Discussion about moderation

[Lory]

Moved from the "Leaving Ceroc" thread - David




As someone further up mentioned - this forum does have a bad reputation, I entirely agree with that, and can now see why.
Hi swp and welcome to the forum :flower:

Let me introduce myself, I'm Lory and I'm one of your friendly moderators, my job is to try and make the forum a 'fair' place, where people are free to post their opinions, experiences, ideas and such like.

The forum itself, is just a empty vessel, which in itself, cannot have a bad reputation.

Therefore, it can only be the members OR the moderating team, who have the bad rep?

As moderators, we to allow people to speak freely, which in many circumstances is applauded by the majority but sometimes unfortunately, it all gets a bit tricky.

Now, as someone who's new to the forum, if you have any idea's on how we can improve the reputation, without removing the right to free speech, please don't hesitate to tell us! :yeah::nice:

[swp]

Hi swp and welcome to the forum :flower:

Let me introduce myself, I'm Lory and I'm one of your friendly moderators, my job is to try and make the forum a 'fair' place, where people are free to post their opinions, experiences, ideas and such like.

The forum itself, is just a empty vessel, which in itself, cannot have a bad reputation.

Therefore, it can only be the members OR the moderating team, who have the bad rep?

As moderators, we to allow people to speak freely, which in many circumstances is applauded by the majority but sometimes unfortunately, it all gets a bit tricky.

Now, as someone who's new to the forum, if you have any idea's on how we can improve the reputation, without removing the right to free speech, please don't hesitate to tell us! :yeah::nice:

Sorry but I disagree that a forum can't have a reputation. A forum is no different to a club, whether that's a dance club or a cacti growing club. Clubs will always have a reputation based upon it's members / mods / management - it's too cliquey, it's really friendly, they're really generous with their time and welcoming, they're disorganised and not worth bothering with etc. (and just so we're clear I am NOT aiming any of these at any specific club).

In the case of this forum, my own personal observations (and I have lurked in the past too so this is not just based in this thread) are that you have some particularly vocal members who often come across as being aggressive. It seems pretty cliquey too, with a pack mentality - one person who isn't in the gang says something which a pack member doesn't like, and before you know it you have the whole pack on their case. Would be so nice if people could think for themselves.

How could you improve it? Not sure I know the answer to that, but it would go someway to helping I think if the arsey / aggressive ones could be brought into line, publicly by a mod when things start to get heavy or way off-topic.

FWIW I am a mod on another forum (unrelated) - we have a couple of gobby ones who have had the potential to scare off noobs, it's only after a carefully chosen word on forum, and by pm if required, that things have been smoothed over. There is a difference between free speech, and potential bullying - and when the whole pack mentality thing kicks in that is what you get.

And before the obvious responses come flooding in, no I am not a particularly sensitive soul. If I was I would have left a couple of pages ago. Lory asked, and I answered.

[Lory]

Sorry but I disagree that a forum can't have a reputation. A forum is no different to a club, whether that's a dance club or a cacti growing club. Clubs will always have a reputation based upon it's members / mods / managementYes, I have to agree with this.. the point I was making was the same as you really, in that, it can't be the actual 'forum' as in the software..

so it has to be the members or the moderators :sad:


In the case of this forum, my own personal observations (and I have lurked in the past too so this is not just based in this thread) are that you have some particularly vocal members who often come across as being aggressive. I also agree with this


a pack mentality ~snip~ Would be so nice if people could think for themselves. and this


How could you improve it? Not sure I know the answer to that, but it would go someway to helping I think if the arsey / aggressive ones could be brought into line, publicly by a mod when things start to get heavy or way off-topic. And this is 'the tricky bit' :cool:


FWIW I am a mod on another forum (unrelated) - we have a couple of gobby ones who have had the potential to scare off noobs, it's only after a carefully chosen word on forum, and by pm if required, that things have been smoothed over. There is a difference between free speech, and potential bullying - and when the whole pack mentality thing kicks in that is what you get.I know it might not seem like it sometimes but we do do this, a fair bit.. maybe not enough though?


Lory asked, and I answered.
Thank you, I appreciate it!

I think the time has come to open another discussion, on another thread, on what the forum members feel is the right and fair level of moderation.

Just as a general note, we took the decision to 'under moderate' during all the recent developments with Southport etc as we didn't want to be accused of 'hiding stuff' or being biased but I think the time is right to get some order back again now! :whip:

[swp]

I know it might not seem like it sometimes but we do do this, a fair bit.. maybe not enough though?


IMO you need to do it more. There is a difference between hiding information, and putting a stop to bullying.

There will always be an element of self-moderation, in that the "normal" members will bring things back into line between them. But the Mods need to be prepared to step in if that fails, or doesn't happen. I know you can't be on all threads at any one time, but IME it's usually pretty easy to pick up on the ones where things are looking like they may get out of hand.

Of course there's always the option of people using the "report" button but that rarely happens where I mod, suspect it's the same here.

[stewart38]

IMO you need to do it more. There is a difference between hiding information, and putting a stop to bullying.




Maybe for another thread but

I’m on another forum that’s so heavily police there is no ‘debate’

If you have lurked in the past ,can you show us examples of bulling please ?

[David Bailey]

IMO you need to do it more. There is a difference between hiding information, and putting a stop to bullying.
Yes, it's a fine line. But if you crack the whip too hard, you get accused of Nazi-dom.

I do very much understand your position - you feel that you've been jumped-on by a lot of established names. And I sympathise, it can be quite upsetting to receive this level of treatment.

But honestly, I don't think you can use your treatment in this thread as an example of poor moderation - you have to admit you've been quite provocative, so it's not unreasonable that some people have reacted to this. And as the discussion is in the Private Lounge (members-only section), this isn't visible to casual viewers or bots.

However, if you want to start a "Moderation level" thread, I'd be happy to continue discussions on that.

Or, there are existing threads - for example:
- http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/forum-technical-problems-questions-suggestions/12664-interfering-mods.html
- http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/forum-technical-problems-questions-suggestions/15278-yellow-red-cards.html

[Lee Bartholomew]

IMO you need to do it more. There is a difference between hiding information, and putting a stop to bullying.




IMO the modding on here seems pretty fair. There have been some decisions I have not agreed with but such is life.

For example, I once got an infraction for writing Boll**ks (with the asterisk) yet it seems OK to write b0llocks :confused:

It's a strange world but it would be boring if there was certainty

[dave the scaffolder]

Right oh I am up to pace now.

basically it is all David bailey's fault, right. So at breaktime, non of us, and I mean non of us. Talk to him in the playground.

Are we all clear on this? Anyone caught talking to him, will have a Chinese burn of S38.

Ok no one tell the prefects ok.

[swp]

Maybe for another thread but

I’m on another forum that’s so heavily police there is no ‘debate’

It is a fine line. But if the "bullies" aren't brought into line you'll struggle to get a decent debate where everyone feels they can contribute.


If you have lurked in the past ,can you show us examples of bulling please ?

You and I both know that you don't need me to do that. I'm not biting. Sorry.

[Lory]

But the Mods need to be prepared to step in if that fails, or doesn't happen. I know you can't be on all threads at any one time, but IME it's usually pretty easy to pick up on the ones where things are looking like they may get out of hand. I personally have difficulties deciding at what point we should step in, when its not been asked for..

I know some of our members are quite capable of (and enjoy ) heavy debate and the right to answer for themselves!

Others, who struggle, need to use the REPORT BUTTON more! We've all got different levels of where we feel comfortable but passed that and we're out of our depth and need help.... we're not mind readers!



Of course there's always the option of people using the "report" button but that rarely happens where I mod, suspect it's the same here.I tend to find it doesn't get used enough by the 'right people', its usually the people who're fastest to jump into the ring, all guns blazing, are always the first people on the report button too! :rolleyes:

[Dreadful Scathe]

You and I both know that you don't need me to do that. I'm not biting. Sorry.

I've never noticed anything i would call bullying either. Are you sure you never imagined it ? :eyebrow:

[David Bailey]

OK, I've moved the OT posts into here, and attached a poll, as I feel it's worth a debate about general moderation levels, and feedback is always useful.

I've got a few general observations for my own part, mainly about forum culture:

Real-world identity: Unlike some other internet discussion forums, CS forumites often know, interact with, and dance with, each other - so there's a strong overlap between forum posts and the real world. So we tend to be less accepting as a group of people's right to anonymity - more so than other forums, I believe. And there's a much weaker "right to privacy" ethos in the group than in other forums.

