Is the infraction system resulting in over-moderation?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because it's more than humor.  It's humor done to provoke a reaction out of Derek, which makes it even worse because it encourages the return of a banned troll.

so, then, like I said, the humorous setting of a game show was considered "trolling".

so, if I had left out the game show joke, the facts themselves would not have been infracted?!

No - the entire thing was trolling.  Humorous or not, it would've been trolling.

If you argue it wasn't trolling, what was your purpose of creating that thread?

This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. Moderators should be able to differentiate between mild, harmless trolling which is made for the sake of fun, and offensive trolling which lowers the forum's quality.

(damn, I can't believe I'm siding with Jmf ! )

But you acknowleged that it's trolling, even if it's mild trolling.  And I'd argue that trolling directed at a recently banned member isn't harmless.  It encourages said troll to return with another sock.

Jmf, just because the ToS allows you to post publicly known information doesn't mean that you are always allowed to do so.

If we were to have an alcoholic member here whit a DUI on public record, the ToS wouldn't expressly ban someone from posting about that, but if a poster brings something like that up to provoke a reaction, the ToS does ban that because it's trolling.

Being able to post public knowledge doesn't give you free license to post anything that's public knowledge.

[© Tweed the Younger]

this is an old one, but this, which was absolutely inoffensive to anyone on Earth, was locked and Inks doled out 4/10 death points.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145886

[Californian Tony]

Because it's more than humor.  It's humor done to provoke a reaction out of Derek, which makes it even worse because it encourages the return of a banned troll.

so, then, like I said, the humorous setting of a game show was considered "trolling".

so, if I had left out the game show joke, the facts themselves would not have been infracted?!

No - the entire thing was trolling.  Humorous or not, it would've been trolling.

If you argue it wasn't trolling, what was your purpose of creating that thread?

This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. Moderators should be able to differentiate between mild, harmless trolling which is made for the sake of fun, and offensive trolling which lowers the forum's quality.

(damn, I can't believe I'm siding with Jmf ! )

But you acknowleged that it's trolling, even if it's mild trolling.  And I'd argue that trolling directed at a recently banned member isn't harmless.  It encourages said troll to return with another sock.

Jmf, just because the ToS allows you to post publicly known information doesn't mean that you are always allowed to do so.

If we were to have an alcoholic member here whit a DUI on public record, the ToS wouldn't expressly ban someone from posting about that, but if a poster brings something like that up to provoke a reaction, the ToS does ban that because it's trolling.

Being able to post public knowledge doesn't give you free license to post anything that's public knowledge.

Do you really think one pic posted by Jmf would make a difference regarding Derek trying or not to come back with a sock ? That makes no sense.

Yes, this is trolling. If you infrancted all trollish posts the way you infracted that one, many of our most prominent users would be already banned.

Let's take an example :

d

ELECTION 2092

Iowa Senator and Fmr. Biologist Jumbo Yumpiger (Republican) : 49.7%, 316 EVs
Utah Governor and Fmr. General Knark Glubyah (Democrat) : 49.9%, 222 EVs

This clearly is trolling. Does it deserve infraction ?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

the post I linked to above was 'designed to provoke emotional response'?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

the post I linked to above was 'designed to provoke emotional response'?

Well it did, so yes, I believe so.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmf, just because the ToS allows you to post publicly known information doesn't mean that you are always allowed to do so.

If we were to have an alcoholic member here whit a DUI on public record, the ToS wouldn't expressly ban someone from posting about that, but if a poster brings something like that up to provoke a reaction, the ToS does ban that because it's trolling.

Being able to post public knowledge doesn't give you free license to post anything that's public knowledge.

Inks, you are parsing this soo much you can’t see the forest from the trees – I did NOT dig up information from an arrest record that someone was attempting to bury out of embarrassment, rather I disclosed information that someone was proud enough to publically disclosed to the world.

And I can’t provoke a reaction from Derek, he is banned, and has been for two years.  And banned posters have historically been free game on this forum.  To say we can’t talk about banned posters because it might provoke them to create a new sock is a change to the historical rules of the forum.

---

But, again, this is not about this one post, it’s about you and other Mods isolating yourself from the forum in defense of an infraction system that has not weeded out anyone who wouldn’t have been weeded out otherwise.

