attributes of LuLa's forums is the lack of sever moderation.
It ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
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.
-
Chris,
I recently locked one of those too-common threads...
...the lock thread tool is used infrequently...
With all due respect, "too-common" and "infrequently" are contradictory.
When one considers how many threads are started on LuLa compared to the number that are locked it is clear that "infrequently" is correct, and on which a decision should be based.
-
...it is clear that "infrequently" is correct, and on which a decision should be based.
Are you offering any suggestion as to the decision?
-
I messaged Chris because I was surprised to see a discussion had been locked yet again.
It ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
When the moderator shows up again and again to lock "threads which had dissolved into puerile name-calling" -- it is broken.
-
...shows up again and again to lock "threads which had dissolved into puerile name-calling" -- it is broken.
It is only once every week or so. But sufficient to try my patience (and clearly that of others).
-
I messaged Chris because I was surprised to see a discussion had been locked yet again.
When the moderator shows up again and again to lock "threads which had dissolved into puerile name-calling" -- it is broken.
If you were "surprised" to see it locked, perhaps it shouldn't have? In which case it isn't broken?
-
I recently locked one of those too-common threads which had dissolved into puerile name-calling.
I received this considered response by PM:
"The same people derail and disrupt discussions in the same way over and over again (for sake of argument, let's say that I'm one of them).
Locking the thread obviously does not influence their behaviour -- they just do the same thing in a different thread
Locking the thread does prevent the people who are not disruptive from continuing their discussion.
Locking the thread punishes the ones who aren't disruptive and enables the disruptive to save face.
I am a bit more optimistic about the effect of locking threads, so would avoid any escalation of admin responses:
- the problem with threads that go off-track is that there can start out worthwhile before going onto a "side discussion", and some people would like to continue the original discussion without the diversions.
- if any of the off-track ones respond to a lock by starting a new thread on the "side topic", people interested in the original topic else can easily ignore that new thread, and maybe start their own to continue th original discussion.
- in my experience, a new thread to salvage the original topic does not degenerate, at least not quickly: the "off track" people go elsewhere if they want to continue.
-
When a topic deteriorates to name calling I don't click on it anymore. I'm dubious about using the quote function to maintain reliable sourcing of others' comments when the same function that allows us to edit a quote to the salient points can also be used to change what people say. I can't say I've ever seen it done here, but on other forums I've seen "fify" or fixed it for you where a poster will quote and change the meaning to suit their sense of humor. It is a childish practice I am thankful to have not witnessed here. I'm more and more content to read and post only when I have something important to add. I'm happy to learn from other members and share when I can. I think there is the right measure of moderating now. Thanks Chris.
-
...disallow people from signing up with an alias..
That is not going to happen: too cumbersome to moderate. But I do boot more readily those who use aliases.
-
I am a bit more optimistic about the effect of locking threads, so would avoid any escalation of admin responses:
- the problem with threads that go off-track is that there can start out worthwhile before going onto a "side discussion", and some people would like to continue the original discussion without the diversions.
- if any of the off-track ones respond to a lock by starting a new thread on the "side topic", people interested in the original topic else can easily ignore that new thread, and maybe start their own to continue th original discussion.
- in my experience, a new thread to salvage the original topic does not degenerate, at least not quickly: the "off track" people go elsewhere if they want to continue.
Thanks for this.
+1 - unless I see some really good argument otherwise
-
That is not going to happen: too cumbersome to moderate. But I do boot those who use aliases more readily.
I can understand it's nearly impossible to detect if someone uses a fake name. I'm not suggesting you vet each person either. But I'd suspect that if a "real name" and email address were necessary to register, instead of just an aliases, you'd get far more 'honest' registrations. Nothing can stop someone who's banned from adding another fake name and email but I suspect it would make it less likely.
-
OK, my two pennies worth.
I think a good rule of thumb for civilised discourse, is 'play the ball, not the man'. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed (through rational argument, evidence etc.), but people are due some respect.
"That's a bad idea, and here's why ..." is fine. "You're an idiot" is not.
There are a number of logical fallacies that are occasionally produced, in order to undermine someone's argument. Some people could do with familiarising themselves with them, and avoiding their use in future. There's plenty of resources on the internet.
Where we're dealing with subjectives, or a topic where definitions are lacking or otherwise unclear, expressing a different opinion doesn't make you wrong. Some people could maybe do with a reminder from time to time.
Generally though, LuLa is pretty tolerant & grown up. Far more so than some places i can think of. Soft-touch moderation seems appropriate in the main.
-
Generally though, LuLa is pretty tolerant & grown up.
Sometimes though, LuLa degenerates into kindergarten -- "Here we go again...running to hide behind mommy's skirt."
-
Sometimes though, LuLa degenerates into kindergarten -- "Here we go again...running to hide behind mommy's skirt."
And thus the thread was locked. We know there are children. Do we tolerate their squabbling?
-
Do we allow their squabbling to be disruptive?