Plants: historically, we've had a few notorious plants come along - people trying to disguise their identities, create duplicate memberships, use aliases and so on. So, again, anyone who bursts onto the scene with a contentious series of posts is likely to arouse suspicion, rightly or wrongly.

Cliques: Again, because of the way a lot of us interact in the Real World, you find these groupings ("cliques" to outsiders, "friends" to insiders) map onto the forum, possibly more so than in other forums.

All of these factors provide some "interesting" challenges for people trying to keep this forum simultaneously interesting, courteous, free-speaking and active. Like in all areas, the moderating team make mistakes, but we genuinely work hard to try to achieve these goals; we don't have any ulterior motives beyond that.

However, I think it's good to debate how we do these things, and I'd like to hear any suggestions and contributions and thoughts from other members about this area.

[Martin]

With too much moderation you no longer have a forum...

What you end up with is fluffy bunny stuff, and nothing else and then the forum dies (as has happened with another forum I was a contributor to)

[DavidY]

So, again, anyone who bursts onto the scene with a contentious series of posts is likely to arouse suspicion, rightly or wrongly.I can see why people, especially if they've been viewing for some time without posting, may suddenly register if they see a post they have a particularly strong view on.

I know it's been posted before, but it's a version of this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[David Bailey]

To which I can only re-reply:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/listen_to_yourself.png

:)

In fact, I reckon those two images should be at the start of every thread...

[StokeBloke]

What'd happen if the moderators started fighting with each other. In other words, who Bailey's the Baileys! :whistle:

[David Bailey]

What'd happen if the moderators started fighting with each other. In other words, who Bailey's the Baileys! :whistle:
We do have discussions, you know - lots of them. Sometimes we have a thread of 20+ posts, discussing actions to take over a single post :what: Of course, I win all the arguments.

In addition, most of the actions we take are audited, and are usually on the basis of member requests or reported posts (which is why we always encourage members to use the report post button, that's what it's there for).

So there's often a lot going on behind the scenes before we take actions, especially controversial or significant ones.

[John S]

(Long, rambling post follows - if short of time, jump to final paragraph!)

I have been a member of this forum almost since its inception, when it really was populated only by a smallish group of Ceroc dancers in Scotland. Gradually, through the forum we got to associate virtual identities with dancers we met at dance parties in Scotland, and before long nearly everyone on the forum knew nearly everyone else in what David calls the "real" world (Knew them? Heavens, dear reader, we got up close and personal with them!) I am convinced the existence of the forum helped pull together the Ceroc community in Scotland.

Right from the start, when I think he did most of the moderating himself, Franck set the spirit of the forum by allowing a pretty open debate on most topics, and I think it was this openness and willingness to use Ceroc's own software to actually criticise Ceroc that fuelled its success - and probably appealed to MJ dancers from non-Ceroc clubs. That required a very light touch on moderation, and probably at times Franck would have dearly loved to stifle debate on some issues - it is to his credit that he chose not to.

And so, before long the "Ceroc Scotland" forum seemed to become the de facto place where anything and everything associated with MJ could be discussed freely. There must be other forums (fora?) but I don't think any has the same range of topics or spread of membership - correct me if I'm wrong.

But in becoming "international", the forum has somewhat lost its Scottish local identity, and personally I think that's a pity, as any "local" news gets swamped by the rest. I know that I am not particularly interested in 80-90% of the threads just by reading the title, and I think there should be a place for having specific "geographical" sections of the forum - but I do know how difficult that would be to set up and administer, and probably the time for doing so has passed.

I also think there is a danger that the numbers actually contributing to the forum will dwindle in direct relation to the intensity of posting from those who do contribute, particularly if there is no direct relevance to the reader in any slanging match (anyone got statistics on what percentage of members have actually posted - or lurked - within the last year, I suspect it's quite low?). Again, I think more local involvement would help there, and because people are more likely to know each other in the "real" world hopefully they would be "nicer" - but maybe that's a pious hope!

But I suppose in its "international" incarnation the forum is staying true to its origins, just the net is spread a bit wider. Now Toodlepop from Tooting can meet up with Candyfloss from Carlisle at anywhere from Plymouth to Peterhead and they will already know something about each other from interacting on the forum - so the "real" and "forum" words become conflated, friendships are formed, and occasionally enemies are made too!

Probably none of us outside the moderators' circle knows exactly how tough or lax they really are, because I suspect there is a lot of "moderating" work done which never reaches public cyberspace. So, unless we are being really naughty boys and girls we don't encounter them much - we know they are there, (we might wonder how they got there and what hyper-inflated salaries they earn for lurking on our debates), but by and large they are, and should be, similar to a colour scheme or mood lighting in a room - they set and maintain the tone, but what goes on in the room is the responsibility of its occupants.

The moderators' job is to facilitate honest and fair debate, NOT to stifle it. On balance, members' freedom of expression should be preferred to moderators' repression. In football terminology, the referee should play "advantage" wherever possible and allow the debate to flow freely, then deal with any miscreant separately. Often this will call for individual or collective moderators' judgment - and sometimes the judgment will differ from that of an individual or group who feels offended or hard done by. Well frankly, as in a football match with a dodgy referee's decision, tough - get over it!

To sum up this long and somewhat rambling post (you can tell I didn't fancy what's on TV) I think the forum is fine as it is, the moderators are doing a grand (and usually thankless) job and from my perspective at least I don't think any change in the moderating standards is necessary.

(Can I now have oh, about a million, brownie points from the moderators - come on, I know you're out there watching!!!)

[bigdjiver]

I've never noticed anything i would call bullying either. Are you sure you never imagined it ? :eyebrow:FWIW I thought the treatment of SWP might be classed as bullying before anybody else used that word.

[Dreadful Scathe]

FWIW I thought the treatment of SWP might be classed as bullying before anybody else used that word.
Really ? What about it was bullying ? If SWP had not responded to the queries of her sudden manner of posting, the conversation would have ended there - and i notice the most robust arguing comes from SWP. Bullying ? I think you need to witness real bullying :eyebrow:

[martingold]

With too much moderation you no longer have a forum...
What you end up with is fluffy bunny stuff, and nothing else and then the forum dies (as has happened with another forum I was a contributor to):yeah:

one of the most sensible things that have been said on here for a long time lol


We do have discussions, you know - lots of them. Sometimes we have a thread of 20+ posts, discussing actions to take over a single post :what: Of course, I win all the arguments.

In addition, most of the actions we take are audited, and are usually on the basis of member requests or reported posts (which is why we always encourage members to use the report post button, that's what it's there for).

So there's often a lot going on behind the scenes before we take actions, especially controversial or significant ones.
:yeah:
I think we all need to feel very scared now as the mods are obviously talking about us behind our backs isnt there something we can do about it under the data protection act or some such nonsense :rofl:

Right thats the funny stuff out of the way
personally i feel the moderation is spot on almost all the time if i start to feel it isnt (or that a thread isnt going the way i want it to) i remind myself i am here by choice it isnt real life if i didnt like it i dont actually have to log on
Moderating as i have siad on quite a few occasions is a thankless task we should be grateful to the mods for giving up their time (i guess franck doesnt pay them) to try and help this place run smoothly

oh and i bet it was djb who voted for too lenient

[Dreadful Scathe]

oh and i bet it was djb who voted for too lenient


You think? You calling him a fascist ? :)

[martingold]

You think? You calling him a fascist ? :)
now as if i would do a thing like that :whistle:

[David Bailey]

oh and i bet it was djb who voted for too lenient
I voted for "about right", because I'm confident that we're perfect :)

[Dreadful Scathe]

I voted for "about right", because I'm confident that we're perfect :)
ah then i think it was martingold who voted for "Too lenient" . Misdirection...i like it :)

[Andy McGregor]

I voted for "about right", because I'm confident that we're perfect :)I'm afraid I must agree with this. As moderators they are almost perfect.

However, as a Modern Jiver with a perfect body David Bailey is a portly Tango Dancer*.


* I find myself unable to post a compliment about DB without adding a small, but loving, insult :innocent:

[swp]

Actually, I have a serious question - how do we know who the Mods are? I'm looking at the left hand panel and I can see nothing jumping out at me to say who they are. Am I missing something?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Actually, I have a serious question - how do we know who the Mods are? I'm looking at the left hand panel and I can see nothing jumping out at me to say who they are. Am I missing something?
yes. experience. You don't walk into the room at a party and expect to know everyone!