In many cases, I feel the Forum has lost the participation and contribution of the members who are now moderators (except when they are handing out infractions), the same ones who were made moderators due to their level of participation and contribution.  So not only has the forum lost the ability to joke and/or engage in flame wars, a whole group of the most active posters have barricaded themselves and no longer “come out to plaaaay”..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDH9Jq5AWkQ

[Californian Tony]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

I'd define trolling as posting in a topic without effectively contributing to the discussion in a constructive way (or starting a topic which doesn't contribute to the board's purpose). By this definition, many common posts would fit in this category. If you have a different definition, I'd like you to develop it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

probably 90% of the posts on this forum would fall under the category of attempting to provoke an emotional response -  e.g. Liberals creating threads about Mississippi.

This forum was built upon provoking emotional responses through the use of facts!

[Χahar]

Certianly, there's a pro-veteran bias, but it doesn't make it fair. Veterans and newer members should be equal under the rules.

this is not drawing up a constitution in Europe in 1848.  this is a message board.  we don't have to shroud ourselves in the garbage of meritocracy.

Yeah, there's really no reason that established members shouldn't have more leeway than new people.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

I'd define trolling as posting in a topic without effectively contributing to the discussion in a constructive way (or starting a topic which doesn't contribute to the board's purpose). By this definition, many common posts would fit in this category. If you have a different definition, I'd like you to develop it.

Your definition doesn't match up to most common definitions in other places on the Internet.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Jmf, just because the ToS allows you to post publicly known information doesn't mean that you are always allowed to do so.

If we were to have an alcoholic member here whit a DUI on public record, the ToS wouldn't expressly ban someone from posting about that, but if a poster brings something like that up to provoke a reaction, the ToS does ban that because it's trolling.

Being able to post public knowledge doesn't give you free license to post anything that's public knowledge.

Inks, you are parsing this soo much you can’t see the forest from the trees – I did NOT dig up information from an arrest record that someone was attempting to bury out of embarrassment, rather I disclosed information that someone was proud enough to publically disclosed to the world.

And I can’t provoke a reaction from Derek, he is banned, and has been for two years.  And banned posters have historically been free game on this forum.  To say we can’t talk about banned posters because it might provoke them to create a new sock is a change to the historical rules of the forum.

---

But, again, this is not about this one post, it’s about you and other Mods isolating yourself from the forum in defense of an infraction system that has not weeded out anyone who wouldn’t have been weeded out otherwise.

In many cases, I feel the Forum has lost the participation and contribution of the members who are now moderators (except when they are handing out infractions), the same ones who were made moderators due to their level of participation and contribution.  So not only has the forum lost the ability to joke and/or engage in flame wars, a whole group of the most active posters have barricaded themselves and no longer “come out to plaaaay”..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDH9Jq5AWkQ

I'm not saying you can't talk about banned posters.  I'm saying don't try to get them to react.

I guess my DUI analogy was a bad one - so let me give one closer to the Derek thread.

If I posted the picture of your daughter on the front page of the newspaper asking a question like "Why is jmfcst's daughter so emotional?" or "Is Torie a crybaby?" that would be an example of publicly posted material that under the right circumstances, could be posted and not be trolling.  But by posting that same picture, and forming the discussion in a way to provoke a response from you, that WOULD be trolling.

Trolling is all about context and intent.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Christ... jmfcts did you all a great favor by ousting Derek, when you moderators had no clue.

I wonder if some more "respectable" poster had made this thread, he's be infracted?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Christ... jmfcts did you all a great favor by ousting Derek, when you moderators had no clue.

I wonder if some more "respectable" poster had made this thread, he's be infracted?

He ousted Derek but refused to give any detail of the evidence he had.  Sure, he got the ball rolling, and we're thankful for that, but he refused to be helpful after that.  Joe was the one who got the evidence we needed for us to actually have proof that it was Derek.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

It's funny how mostly liberal people are complaining about overmoderation ("Evil Gubmnt!") It's even funnier that a Conservative is leading the over moderation movement (No offense Inks)


Life is funny.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

By no means do I "lead" the moderation movement.  That'd be Nym.

[Californian Tony]

It's funny how mostly liberal people are complaining about overmoderation ("Evil Gubmnt!") It's even funnier that a Conservative is leading the over moderation movement (No offense Inks)


Life is funny.