BJL places the burden on others to work around the squabbling and disruption -- that's what we keep having to do.
Those squabbling (mea culpa) have no incentive not to squabble.
-
...Those squabbling (mea culpa) have no incentive not to squabble.
And this is a Forum - for better or worse.
I keep reminding myself of the Roman Forum or Hyde Park Corner or Canada's Parliament (& political discourse).
We are free to come or go...to listen or not... free to shoot off at the mouth or make a reasoned plea.
Some really do like that soapbox though don't they? ;D
-
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.
-
...I keep reminding myself of the Roman Forum or Hyde Park Corner...
Of course those fora have a natural feature that likely moderates the overall noise level: they are outside and under any weather.
Maybe we should simply suggest that some get outside more often and away from their keyboards ::)
PS I'm taking my own advice and will leave you to natter on until I review this tomorrow.
Chris
-
... 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. ;D
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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. ;D
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
... 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."
-
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.
-
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. :D
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
-
...I recently asked for an account again...
Welcome back! ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Over-moderation has killed many forums and bans along with other heavy handed approaches incite more puerile behaviour and fixes little since people feel slighted or that the mods have taken sides. I think this forum is still one of the better behaved ones online and don’t see the big issue here.
-
... if you just simply stopped writing juvenile, antagonistic, drivel which has no purpose other than to provoke other people?...
For example?
-
daws,
I don't see any downside to doing this (other than the additional time it will take management).
The principal cause of Chris' current frustration is the time taken to review and subsequently lock threads.
-
The principal cause of Chris' current frustration is the time taken to review and subsequently lock threads.
When forums get too much traffic for one admin to handle alone, they have the option of bringing moderators aboard. The duties can be shared with mods in any manner the admin wishes.
-
daws,
When forums get too much traffic for one admin to handle alone, they have the option of bringing moderators aboard.
Too much traffic is not an issue.
-
I find the "ignore" feature works well for me.
I just started to use it. I'm curious if you and other's find it doesn't work with email announcements. I believe that if someone on the ignore list posts, I'm still getting an email of a post. If so, maybe that can be fixed?
-
I just started to use it. I'm curious if you and other's find it doesn't work with email announcements. I believe that if someone on the ignore list posts, I'm still getting an email of a post. If so, maybe that can be fixed?
Right now, admin is trying to resolve the issue that many (all?) members are not receiving notification at all, to threads they subscribed to. Perhaps a good time to let them know about your type of problem with notifications as well?
-
Right now, admin is trying to resolve the issue that many (all?) members are not receiving notification at all, to threads they subscribed to. Perhaps a good time to let them know about your type of problem with notifications as well?
I haven't had this option on long enough to know if it's an issue or not, hence the question to other's who have the option on. Do you still get email notifications?
-
Just a further thought about ignore lists. It would be imperfect, but can ignore lists be used to determined who to "ban" (or regulate/censure) in some way, or at least mitigate the decision. If suddenly, 95% of the user base ignores a particular user, that would be a signal to moderators that there may be an issue. I suspect things would never be that clearcut though.
(In any case, wouldn't it be ironic if this particular thread fell victim to the kind of inane exchange that is being addressed. I detected a movement toward the personal in a few of the above exchanges, something the OP was hoping to avoid, I suspect.)
It may not be directly relevant but in the HAM radio world (especially 2-meter nets), the way an interloper (obscene or annoying or otherwise) is usually dealt with is that the other stations on frequency never acknowledge nor address the problem transmitter. Not getting any attention works against that kind of person.
-
...wouldfn't it be easier if you just simply stopped writing juvenile, antagonistic, drivel which has no purpose other than to provoke other people?
Whilst the pot and the kettle may both indeed be black, this sort of harangue leaves some of us rolling our eyes. ::)
-
I think I have the answer, Chris.
You need to create YAF (yet another forum) limited to discussions of other members' parentage, photographic skills, and eating habits. It could be filled with threads such as "Slobodan is a big, stinky boo-boo butt" which would, of course, describe Slobodan's shortcomings. Before I go further, I do not endorse the idea that Mr. Blagojevic has any of those characteristics; this was for illustrative purposes only. I hope Slobodan might possibly have a twisted enough sense of humor that he wouldn't take offence and threaten me with bodily harm.
This forum would need to be closely moderated, not for ad hominem attacks, but because it would quickly go off-topic. For example, I can foresee some poster asking if that butt was micro four-thirds or full frame because if it were m4/3 it wouldn't have the resolution or dynamic range necessary to fully characterize it in an artistic fashion. This would lead to some long discussion on the merits of different camera systems. Then someone else would complain that it was all an Adobe plot and beg for good demosaicing of Fuji RAW files. You would need to keep watch to ensure that postings that might contribute to understanding and civility don't accidentally creep in.
Here's the best part: for that forum only you appoint the worst offenders as moderators. They'll be so busy removing each others' threads that they won't have time to add content elsewhere.