Not that I care if anyone is anonymous, seems like a good idea if you ask me :)

[David Bailey]

Actually, I have a serious question - how do we know who the Mods are?
The administration team is:
- Franck
- Tiggerbabe

The moderating team is:
- David Bailey
- Ducasi
- Kev F
- Lory

Yes, possibly we should have that information available somewhere for new members...

[ducasi]

Actually, I have a serious question - how do we know who the Mods are? I'm looking at the left hand panel and I can see nothing jumping out at me to say who they are. Am I missing something?
Take a look over there to the left above the cute picture... <–––

The forum has two admins – Franck and Tiggerbabe (Sheena). They *are* Ceroc Scotland.

The (active) moderators are Lory, David Bailey and myself. (Kev F and Emma are maybe what you'd call "sleeping moderators".)

None of the moderators have any direct affiliation with Ceroc.

[swp]

yes. experience. You don't walk into the room at a party and expect to know everyone!

Not that I care if anyone is anonymous, seems like a good idea if you ask me :)

Huh??

On every other forum I am on it is very clear who the mods and admins are - they either have a clue under their login name, like "Moderator" and / or they type in a different colour when they are responding in their mod capacity. That way everyone knows when something is being said "officially" - the person who is being brought into line knows, and everyone else knows - so they can see that moderating is happening.

On here it's not easy to spot whether a "normal" user is just trying to settle things, or whether it's a mod jumping in - except with Lory who was kind enough to introduce herself.

Personally I think it would help combat some of the negative press you get if the mods presences were more noticeble.

[swp]

Take a look over there to the left above the cute picture... <–––

The forum has two admins – Franck and Tiggerbabe (Sheena). They *are* Ceroc Scotland.

The (active) moderators are Lory, David Bailey and myself. (Kev F and Emma are maybe what you'd call "sleeping moderators".)

None of the moderators have any direct affiliation with Ceroc.

Thank you Ducasi, and David Bailey.

What you have (Ducasi) is precisely what I meant - I just missed it on yours - sorry! :blush:

[ducasi]

I think this forum could be better moderated, and the sort of things that swp and Poi Boy have mentioned could be done... IF we had a much bigger moderating team.

But given the limited time we have to contribute, I don't think we do so badly at the moment.

[Twirly]

Personally I think it would help combat some of the negative press you get if the mods presences were more noticeble.

A bit off-topic (sorry!), but I'm curious about this "negative press" - who, how, where, why, what?

Whenever I've mentioned the forum in passing to other dancers, there is sometimes a vague awareness of it's existence, but no interest in it whatsoever. SWP's comments make it sound as if there is a rumbling of discontent in the MJ world about the goings on on the forum... :confused:

[Lou]

or they type in a different colour when they are responding in their mod capacity. That way everyone knows when something is being said "officially" - the person who is being brought into line knows, and everyone else knows - so they can see that moderating is happening.

That's a fab idea. There have been times when DJB (for instance) has posted & people have been confused as to whether he was posting as a mod, or as his normal cheery self. And if people take it the wrong way... he gets a bit.... well..... ermmm.... :D

[martingold]

The administration team is:
- Franck
- Tiggerbabe

The moderating team is:
- David Bailey
- Ducasi
- Kev F
- Lory

Yes, possibly we should have that information available somewhere for new members...
ooh i didnt know that hehehee

[Dreadful Scathe]

On here it's not easy to spot whether a "normal" user is just trying to settle things, or whether it's a mod jumping in - except with Lory who was kind enough to introduce herself.

Ah right - i got confused (knowing people generally):). Yes, I agree its not obvious enough for newcomers.

[bigdjiver]

Really ? What about it was bullying ? If SWP had not responded to the queries of her sudden manner of posting, the conversation would have ended there - and i notice the most robust arguing comes from SWP. Bullying ? I think you need to witness real bullying :eyebrow:Real bullying is asking a new girl at the school who is wearing a veil what she has to hide, are you ugly? Or a hoody what crime they committed that they do not want to be recognised.

Real bullying is surrounding such a person by the old boys and girls, including the prefects, all suggesting that f they had nothing to hide they would show their face.

I think I can recognise real bullying.

There was a story on TV about a young girl who had lost all of her hair entering her teens. She sat in the exam hall with a cap on. The teacher in charge ripped her cap off. The hall was filled with 400 students. People have their own reasons for wanting privacy.

Several members of this forum, IMO, has shown unreasonable suspicion and hostility to a newcomer. IMO If the forum did not have a bad reputation it is moving towards earning one.

[Martin]

Real bullying is asking a new girl at the school who is wearing a veil what she has to hide, are you ugly? Or a hoody what crime they committed that they do not want to be recognised.

Real bullying is surrounding such a person by the old boys and girls, including the prefects, all suggesting that f they had nothing to hide they would show their face.

I think I can recognise real bullying.

There was a story on TV about a young girl who had lost all of her hair entering her teens. She sat in the exam hall with a cap on. The teacher in charge ripped her cap off. The hall was filled with 400 students. People have their own reasons for wanting privacy.

Several members of this forum, IMO, has shown unreasonable suspicion and hostility to a newcomer. IMO If the forum did not have a bad reputation it is moving towards earning one.

I disagree, in that, if you want to make "out there" quotes, people will want to substansiate those quotes.

If you hide and make comments, then you should expect people to question those comments.

If you stand up proud and strong, say who you are, and what you think, then respect to that.

If someone is hiding behind a veil, cap or hoody, the natuaral reaction is to ask, "what are you hiding for".

[swp]

That's a fab idea. There have been times when DJB (for instance) has posted & people have been confused as to whether he was posting as a mod, or as his normal cheery self. And if people take it the wrong way... he gets a bit.... well..... ermmm.... :D


See, I do have my uses :wink:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Several members of this forum, IMO, has shown unreasonable suspicion and hostility to a newcomer. IMO If the forum did not have a bad reputation it is moving towards earning one.

And i say they(we) treated a newcomer the same as they would a regular poster. even so, there was no bullying that i can see even by your definitions.

[Martin]

See, I do have my uses :wink:

:respect: It has been fun, and you have livened up the forum.

[David Bailey]

That's a fab idea.
We do actually do that at the moment, using this sort of text - e.g. at the top of threads etc.

We don't use it all the time, however - and it probably wouldn't be significant to new members either, they'd just think we were Fletch and liked posting in silly colours and fonts or something. To be honest, I think it's usually obvious from the context. But if it's not, then simply ask.

I suppose we could use ... tags?


There have been times when DJB (for instance) has posted & people have been confused as to whether he was posting as a mod, or as his normal cheery self.
It's usually easy to tell - I'm far more reasonable when in mod-mode than I am normally :wink:


And if people take it the wrong way... he gets a bit.... well..... ermmm.... :D
"Grumpy drawers" is the expression you're looking for :na:

[David Bailey]

And i say they(we) treated a newcomer the same as they would a regular poster. even so, there was no bullying that i can see even by your definitions.
[non-mod]And I say that "unreasonable" also doesn't even mean "large" :devil:[/non-mod]

[Lory]

The moderating team is:
- David Bailey
- Ducasi
- Kev F
- Lory

Oi! Why am I at the bottom? I was here well before you lot! :devil::na:




On every other forum I am on it is very clear who the mods and admins are - they either have a clue under their login name, like "Moderator" I'm going to add Moderator to my signature ;)


type in a different colour when they are responding in their mod capacity. Actually we do this already, when we've split a thread or such like, we write in bright pink :)

[Lory]

We do actually do that at the moment, using this sort of text - e.g. at the top of threads etc.



YOu type quicker than me :blush::doh:

[Dreadful Scathe]

[non-mod]And I say that "unreasonable" also doesn't even mean "large" :devil:[/non-mod]
oh shush :eyebrow:

[Spiky Steve]

And i say they(we) treated a newcomer the same as they would a regular poster. even so, there was no bullying that i can see even by your definitions.

Interesting statement.

At work we are taught about bullying and harrassment. What might be acceptable behavoiur, banter etc, for an existing group of people can be bullying or harrassment to a newcomer or in fact in can seem that existing people have been happy with an ongoing situation when in fact they are not. One more thing or catch someone at teh wrong time and it can tip the scales for them.

One more point is that the bullying could offend people other than the original comments or actions were intended for.

What you see as acceptable may not be to others.

Steve

[David Bailey]

Oi! Why am I at the bottom? I was here well before you lot! :devil::na:
Alphabetical order. :na:

[fletch]

For me on the whole the forum is fair, although there have been things written about me that I was very, very, unhappy with some of the context was very personal, I asked for it to be removed and it wasn't, I might have been now? with very pearsonal stuff in a post the pearson conserned should be able to have it removed. :sad:

I have also received infractions/delited post for IMO much less,:mad: but then we are all human an and anomalies will occur. :flower:

[Dreadful Scathe]

One more point is that the bullying could offend people other than the original comments or actions were intended for.