It is funny how you feel the need to politicize a totally non-political issue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not saying you can't talk about banned posters.  I'm saying don't try to get them to react.
…Trolling is all about context and intent.

How can a banned poster react when they are banned?!

The mere idea of being infracted on the charge of “attempting to provoke a sock out of a banned poster”…is a sign that someone is parsing the definition of trolling way too much.

Now, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse because no one enjoys this conversation, but why can’t we protect the Forum from being blacklisted among web filters WITHOUT taking all the fun out of the Forum?

Profanity and porn will get this site banned by filters…but our flame wars and provoking of each other won’t.

---

If I posted the picture of your daughter on the front page of the newspaper asking a question like "Why is jmfcst's daughter so emotional?" or "Is Torie a crybaby?" that would be an example of publicly posted material that under the right circumstances, could be posted and not be trolling.  But by posting that same picture, and forming the discussion in a way to provoke a response from you, that WOULD be trolling.

I think 90% of the posters on the FC Board welcome such trolling “against” them.  Heck, many posters create threads about themselves simply for the purpose of provoking mockers (e.g. Bushie’s Update thread, Naso’s videos, jmfcst’s family pics, opebo’s bell curves, BRTD’s crappy music, etc, etc, etc).

Most posters on the FC Board like food fights and it’s one of the main reasons for the FC Board. 

My view of the purpose of the TOS is to keep this site from being blacklisted by filters (due to porn and profanity), keep it clear of the clutter of spammers, and to keep posters from hijacking the threads of other posters.  But to mandate that a bunch of hardheaded people can’t provoke each other on an internet political forum is against the personality of those drawn to such sites.  It’s like telling a bunch of fish not to swim in the water.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

A banned poster can react by making another account, and Derek had a history of doing this.

It seems you don't think trolling should be infracted at all, and if that's the case, that's something you need to take up with Dave.

[Californian Tony]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

I'd define trolling as posting in a topic without effectively contributing to the discussion in a constructive way (or starting a topic which doesn't contribute to the board's purpose). By this definition, many common posts would fit in this category. If you have a different definition, I'd like you to develop it.

Your definition doesn't match up to most common definitions in other places on the Internet.

Well, in this case, we need to have yours.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A banned poster can react by making another account, and Derek had a history of doing this.

It seems you don't think trolling should be infracted at all, and if that's the case, that's something you need to take up with Dave.

The definition of trolling is subjective enough not to involve Dave, the Mods could simply conduct a poll.  I think the vast majority of posters want the ability to have good clean food fights on the FC Board...and how can such food fights start without someone launching the first salvo and shouting "Food Fight"?!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I wouldn't have called that trolling.  I'd describe that as a humorous post in a joking thread, not a post designed to evoke an emotional response from someone.

I'd define trolling as posting in a topic without effectively contributing to the discussion in a constructive way (or starting a topic which doesn't contribute to the board's purpose). By this definition, many common posts would fit in this category. If you have a different definition, I'd like you to develop it.

Your definition doesn't match up to most common definitions in other places on the Internet.

Well, in this case, we need to have yours.

Posting an inflamatory or disruptive post or topic with the intent of disrupting either a thread or the forum as a whole with the intent to disrupt forum discourse, usually by attempting to provoke an emotional response from a poster or posters.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Posting an inflammatory or disruptive post or topic with the intent of disrupting either a thread or the forum as a whole with the intent to disrupt forum discourse, usually by attempting to provoke an emotional response from a poster or posters.

But that is the point - It's kinda hard to disrupt the "discourse" of the FC and OT Boards, for these boards serve as a "disruption area" to the overall forum.

As ironic as it may seem - If the Mods would allow us to "fight" on these two boards, sort of like an Atlas Forum Thunderdome, it would bring "peace" to the Forum. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Maybe we need a Thunderdome sub board on the FC Board, and have it be only visible to members.  Then, if 2 posters have a "problem" anywhere on the Forum, they could take it to the Thunderdome, where only the rules against profanity and porn would still apply to protect the site from filters.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Maybe we need a Thunderdome sub board on the FC Board, and have it be only visible to members.  Then, if 2 posters have a "problem" anywhere on the Forum, they could take it to the Thunderdome, where only the rules against profanity and porn would still apply to protect the site from filters.

E-mail Dave.