[jeffford76]

 barmar, on 2013-October-21, 15:21, said:

I'll put it another way: being an idiot is not against our acceptable use policy.

Maybe it should be.

[GreenMan]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-21, 15:45, said:

I don't see why anyone would continue to participate if they didn't enjoy it, or felt they could learn something from some of the comments.

You're assuming that no unhealthy group dynamics exist. That's a poor assumption IMHO.

[Vampyr]

 GreenMan, on 2013-October-21, 17:44, said:

You're assuming that no unhealthy group dynamics exist. That's a poor assumption IMHO.

I don't think it is, actually, and in any case that is a problem for those who choose to participate. As a participant myself, I can assure you that it was fun and brightened my day a bit.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2013-October-21, 15:21, said:

I'll put it another way: being an idiot is not against our acceptable use policy.

Just as well -- or BBF might be reduced to a dialogue between MikeH and Hrothgar

[aguahombre]

 nige1, on 2013-October-22, 00:47, said:

Just as well -- or BBF might be reduced to a dialogue between MikeH and Hrothgar

I resemble that remark...or is it "represent"?

[Scarabin]

May I make a suggestion. I do not think we should want to drive posters away and I am not sure we should not sanction those who do (unsociable?).

A possible, workable compromise would be to ban specific posters from specific topics, although I would not care to shoulder the responsibility of choosing whom to ban. The people who are most enthusiastic about particular topics seem to be the most disruptive.

About a year ago I decided to browse old topics and I was shocked to discover two posters, who seemed markedly intelligent to me, and who agreed that the discussion was becoming too unpleasant and that the best course was to leave the forums.

[Scarabin]

Sorry, clumsy duplicate.

This post has been edited by Scarabin: 2013-October-23, 00:29

[barmar]

 Scarabin, on 2013-October-23, 00:27, said:

A possible, workable compromise would be to ban specific posters from specific topics, although I would not care to shoulder the responsibility of choosing whom to ban. The people who are most enthusiastic about particular topics seem to be the most disruptive.

AFAIK, the forum software has no such option. Blocking exists at the category and forum level, but not per-thread.

[aguahombre]

 Scarabin, on 2013-October-23, 00:27, said:

The people who are most enthusiastic about particular topics seem to be the most disruptive.

My observation is that there is a small "cadre" of posters whose nature is to be disruptive and look for particular topics to become enthusiastic about.

The frequent posters whose tone turns toward offensive or disruptive in particular threads are reacting to buttons pushed by the above.

Other regulars seem to target certain posters for personal shots regardless of the topic, and just respectfully disagree or question other posters.

IMO, only the "cadre" in that 1st paragraph should be of concern to the mods, other than the occasional deletion of a single post by an otherwise reasonable participant.

[Scarabin]

 barmar, on 2013-October-23, 08:54, said:

AFAIK, the forum software has no such option. Blocking exists at the category and forum level, but not per-thread.

Perhaps it could be applied on an honour basis since I think most posters (with possibly a single exception) would accept this, and there would always be the ultimate sanction of wider banning.

I am not sure however I would not argue against my own suggestion since removing the troublemakers would also remove the life from the discussions. It's just that since we cannot conduct rational discussions on some subjects one feels it should be possible to do something.

[Scarabin]

 aguahombre, on 2013-October-23, 10:54, said:

My observation is that there is a small "cadre" of posters whose nature is to be disruptive and look for particular topics to become enthusiastic about.

The frequent posters whose tone turns toward offensive or disruptive in particular threads are reacting to buttons pushed by the above.

Other regulars seem to target certain posters for personal shots regardless of the topic, and just respectfully disagree or question other posters.

IMO, only the "cadre" in that 1st paragraph should be of concern to the mods, other than the occasional deletion of a single post by an otherwise reasonable participant.

I would agree with your first point. Disagree with the other three. My approach is to expect posters to observe the normal tenets of civilised behaviour. I think there is a small coterie of posters who have taken to themselves the right to decide who and what may appear in topics concerning religion. Challenging newcomers and vilifying other posters is not acceptable behaviour in my book.

I agree that it is not pleasant to have one's "buttons" pressed but my observation is that these posters have been behaving badly ever since I first joined BBO, and only recently have other posters begun to "press their buttons".

Let me pose a question: If I vilify you, call you an idiot, uneducated, and unread, would you be solicitous about not pressing my buttons? And if I responded to your first ever post to BBO by asking: "why should I listen to you?", would it encourage you?

It may be that your cadre is the same as my coterie. It's difficult to be sure without naming names and I would not wish to do this. Whether we agree or disagree we can still have a rational,civilized discussion without rancor or abuse.

This post has been edited by Scarabin: 2013-October-23, 23:18

[GreenMan]

 Scarabin, on 2013-October-23, 19:34, said:

I am not sure however I would not argue against my own suggestion since removing the troublemakers would also remove the life from the discussions.