What you see as acceptable may not be to others.


Indeed true, but we are talking about bullying, not offense, and for that to be true someone needs to have been bullied and I don't see evidence of that. swp can take care of herself i think :)


Alphabetical order. :na:

It certainly wasn't ordered by attractiveness :eyebrow:

[David Bailey]

Interesting statement.

At work we are taught about bullying and harrassment.
I'm fully-aware of the dangers of perception to new members, believe me, which is why I typically stick up for new posts and if necessary say something appropriate. Which I did, with swp, within the first few minutes.

Similarly, I stuck up for Lee / Woodface when he joined, not because I agreed with him, but because he was new. And I also did the same for the Trouble sisters, Fletch, and others. Again, not because I agree with or am Special Friends of these people - but because they were new.

Possibly, we could "formalise" this somehow?

For example, we could:
- put something about the rules to say "please be especially courteous and welcoming to new posters"
- encourage people to reply to all first posts with "welcome" messages
- be more heavy-handed on discipline for people who are aggressive to new members

But to be honest, I'm not sure if that's the right approach - what do others think?

[Spiky Steve]

I think sometimes more could be done to support newbies.

Is there a list of what words are banned / will be amended with **** ?

[swp]

:respect: It has been fun, and you have livened up the forum.


Why thank you, kind sir :nice:

[swp]

I suppose we could use ... tags?

I think this is the best way, with coloured text too just so it stands out. Works a treat on the other fora I'm on. There's no ambiguity, everyone is clear when there has been mod intervention, or when the mod is responding as themselves and not in an official capacity.

[Spiky Steve]

Indeed true, but we are talking about bullying, not offense, and for that to be true someone needs to have been bullied and I don't see evidence of that. swp can take care of herself i think :)

Keep offending and it is bullying.

I was not stating whether I thought that bullying occurred or not or whether in fact swp could take care of herself. The point I made is that neither you nor I could decide what is offensive to another and the fact that somebody else could detect bullying and they themsleves be offended.

[Lory]

What you see as acceptable may not be to others.



Mod hat on...

This is the exact point, where the difficulty lies. and 'we' (mods) have to make judgement calls all the time on this.

As DB said, we often have discussions and don't always agree! (I usually win though:na:)

Personally, I don't like it when someone comes out, making a big noise, shouting the odds, then when things don't exactly go the way they 'thought/or wanted, then ask/demand us to 'delete' the thread, or infract the person they've been goading all along, for simply retaliating in a 'robust' manor! :rolleyes:

The good thing is, the longer I'm here, and I'd say i'mpretty experienced at this job now :cool: the more I get to see and learn everyone's little traits... who does what and their motives. :devil:

I'm not as silly as I look sometimes :naughty:

Mod hat off...


The people I admire and appreciate the most on this forum, are the one's who have the ability to debate 'reasonably', who have 'open minds' and are 'willing to listen' to alternative views, the people who don't have to result to getting personal and sarcastic to 'score points', the people who can be humble and admit when they sometimes get things wrong! :respect:

[bigdjiver]

I disagree, in that, if you want to make "out there" quotes, people will want to substansiate those quotes.

If you hide and make comments, then you should expect people to question those comments.

If you stand up proud and strong, say who you are, and what you think, then respect to that.

If someone is hiding behind a veil, cap or hoody, the natuaral reaction is to ask, "what are you hiding for".I admit to bias, but I do not think it a good idea to ask people wearing a hood what they have to hide.

I try to treat people with respect until I discover they do not deserve respect. Some others treat everybody with suspicion until they find out that they can be trusted. My take on that is that very few of us do not bear the scar of a self-inflicted wound. If people cannot be trusted not to hurt themselves how can they be trusted not to hurt me?

Until I learn otherwise I assume people are doing their best and have good intentions. I do not try to learn otherwise on first or casual acquaintance.

Even the worst of people can have valuable knowledge and opinions. Even the best can sometimes talk rubbish. I just read the posts and react to what I read, try to value them mostly for what they are.

[swp]

Keep offending and it is bullying.

I was not stating whether I thought that bullying occurred or not or whether in fact swp could take care of herself. The point I made is that neither you nor I could decide what is offensive to another and the fact that somebody else could detect bullying and they themsleves be offended.


I can't be arsed (can I say that?) to look up the proper form of words, but it's along the lines of bullying / harrassment can be a ONE-OFF occurance, or a repeated series of incidences. It's not about how it's mean to be taken, it's about how it's received. And as a couple of others I think have pointed out - it may not be the subject of the intended / non-intended bullying / harrassment who can be offended.

You've all seen the sketch from the Office when David Brent is making racist jokes and he's surprised when it wasn't the black guy who put in the complaint. I think it was the girl in the wheelchair, but I could be wrong (it happens occassionally).

I'm not saying any of this because I feel I've been bullied / harrasssed. yes I am more than capable of sticking up for myself (thank you those who have acknowledged that) but I also feel some users have been more than a little harsh. But I digress. Slightly. There are clearly some other users who feel that I have been bullied / harrassed (again, thanks for the support guys n gals). Going back to what I said before about the forum having a poor rep - this is precisely the sort of thing which will not help it. Makes no odds whether this goes on in the private areas or the public bits - word gets out, and either way it's not acceptable imho. And again, so we're clear - I'm not necessarily talking about me, and no I shan't be pointing you in the direction of other instances - you don't need me to do that.

Please don't take this post as me having a go, I'm not. I'm just trying to help, honest.

[David Bailey]

(I usually win though:na:)
That's only because you usually agree with me :na::na:

Weren't you going to suggest an idea...? :whistle:

[Lory]

What some people fail to grasp, is that you don't 'always' have to agree with your friends.

Having a different POV, doesn't have to mean you don't like them! (i've said it loads of time before, me and my dad, who I love more than anyone, have the biggest rows ever and then we have a cup of tea! )

You don't have to have to join 'the pack' as its been called.

I know its hard sometimes, to humble yourself to agreeing with someone you might not particularly like in real life but it doesn't mean that because your sharing the same the same POV, on one particular subject, that your making a huge statement to the forum/world, that your best mates.

and similarly, just because you verbalise a differing opinion from someone you might see at dancing that night, shouldn't mean when you see them, there has to be any sort of atmosphere!

This is a note for everyone, don't make your posts personal and don't take differing opinions personally!

[Spiky Steve]

Mod hat off...

The people I admire and appreciate the most on this forum, are the one's who have the ability to debate 'reasonably', who have 'open minds' and are 'willing to listen' to alternative views, the people who don't have to result to getting personal and sarcastic to 'score points', the people who can be humble and admit when they sometimes get things wrong! :respect:

OK in this case I believe the system of neg rep to be unfair. The fact that a new person can be given neg rep anonimously for pretty much nothing. Obviously inexperienced they complain and are given more neg rep by less than helpful members. Nobody visibly helps or explains. Remembering the pen is mightier than the sword and hence they are not merely words. I have seen a number of people struggle in this way.

I believe you have that wrong in the assistance of newbies and the rules to existing members that newbies might be unaware of.

Steve

[David Bailey]

OK in this case I believe the system of neg rep to be unfair. The fact that a new person can be given neg rep anonimously for pretty much nothing. Obviously inexperienced they complain and are given more neg rep by less than helpful members. Nobody visibly helps or explains.
So, are you suggesting we disable neg repping for new members - say, for the first 100 posts?

Any ideas / response to my previous suggestions about new member welcoming? Repeating them:

- put something about the rules to say "please be especially courteous and welcoming to new posters"
- encourage people to reply to all first posts with "welcome" messages
- be more heavy-handed on discipline for people who are aggressive to new members

Oh, and can we try to keep this discussion focussed on actual discussion and suggestions for ways in which we the moderators can help you the members, if that's OK?

[Lory]

OK in this case I believe the system of neg rep to be unfair. The fact that a new person can be given neg rep anonimously for pretty much nothing. Obviously inexperienced they complain and are given more neg rep by less than helpful members. Nobody visibly helps or explains. Remembering the pen is mightier than the sword and hence they are not merely words. I have seen a number of people struggle in this way.

I believe you have that wrong in the assistance of newbies and the rules to existing members that newbies might be unaware of.