NOTICE: the above was sarcasm or irony or some such similar device. I'm too damn lazy right now to go look up definitions, but I'm sure someone will correct me. It was not meant as a serious suggestion. There is no implied warranty, so if it ain't funny you're out of luck.
-
;D ;D ;D
Do not worry Tom, I've been called worse on these forums and never responded with anything but humor. I am a firm believer in "stick and stones..."
-
You should write for The Onion. ;)
-
You should write for The Onion. ;)
You should be very worried. I've seriously considered writing a long post entitled: Three Kinds of Photographers I Don't Want To Associate With: Scientists, Gearheads, and the Competition Crazed.
Fortunately I've managed to fight the temptation.
Tom (also in Colorado, but has not taken a single photograph of aspen, mountain sheep, or sunflowers and is therefore waiting for the photo police to arrest me for my own protection. ;D )
Oh, Lord! I just realized how off topic this is. Sorry about that.
-
...I've seriously considered writing a long post entitled: Three Kinds of Photographers I Don't Want To Associate With: Scientists, Gearheads, and the Competition Crazed
I'm trying to figure out what kinds are left...
Dave
-
For example?
I don't know Slobodan, maybe it's the reading of the last post of the closed thread and the first page of the thread discussing whether threads should be locked for a start?
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.
Chris
Pots and kettle's may well be black but eye rolling is really not necessary, surely intent is what dictates whether a post is antagonistic? Slobodan, along with many others, bicker back and forward with no intention to resolve an issue or accept each others views as being different, it's juvenile.
Now I have a choice, I can say that a number of people were being dicks in the thread you closed and that when you start a thread to discuss moderation, the same people continue to be dicks in exactly the same manner, that would be juvenile and antagonistic so I wouldn't do that! My pointing out how people are behaving and how those posts are written with the intent to antagonise, then it's just my view of the facts, in my opinion they are being juvenile, antagonistic and writing drivel, that's what it is. My suggestion to Slobodan is rather than point out how people can avoid reading the rubbish, he and others could just stop posting the rubbish.
I don't know how best to moderate forums, that's why I don't run one! I don't envy your task but I guess it's a necessary part of running a site. Virtual lives are becoming increasingly important to people, we can all have bad days, be grumpy and argumentative at times, it's either dealt with in our personal lives or we go online and vent, that extra layer of anonymity seems to make people think it's ok to write whatever they like.
Anyway, these are my opinions, you are of course entitled not to agree with them.
Have a good week.
Mat
-
Obviously a lot of recent posters don't go on YouTube. It's definitely the wild west. With a just a very few exceptions LuLa is very civilised.
Cheers,
-
This is why we can't have nice forums. :-\
-
Right now, admin is trying to resolve the issue that many (all?) members are not receiving notification at all, to threads they subscribed to. Perhaps a good time to let them know about your type of problem with notifications as well?
I can today confirm that one of the two people on my Ignore list who posted did send an email notification to me. So it appears that Ignore doesn't work with email notifications. Not that it's a huge, big deal. Be nice in the context of the Ignore functionality that when someone on the list posts, a notification isn't sent. Not sure if that's big engineering or not. I'll leave that to Chris to comment on.
-
I think the site and forums are well run. I appreciate all that Chris, Michael and Kevin do here. When the threads dissolve to what I consider non productive commentary or the occasional obnoxious statement I just skip it and move on. I can skim the messages and see if there really is anything meaningful If it is minutia nattering and not really adding anything just move on. When the whole thread goes to the netherworlds, I just move on. Self moderation and the limited moderation that does occur with the occasional locked thread is just fine. At least it is not all deleted and when I see discussions such as this one, I realize I have missed "another" but unless I am really bored I don't need to hunt it down to see the fuss.
So I am happy with the way it is and the compromises.
Thanks Chris, Kevin, and Michael.
Alan
-
It is only once every week or so. But sufficient to try my patience (and clearly that of others).
Given that it's the same handful of people each time, a 3 week exclusion would probably mean that you wouldn't need to waste your time on this nonsense during that exclusion period.
Given that same handful of people so obviously want to keep the privilege of posting to LuLa whenever they like, you probably wouldn't need to waste your time on this nonsense for another couple of weeks after the exclusion period.
Once every couple of months? Well, you can dream.
-
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.
You are shoving down everyone else's throat your own sense of morality and hiding behind the political correctness of absolute free speech.
You don't care that other people's liberties are curtailed because of the disruption that you create, but you are outraged at the suggestion that your liberties might be curtailed.
Kindergarten.
-
This is why we can't have nice forums. :-\
Nice forums???
Forums can be simultaneously all of the following: noisy, obstreperous, fractious, given to grand-standing and yet with extremely useful, productive and collegial moments. Each of which we see in moments above...
Nice - not so much.
All I seek is a method of retaining reasonably high signal to noise.
My conclusion at this point is to leave well enough alone. The Terms of Service/User Agreement (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76496.0)spells out plainly the rules of behaviour. I will lock and ban as before. I think this topic now rests.
Chris