Well, we don't have to have "life" in our religion discussions and so on. That's not what this site is about, AFAIK. If someone pisses on me and tells me it's raining, I don't think "Wow, what a lively fellow, I must spend more time with him." And if someone goes around starting fights and TPTB are OK with that, then that's a sign I need to leave.

We do NOT have to tolerate bad behavior on principle. It's a question of what kind of place TPTB want this to be.

[Scarabin]

 GreenMan, on 2013-October-23, 20:54, said:

Well, we don't have to have "life" in our religion discussions and so on. That's not what this site is about, AFAIK. If someone pisses on me and tells me it's raining, I don't think "Wow, what a lively fellow, I must spend more time with him." And if someone goes around starting fights and TPTB are OK with that, then that's a sign I need to leave.

We do NOT have to tolerate bad behavior on principle. It's a question of what kind of place TPTB want this to be.

Agree 100%. And I am happy to rely on the Mods judgments. But I think there are at least 2 schools of thought on which posters would be banned?

[Vampyr]

 GreenMan, on 2013-October-23, 20:54, said:

We do NOT have to tolerate bad behavior on principle. It's a question of what kind of place TPTB want this to be.

Bad behaviour in WC threads? There are a lot of controversial things discussed in the WC, and this is the forum that people don't have to read if they are afraid they will miss an important bridge problem or opportunity to contribute a bridge idea. Yes, there are instances of bad manners in bridge threads, and frequent perps, but if that is not what you are talking about, don't read the threads that annoy you.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about bridge threads, report the posts that you think are inappropriate. The mods are pretty good at what they do.

[GreenMan]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-23, 21:49, said:

Bad behaviour in WC threads? There are a lot of controversial things discussed in the WC, and this is the forum that people don't have to read if they are afraid they will miss an important bridge problem or opportunity to contribute a bridge idea. Yes, there are instances of bad manners in bridge threads, and frequent perps, but if that is not what you are talking about, don't read the threads that annoy you.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about bridge threads, report the posts that you think are inappropriate. The mods are pretty good at what they do.

You understand one; you don't understand two.

[barmar]

 Scarabin, on 2013-October-23, 19:34, said:

Perhaps it could be applied on an honour basis since I think most posters (with possibly a single exception) would accept this, and there would always be the ultimate sanction of wider banning.

But the exception is presumably the one you'd like to see banned from a particular thread. What are we supposed to do, send him a message telling him to stop posting in thread X, or risk being banned?

That also means more work for the mods, since we'll have to read the thread to see if he's posting there. Or we could put them on moderator approval, meaning we'll have to read everything they try to post.

FYI, moderating the forums is not anyone's main job. It's something a couple of us (mainly Inquiry and myself) do as a background task.

[aguahombre]

 Scarabin, on 2013-October-23, 19:53, said:

I would agree with your first point. Disagree with the other three.

Since all the ideas you presented in that post are reasonable, it seems we only disagree about what I said. I was referring to normally objective posters having their buttons pushed by the trolls, and to regular posters who treat other regular posters with respect or disdain based on their perceived expertise rather than on the subject matter of the posts.

[Scarabin]

 aguahombre, on 2013-October-24, 13:50, said:

Since all the ideas you presented in that post are reasonable, it seems we only disagree about what I said. I was referring to normally objective posters having their buttons pushed by the trolls, and to regular posters who treat other regular posters with respect or distain based on their perceived expertise rather than on the subject matter of the posts.

Agree completely

[Scarabin]

 barmar, on 2013-October-24, 12:31, said:

But the exception is presumably the one you'd like to see banned from a particular thread. What are we supposed to do, send him a message telling him to stop posting in thread X, or risk being banned?

That also means more work for the mods, since we'll have to read the thread to see if he's posting there. Or we could put them on moderator approval, meaning we'll have to read everything they try to post.

FYI, moderating the forums is not anyone's main job. It's something a couple of us (mainly Inquiry and myself) do as a background task.

Actually my aim is not to ban anyone.

When Inquiry locked the religious moderation topic I applauded his decision and would have been happy to see several posters and religious topics banned out of hand since I felt the discussion was completely out of control. Then I found some sensible posters had actually enjoyed the discussions and I decided that banning posters (for life?) is too drastic for what may be a flaw in character.

I thought that a private warning that the moderator(s) considered the poster was overstepping reasonable limits might have a salutary effect. I did not envisage any formal follow-up other than that repeated warnings would result in a (temporary?) ban from a specific forum.

If I were a mod I'd be happier to give a warning rather than an immediate ban.

That's my suggestion FWIW.

[Vampyr]

 Scarabin, on 2013-October-24, 22:23, said:

When Inquiry locked the religious moderation topic I applauded his decision and would have been happy to see several posters and religious topics banned out of hand since I felt the discussion was completely out of control. T

Did you consider that you had the choice not to continue reading?