Steve
Sorry, I seemed to have missed the relationship between the quoted part of my post, to your response :confused:

[Dreadful Scathe]

You've all seen the sketch from the Office when David Brent is making racist jokes and he's surprised when it wasn't the black guy who put in the complaint.

Which is the first thing i thought of when Steve posted the offense/bullying post. I don't think of bullying and offense as the same thing though. I dont think anyone has been overly bad recently (and certainly not to the point of bullying) - i mean really, Andy takes that "particular line of questioning" quite often. And Im annoyingly pedantic in the face of minor points often. And Stewart38 is borderline incoherant most of the time. Thems just the cogwheels of the forum dochaknow :)

As for causing offense, its a weird day when no one is offended by SOMETHING here.


..great stuff...
Please don't take this post as me having a go, I'm not. I'm just trying to help, honest.

I want to be your groupie :eyebrow:

[Lory]

Weren't you going to suggest an idea...? :whistle:
I 'was' but, maybe today isn't the day for it..

I need to pack! :doh:

[Spiky Steve]

Sorry, I seemed to have missed the relationship between the quoted part of my post, to your response :confused:

I guess the modorator team put the rules together and leave them that way.

I think I quoted the part of you post about how you respect the people who are open to debate, have an open mind and may even admit when you have it wrong.

I then stated that I was unhappy with the neg rep rules.

To date all I have seen is that when people are unhappy with neg rep system they are told that they are the ones that are wrong and that the rules were not up for debate.

Hope this helps.

Steve

[swp]

I want to be your groupie :eyebrow:

You're in.

In fact, you can be my head groupie and keep the others in line. They're not here yet, but I'm sure they won't be long. Funny how things work out.

:wink:

[Dreadful Scathe]

To date all I have seen is that when people are unhappy with neg rep system they are told that they are the ones that are wrong and that the rules were not up for debate.



Yes, because those people are always wrong :)

[Spiky Steve]

I don't think of bullying and offense as the same thing though. I dont think anyone has been overly bad recently (and certainly not to the point of bullying) - i mean really, Andy takes that "particular line of questioning" quite often. And Im annoyingly pedantic in the face of minor points often. And Stewart38 is borderline incoherant most of the time. Thems just the cogwheels of the forum dochaknow :)

As for causing offense, its a weird day when no one is offended by SOMETHING here.


Your mention of Andy relies on the reader knowing the history of Andy's posting and simpliarly yours and Stewart38's.

I agree one offense is not bullying. However, is one offense acceptable. Generally if offense is given unitentionally then it is polite to apologise.

Again my statements were general and not necessarily the treatment of swp.

Steve

[Dreadful Scathe]

You're in.

In fact, you can be my head groupie and keep the others in line. They're not here yet, but I'm sure they won't be long. Funny how things work out.

:wink:
I'm very proud :) "Head Groupie" cool (off to make myself a badge)

[Spiky Steve]

Yes, because those people are always wrong :)

Funny, so if these people thought the rules were not up for debate and that they are always wrong then this must mean that the rules are in fact up for debate. You have now caused a paradox.

:wink:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Your mention of Andy relies on the reader knowing the history of Andy's posting and simpliarly yours and Stewart38's.

True indeed, but what i was saying is we shouldn't expect forum people to pussyfoot around new people and complain if they don't. It would be like advertising a new car for £3000 and when the buyer goes to pay, shout "HA! THAT'LL BE AN EXTRA £10,000 TAX YOU MUPPET". False advertising, innit :)



Again my statements were general and not necessarily the treatment of swp.


Fair point - the problem with general points though is, they're too general :)

[Lory]

Fair point - the problem with general points though is, they're too general :)

er yeah :rofl:

[Spiky Steve]

True indeed, but what i was saying is we shouldn't expect forum people to pussyfoot around new people and complain if they don't. :)

:)

A person who does not consider others is in the least case ungentlemanly (not sure the term for a woman) and in the worst case a bully.

An yes I believe if a person offends many people and only once each they are still a bully.

:wink:

[Stuart M]

So, are you suggesting we disable neg repping for new members - say, for the first 100 posts?

Any ideas / response to my previous suggestions about new member welcoming? Repeating them:

- put something about the rules to say "please be especially courteous and welcoming to new posters"
- encourage people to reply to all first posts with "welcome" messages
- be more heavy-handed on discipline for people who are aggressive to new members

Oh, and can we try to keep this discussion focussed on actual discussion and suggestions for ways in which we the moderators can help you the members, if that's OK?
Cuts both ways though - you could also have a rule along the lines:

Any newcomer who starts with an aggressive post is fair game

I'm not being flippant - people tend to continue as they started, and if someone starts in a pugnacious manner, that's how they're likely to go on. Of course, this is not necessarily a bad thing: some such posters are great fun, others just end up being PITA, and clog up everyone's Ignore list.

So, erm, what I'm saying is that the rules should be transparent to the length of time an individual has been on the forum. Netiquette says we should be courteous to newcomers, and likewise newcomers should settle in to take the temperature of the forum. But trying to enshrine that in rules is overly restrictive IMO.

[stewart38]

Your mention of Andy relies on the reader knowing the history of Andy's posting and simpliarly yours and Stewart38's.

I agree one offense is not bullying. However, is one offense acceptable. Generally if offense is given unitentionally then it is polite to apologise.

Again my statements were general and not necessarily the treatment of swp.

Steve

Clearly this is true , I mean DS statement below could be taken the wrong way if I was new and didnt know DS Tourettes problem


And Stewart38 is borderline incoherant most of the time.

However I dont think the forum jump on any newbie per say , I certainly didnt , it was only after I found Swp posting getting offensive (and I mean offensive for me).

Also comments like the one below by Swp are going to get responses , like a guy going into a bar for the first time and saying 'this bar has got a reputation for being very poor', pint of bitter please



Going back to what I said before about the forum having a poor rep -

How do you moderate that ? I think its a good idea we know who the moderators are from the start , didnt know Kev F was one

[Dreadful Scathe]

A person who does not consider others is in the least case ungentlemanly (not sure the term for a woman) and in the worst case a bully.

Whilst that may be true in real life - is the virtual world the same? Is the online world not full of ideas ready to be shot down in an impersonal way ? Its not the same as a conversation at the Church Fete is it ? :eyebrow:
I refer you to the youTube comments beneath any popular video - are these "real life" people who normally speak like that? or is the internet just not the same thing as "real life" ? :eyebrow:

[Spiky Steve]

Cuts both ways though - you could also have a rule along the lines:

Any newcomer who starts with an aggressive post is fair game
I'm not being flippant - people tend to continue as they started, and if someone starts in a pugnacious manner, that's how they're likely to go on. Of course, this is not necessarily a bad thing: some such posters are great fun, others just end up being PITA, and clog up everyone's Ignore list.

So, erm, what I'm saying is that the rules should be transparent to the length of time an individual has been on the forum. Netiquette says we should be courteous to newcomers, and likewise newcomers should settle in to take the temperature of the forum. But trying to enshrine that in rules is overly restrictive IMO.

People have different ideas on what is courteous.

How will a newcomer know about taking the temperature. Are you agreeing with the suggestion of a welcome message which inlcudes the rules?

There are rules already are you suggesting that they are removed?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Clearly this is true , I mean DS statement below could be taken the wrong way if I was new and didnt know DS Tourettes problem

:rofl:





Also comments like the one below by Swp are going to get responses , like a guy going into a bar for the first time and saying 'this bar has got a reputation for being very poor', pint of bitter please

Or like the warrior who went into the "Broken Drum" in Ankh Morpork and loudly introduced himself as "Vlad the invincible"

(according to the watch - cause of death was "suicide")

[martingold]

Oi! Why am I at the bottom?
more comfortable to sit on than the others ?? :whistle:

[martingold]

Similarly, I stuck up for Lee / Woodface when he joined, not because I agreed with him, but because he was new. And I also did the same for the Trouble sisters, Fletch, and others. Again, not because I agree with or am Special Friends of these people - but because they were new.


and me but now you know me you hate me the same as the rest in here do :tears::tears::tears::tears:

[David Bailey]

To date all I have seen is that when people are unhappy with neg rep system they are told that they are the ones that are wrong and that the rules were not up for debate.
I think you've mis-understood the comments.

What we've said, typically, is that whingeing about neg rep is likely to get you more neg rep - that's all. It's not really a moderating affair - neg reps are one way for members to express their disapproval of posts made by other members, that's all.

That's different to saying "neg reps rules are not up for debate" - I'm fairly sure no moderator has said such a thing.

And yes, of course the rules are up for debate and discussion - I mean, blimey, what do you think this thread is for? :confused:


and me but now you know me you hate me the same as the rest in here do :tears::tears::tears::tears:
I hate all of you, impartially.

[Stuart M]

There are rules already are you suggesting that they are removed?
Can you point me to any rules specifically concerning the treatment/behaviour of newcomers? Having scanned the "Forum Rules" I can find nothing of the sort, and frankly I'd prefer things to stay that way.

[Spiky Steve]

Whilst that may be true in real life - is the virtual world the same? Is the online world not full of ideas ready to be shot down in an impersonal way ? Its not the same as a conversation at the Church Fete is it ? :eyebrow:
I refer you to the youTube comments beneath any popular video - are these "real life" people who normally speak like that? or is the internet just not the same thing as "real life" ? :eyebrow:

Why should people behave any differently in an online world? Yes ideas should be discussed and analysed, dicephering who wrote them, why and evaluating any evidence to support any idea or comment. Debate is great.

I suggest to you that people will read what is written and people have thoughts and feelings based upon those writings. They will not be virtual feelings but the real thing.

[martingold]

I'm not as silly as I look sometimes :naughty:


I was going to say something here then i read this


The people I admire and appreciate the most on this forum, who don't have to result to getting personal and sarcastic
and thought i would be in trouble when we meet on friday if i did so i am now too scared too :innocent:

[Spiky Steve]

Can you point me to any rules specifically concerning the treatment/behaviour of newcomers? Having scanned the "Forum Rules" I can find nothing of the sort, and frankly I'd prefer things to stay that way.

I thought it was you who stated Netiquette dictated that we should treat newbies kindly. Are you happy that the existing rules remain the same?

The rule I dislike is about neg rep and my thoughts are that if a newbie is struggling then a moderator could help.

[stewart38]

People have different ideas on what is courteous.

How will a newcomer know about taking the temperature. Are you agreeing with the suggestion of a welcome message which inlcudes the rules?

There are rules already are you suggesting that they are removed?

The point was starts with or soon becomes agressive

The analogy with the bar holds

Someone who comes into a bar orders a drink and makes no fuss isnt going to be treated any differently to the regulars

[Stuart M]

I thought it was you who stated Netiquette dictated that we should treat newbies kindly. Are you happy that the existing rules remain the same?
Um, yes. :confused:

Since when were the terms "Netiquette" and "Ceroc Scotland Forum Rules" interchangeable? And when are you going to tell the rest of the Internet? :rolleyes:

[David Bailey]

Since when were the terms "Netiquette" and "Ceroc Scotland Forum Rules" interchangeable? And when are you going to tell the rest of the Internet? :rolleyes:
Just to clarify:
Netiquette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette)


Netiquette ... "network etiquette", is a set of social conventions that facilitate interaction over networks, ranging from Usenet and mailing lists to blogs and forums. ... The points most strongly emphasized about USENET netiquette often include using simple electronic signatures, and avoiding multiposting, cross-posting, thread hijacking, and other techniques used to minimize the effort required to read a post or a thread.

[Spiky Steve]

The point was starts with or soon becomes agressive

The analogy with the bar holds

Someone who comes into a bar orders a drink and makes no fuss isnt going to be treated any differently to the regulars

Analogy fails in my experience. Have you never walked into a bar full of regulars and everyone turns and watches you? Hardly being treated the same as the regulars.

Inside of the bar the regulars comfort themselves that all is well because they agree with each other that it is. Even though their private conversations are broadcast to the world for all to hear to offend or cheer as may be.

[Spiky Steve]

Um, yes. :confused:

Since when were the terms "Netiquette" and "Ceroc Scotland Forum Rules" interchangeable? And when are you going to tell the rest of the Internet? :rolleyes:

Not sure I follow your point.

You stated you did not want rules. I was asking if you were happy with the existing ones?

[ducasi]

The point was starts with or soon becomes agressive

The analogy with the bar holds

Someone who comes into a bar orders a drink and makes no fuss isnt going to be treated any differently to the regulars
I'm not so keen on the bar analogy, but I've looked back, and I can't say that swp was at all aggressive until a number of "regulars" had already had a go at her.

[Stuart M]

Not sure I follow your point.
Then I'll try again. I originally responded to David Bailey about whether we should include rules specific to newcomers in the Ceroc Scotland Forum rules. I disagreed, citing the fact that newcomers have equal responsibility to self-moderate their behaviour. Capische?


You stated you did not want rules.
At no point have I stated that. There is very little on this Forum that annoys me, but having my words twisted in this manner is one of them. If you are saying that "I do not want rules specifically about newcomers", please say that. Your continual reference to "existing" rules suggests, however, that you think I'm talking about ALL the rules (since there are no existing rules specific to newcomers).

I was asking if you were happy with the existing ones? There are no existing rules (and I'll underline this again :) ) specific to newcomers, so your question makes no sense to me.

Perhaps we can move on? :nice:

[stewart38]

Analogy fails in my experience. Have you never walked into a bar full of regulars and everyone turns and watches you? Hardly being treated the same as the regulars.

Inside of the bar the regulars comfort themselves that all is well because they agree with each other that it is. Even though their private conversations are broadcast to the world for all to hear to offend or cheer as may be.


Your missing the point

If I walk into a bar for the first time and say this bar has got a poor reputation what should the response be ?

I dont know how many newbies we have had on here in the last 6 months , a 100 ? I dont know only one has come to my attention

If i choose to say to the regulars "who you staring at you **** ", then im going to get a reaction. Its not rocket science

If I go into a new job, I can either say on my first day , isnt my manager crap or say where the drinks machine both will get different responses

[Lory]

Hmm, I'm not sure about the idea of, pandering to every 'newby's' ignorance's.

I can just imagine it now...:sick:..... The first 100 posts, you can say what you like and no ones allowed to challenge you, or say anything that might be taken the wrong way?... "you gotta love me, I'm the baby! :innocent: "

Surely a little common sense should prevail! :yeah:

I agree with Stewart and his pub analogy! :worthy:

The rep buttons, neg and pos are there for people to show their feelings about posts (and maybe their opinion of the attitude of the poster).
Some, will use the feedback as educative. As it often gives a good insight into the minds of mind set of the fellow members:wink: Others unfortunately, will take it to heart and forever harbour negative feelings towards the 'repper' :rolleyes:

Its up to the individual to the decide how to take it.

Maybe firstly though, they should have a look in the mirror and say to themselves, "this 'is' how i'm coming across on the forum, do I value that persons opinion and do I want to change? If not, laugh about it, disguard it and MOVE ON!

[stewart38]

I'm not so keen on the bar analogy, but I've looked back, and I can't say that swp was at all aggressive until a number of "regulars" had already had a go at her.

By Post 6 she was taking on the whole bar and I still dont know what she drinks


And whether it's my first post and my 100th - does that really make any difference? maybe I should have buggered about posting tripe on a few random posts to make you all feel better, less threathened perhaps.

jeez.

[geoff332]

Interactions between people require at least two actors. As a general rule, if one person inspires a similar reaction from most other people, the cause is that person, not most other people. This is true of all forms of social interaction - on-line, off-line or whatever.

In most relatively civilised on-line forums, the way people are treated is primarily determined by the way they act. Being new or not has relatively little bearing on this (and nor should it - human behaviour is horribly easy to positively reinforce and very hard to negatively reinforce). Should a forum be reasonable - and I've found this one to be generally quite reasonable - then people by and large get the reactions their actions warrant. For myself, if someone reacts badly to me, the first place I look is my own behaviour.

Any semi-structured social group develops something analogous to a culture: a set of norms, practices and (virtual) artefacts that are broadly accepted on the forum. These are typically far more important and powerful than any rules. These dictates are nearly always tacit, like all good cultural manifestations. More importantly, trying to encode norms into rules will fail: norms are far more fluid and reactive than formalised rules can ever be.

Administrators and moderators can establish the norms and practices when a forum is relatively new. They can reinforce or attempt to change the norms and practices over the life of the forum. Generally, trying to change them is going to fail: you have to change the expectations of everyone who uses the forum (or introduce a whole lot of new people who with within the new frame). As a rule, this happens organically and is very, very difficult to direct.

There are a number of broad categories of characters that you see on forums: flamer, guru, troll, newbie, cluebie, pedant, spammer, etc. I typically find they're useful getting a grasp on the particular forum. The best way to spot a person's established role is to see how other people respond to that person. Always interesting...

[Lou]

In most relatively civilised on-line forums, the way people are treated is primarily determined by the way they act. Being new or not has relatively little bearing on this (and nor should it - human behaviour is horribly easy to positively reinforce and very hard to negatively reinforce). Should a forum be reasonable - and I've found this one to be generally quite reasonable - then people by and large get the reactions their actions warrant. For myself, if someone reacts badly to me, the first place I look is my own behaviour.
:yeah:

In the olden days of Nettiquette there was a trite phrase - "Lurk Before You Leap". When newbies take the time and trouble to get to know the culture of a forum before they post, they'll avoid accidentally falling into the same traps that Spikey Steve highlighted. :wink:

[Spiky Steve]

Your missing the point

If I walk into a bar for the first time and say this bar has got a poor reputation what should the response be ?

I dont know how many newbies we have had on here in the last 6 months , a 100 ? I dont know only one has come to my attention

If i choose to say to the regulars "who you staring at you **** ", then im going to get a reaction. Its not rocket science

If I go into a new job, I can either say on my first day , isnt my manager crap or say where the drinks machine both will get different responses

Yes I understand your point on comments attracting attention.

I read your evidence of the 1 in a 100 and do not disagree.

I have also suggested to a number of people about why they are not on the forum and some read and some won't post because of the opinion they have made about the forum. Probably the real question is whether the forum has a poor reputation or not?

[Lory]

There are a number of broad categories of characters that you see on forums: flamer, guru, troll, newbie, cluebie, pedant, spammer, etc.
Oooh any more?

I've gone into a private labelling mode! :D

[Spiky Steve]

:yeah:

In the olden days of Nettiquette there was a trite phrase - "Lurk Before You Leap". When newbies take the time and trouble to get to know the culture of a forum before they post, they'll avoid accidentally falling into the same traps that Spikey Steve highlighted. :wink:

Whilst sound advice. Some comments are going to be passed on and are going to attract an immediate response. People have feelings.

[Lory]

Whilst sound advice. Some comments are going to be passed on and are going to attract an immediate response. People have feelings.

But taking the pub analogy again....

Suppose 'one' regular in the pub, says something (that not 'all' the regulars go along with) and that gets out on the grapevine...

then, an outsider, not fully understanding the ins and outs of the pub life in general, gets irate and come in and blames the whole pub? You could understand people might get a little defensive?

If they'd taken the time to ease themselves in, they might well find they actually get a warm welcome and some support, instead of running the risk of rubbing everyone up the wrong way!

[martingold]

I've gone into a private labelling mode! :D
perhaps Franck could buy all of the mods one of those dymo machines for labelling :whistle:

[Cruella]

rubbing everyone up the wrong way!

Some like that! :wink:

[Twirlie Bird]

I have also suggested to a number of people about why they are not on the forum and some read and some won't post because of the opinion they have made about the forum. Probably the real question is whether the forum has a poor reputation or not?

To be honest, does it actually make any difference? :confused:

I have spoken to many people in the MJ world about this forum. Most have never heard about it. Some say 'they don't live in Scotland'. None have ever said it has a bad reputation.

Interestingly I did talk to somebody the other weekend who no longer posts on this forum because they couldn't stand the bitching. I was quite surprised by this. Like I said to them you have to remember that unlike a lot of forums the people on this forum do meet up quite often and see each other in the real world. What may read as bitchy may really not be.

I have seen far nastier forums. This forum has its heated debates but nothing really nasty. I think the moderators do an excellent job keeping us all in line. :flower:

If the forum really was as bad as SWP and her fellow friends are saying then wouldn't it be pretty empty? :eek:

[geoff332]

Oooh any more?

I've gone into a private labelling mode! :DThere was a great list on a site that I can't find any more. Google is being very reluctant to help me. Most of these terms come from the old usenet days. A few others might be useful...

Kook could be applicable... "An unstable, ""crazy"" Usenet participant. A kook is not necessarily a troll, but can simply be a user that posts unintelligible or nonsensical comments, wild conspiracy theories, and other items of an eccentric nature." Can also be called a Wacko.

"The Vulture -- Never posts, but ready and waiting to point out any fault in
your post."

Everyone seems to have different lists and definitions. I usually just make up my own (and, no, I won't share them: you might use one of them on me).

All this talk of pubs is making me thirsty.

[dave the scaffolder]

It aint real you know!!!!

It's all a load of hot air and nastiness at times.

Then there are the fun sides to it all.

End of the day it aint real!!!

2 most important points have been missed out.

1 Can Jamesy really dance?

2 How flexible is Lory?

And 3 Who really gives a sh1t anyway?

[robd]

What we've said, typically, is that whingeing about neg rep is likely to get you more neg rep - that's all.


My experience differs - whenever I have mentioned receiving neg-rep from someone I have received pos-rep that outscores the neg-rep and never received neg-rep for mentioning the neg-rep. I still think neg-repping is pathetic though.

[martingold]

I have seen far nastier forums. This forum has its heated debates but nothing really nasty. I think the moderators do an excellent job keeping us all in line. :flower:

If the forum really was as bad as SWP and her fellow friends are saying then wouldn't it be pretty empty? :eek:
:yeah:

[stewart38]

My experience differs - whenever I have mentioned receiving neg-rep from someone I have received pos-rep that outscores the neg-rep and never received neg-rep for mentioning the neg-rep. I still think neg-repping is pathetic though.

What are you saying ? You want someone to -ve rep you ? :wink:

I think in the 10 or so times I've been -ve rep I've only disagreed without about 2 of them

[David Bailey]

Well, I'm not seeing much response to my suggestions about new members - does that mean we think we're OK in our treatment generally?

Obviously, it's a self-selecting group I'm talking to here, but if you can cast your mind back to when you started, is there anything you'd have like to see done differently, by either the moderator team or by fellow members?

[Double Trouble]

cast your mind back to when you started, is there anything you'd have like to see done differently, by either the moderator team or by fellow members?

Ok, casting my mind back to being a newbie, this was the first forum I'd ever been a member of so I had no idea about the technical stuff or the etiquette. I got a lot of neg rep, for example, for quoting a whole post when I only needed/wanted to refer to a small part of the post. I thought that was a bit harsh when a PM would have been more helpful.

Perhaps a member of the moderating team could send PM's to newbies who are unaware of how it all works when they make mistakes. That certainly would have helped me.

[Spiky Steve]

Well, I'm not seeing much response to my suggestions about new members - does that mean we think we're OK in our treatment generally?

Obviously, it's a self-selecting group I'm talking to here, but if you can cast your mind back to when you started, is there anything you'd have like to see done differently, by either the moderator team or by fellow members?

How about free chocolate? Then can I join again?

[Dreadful Scathe]

I got a lot of neg rep, for example, for quoting a whole post when I only needed/wanted to refer to a small part of the post. I thought that was a bit harsh when a PM would have been more helpful.

Thats mainly what i use neg rep for :) how would a PM be more helpful - then you'd have to explain WHICH post you were talking about :) everyone has their own opinion on neg rep - i think its just a quick way to point something out and i've chosen to use it for the most trivial thing possible :)

[Spiky Steve]

Your missing the point

If I walk into a bar for the first time and say this bar has got a poor reputation what should the response be ?



A bit wound up I walked into a bar and drew an imaginary line down the centre of the room. Then I pointed to the left side of the room and said all you guys on the left are pussies, then calmly I pointed to the right and said all you guys on the right are wimps.

There was silence ... and then a scraping of a chair.

This huge guy stood up..

I said "Are you after trouble?"

He replied "No it's just I'm on the wrong side of the room"

:grin:

Hey, it's old but I like it :grin:

[Double Trouble]

Thats mainly what i use neg rep for :)


That doesn't surprise me in the least


how would a PM be more helpful?

Well, for a start, you can say more in a PM. For a novice like me you could have simply said something along the lines of "Did you know you can shorten the quotes you want to make comments on and just quote the bits that are relevant to your post?. I'd be happy to explain that to you if you don't know how to do that".

Neg rep shouldn't be given to advise someone about the correct procedure for quoting posts, that's not what it's for, but, as you say...


...everyone has their own opinion on neg rep - i think its just a quick way to point something out and i've chosen to use it for the most trivial thing possible :)

There's no rules as such about neg rep, so you can do what you like with it.

[swp]

...
The rep buttons, neg and pos are there for people to show their feelings about posts (and maybe their opinion of the attitude of the poster).
Some, will use the feedback as educative. As it often gives a good insight into the minds of mind set of the fellow members:wink: Others unfortunately, will take it to heart and forever harbour negative feelings towards the 'repper' :rolleyes:



So with this in mind, and without wishing to stir it all up again, can I just say that while all that was going on my rep was creeping up and up, plenty of my posts got "thanked" - some several times over, plus some very nice, supportive pm's, yet with only ONE -ve rep, and that was calling me a troll :rofl:. Surely that says that something??? :nice:

[Lory]

Surely that says that something??? :nice:

Yeah, we're not all such a bad bunch :friend::)

[swp]

Yeah, we're not all such a bad bunch :friend::)


Exactly, some of you even seem quite normal :wink::nice:

[geoff332]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/listen_to_yourself.pngIt seems youtube listened... (http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/YouTube_Commenters_Hear_Their_Own_Gibberish)

[bigdjiver]

...Also comments like the one below by Swp are going to get responses , like a guy going into a bar for the first time and saying 'this bar has got a reputation for being very poor', pint of bitter please...and we saw the "shoot the messanger" reaction.

[stewart38]

Ok, casting my mind back to being a newbie, this was the first forum I'd ever been a member of so I had no idea about the technical stuff or the etiquette. I got a lot of neg rep, for example, for quoting a whole post when I only needed/wanted to refer to a small part of the post. I thought that was a bit harsh when a PM would have been more helpful.



The very limited response to the poll 28 (so far ) suggest over 70% are happy with things as they are

If you’re going to get –ve rep for initially posting a full post or as I did , not knowing how to attach a link to a web site that is kind of sad. Of course if you keep doing that’s different (this is regardless of how long you have been on the forum)

I don’t think the moderators should get involved in changing that, its not like –ve rep effects your mortgage payments or job , although I do not under estimate the impact some –ve rep can have on some people

In a nut shell I’d keep things as is




So with this in mind, and without wishing to stir it all up again, can I just say that while all that was going on my rep was creeping up and up, plenty of my posts got "thanked" - some several times over, plus some very nice, supportive pm's, yet with only ONE -ve rep, and that was calling me a troll :rofl:. Surely that says that something??? :nice:


and we saw the "shoot the messanger" reaction.

Hardly

Indeed despite sitting on a large spike, I +ve rep Swp for a very thoughtful post

Although I felt some posts OTT unlike the TRUTH they was nothing consistently nasty or vindictive (in my eye) which I assume is why her rep score is now at 60

[David Bailey]

So with this in mind, and without wishing to stir it all up again, can I just say that while all that was going on my rep was creeping up and up, plenty of my posts got "thanked" - some several times over, plus some very nice, supportive pm's, yet with only ONE -ve rep, and that was calling me a troll :rofl:. Surely that says that something??? :nice:

To me, it mainly says that the informal netiquette of "welcome the newbies", as described by Stuart M, is alive and well.

It also says that most forumites, despite their apparently-fearsome reputation, are welcoming to new members.

[TA Guy]

Bad reputation. LOL :)

We are bad!!!!!

Honestly, I've never heard anyone talk about the 'bad reputation' of this forum, except one or two malcontents actually on the forum. I kinda think it's a bit of a 'lashing out', kinda a self-serving myth. I wouldn't take that claim seriously. A load of old tosh.


As to moderation, you can't please all the people all the time. It doesn't matter if the moderators are nazis, or liberal free-for-all hippies, or what rules/guidelines the moderators use, you will always get some people who will find something to complain about, it's in their genes.
As a forum admin since the days of 2400bpm modems, stuff 'em, but be polite is my advice :)

[Twirly]

If you’re going to get –ve rep for initially posting a full post or as I did , not knowing how to attach a link to a web site that is kind of sad.

I actually think that says more about the person giving the neg rep than the person receiving it...

As for welcoming newbies - I can't remember now, but do they get any sort of welcome e-mail? If not, why not send them one, with a few words about forum ettiquette (such as not quoting posts in their entirety!) and maybe links to the forum rules and the FAQ. Maybe suggest that their first posting might be to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread (have forgotten what it's called) and a link to that.

If they chose not to take any notice of the e-mail, don't read the suggested links and don't bother to introduce themselves properly, then so be it. But at least you'll give those who are completely new to forums some basic guidance, whilst those who chose to wade in with what might be preceived as controversial comments or opinions can't say they've not been warned!

[Dreadful Scathe]

Exactly, some of you even seem quite normal :wink::nice:
which ones? they should be segregated like lepers :)

[Dreadful Scathe]

As a forum admin since the days of 2400bpm modems, stuff 'em, but be polite is my advice :)


2400 ? bah, luxury. We only had 1200 and we were lucky if we got connected at 300 baud most of the time. :)

[Stuart M]

which ones? they should be segregated like lepers :)
I never knew lepers were segregated. How's it done? By limbs lost? Whether they're characters in fantasy novels or not?

[DavidY]

I never knew lepers were segregated. How's it done? By limbs lost? Whether they're characters in fantasy novels or not?Hence the term "leper colony": Leper colony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_house)

[Stuart M]

Hence the term "leper colony": Leper colony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_house)
Whoosh...:WetHaddock: :nice:

[DavidY]

Whoosh...Possibly .. in which case I'm still :confused:

[Lory]

Hence the term "leper colony": Leper colony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_house)


Whoosh...:WetHaddock: :nice:

:rofl: Sorry David! :lol:

[stewart38]

I actually think that says more about the person giving the neg rep than the person receiving it...




This is what I meant :blush:

[Stuart M]

Possibly .. in which case I'm still :confused:
Ah, just mucking around DY. I'm perfectly aware that lepers were segregated from non-lepers, but smurfy's post could be read as suggesting lepers were categorised somehow. Just having a larf, apologies if it seemed to be at your expense... :wink:

[Lory]

Just having a larf, apologies if it seemed to be at your expense... :wink:
I'm sorry too :blush::flower:

[DavidY]

Ah, just mucking around DY. I'm perfectly aware that lepers were segregated from non-lepers, but smurfy's post could be read as suggesting lepers were categorised somehow. Just having a larf, apologies if it seemed to be at your expense... :wink:'twas ever thus. :tears: :wink:
(although my dictionary does define "segregate" as "to set or be set apart from others or the main group", so DS's post did make perfect sense to me. I should have suspected something was up that stage, really.)

[Dreadful Scathe]

(although my dictionary does define "segregate" as "to set or be set apart from others or the main group", so DS's post did make perfect sense to me. I should have suspected something was up that stage, really.)

I think it made perfect sense to StuartM too, but he had to get out his quaint little joke - oh how we all laughed :) Anyone got a corset? my sides - they are splitting :eyebrow:



...although it did put me in mind of Igors from Discworld - limb catagorisation and all that :)

[martingold]

Bad reputation. LOL :)

We are bad!!!!!

I think you meant to say

We IS BAD!!!!!!! (as in good)
:worthy:

[Keefy]

I've withdrawn my vote that said 'About right', if there was an 'Inconsistent' option I would vote for that. It seems that it's OK for commercial entities nothing whatsoever to do with dance to SPAM the forums, but I'm not allowed to find out about local freestyles are on if the information is posted by a crew member :angry:

It's blatant inconsistencies which irritate people :mad:

[Dreadful Scathe]

I've withdrawn my vote that said 'About right', if there was an 'Inconsistent' option I would vote for that. It seems that it's OK for commercial entities nothing whatsoever to do with dance to SPAM the forums, but I'm not allowed to find out about local freestyles are on if the information is posted by a crew member :angry:


So ? ultimately this forum belongs to Franck and individual decisions on spam/rules/moderators/hairstyles are up to him. "Referees decision is final" and all that.

In this case though, a one off bit of spam has been checked out by Franck and he has decided to keep it in case anyone is interested. This doesn't conflict in anyway with the general forum rule of no non-ceroc advertising by anyone with a conflict of interest, as that WAS being abused at one point.

I don't see an inconsistancy - apples and oranges franckly ;) (did you see what i did there :))

[Keefy]

So ? ultimately this forum belongs to Franck and individual decisions on spam/rules/moderators/hairstyles are up to him. "Referees decision is final" and all that.I agree totally and appreciate that fact. But don't pretend to have a even handed set of rules when they are inconsistently applied and/or ignored. That is why the poll needs an 'Inconsistent' option.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I agree totally and appreciate that fact. But don't pretend to have a even handed set of rules when they are inconsistently applied and/or ignored. That is why the poll needs an 'Inconsistent' option.
but they are consistently applied based on certain criteria, as it should be :)

[Keefy]

but they are consistently applied based on certain criteria, as it should be :)We will have to agree to differ on that observation :nice:

[Dreadful Scathe]

We will have to agree to differ on that observation :nice:
bah, wheres the fun in that :)