Why not ban users from a thread?

[Janet H]

Have the mods and admins ever looked into the possibility of only putting Patriots fans or haters on ignore? I think this would make some threads much more pleasant to read.

The problem here is that the list of third rail topics is long and we might be left with no one to read the content free posts that might remain.

I suppose we could restrict other topics ...

Turning off cable - I hate ___________
My financial adviser is ____________
________ chocolate is the best kind
ReWahoo is an acronym for _____________
​

But choosing which ones presents some problems.

Really, we have very basic rules:

Be nice, don’t spam, and stay away from a few topics that are toxic. Members choose to follow these or not, but there is no “selective following” of the rules. Selecting which rules to follow or which threads or forum topics to apply them just doesn't work - we tried that experiment.

If members want to keep threads open, they could step up and challenge the off topic thread diverting comments that derail discussions too often or report them before the thread has wandered too far astray to salvage...

Civil discourse really isn't an unreasonable standard.

 

[aja8888]

Have the mods and admins ever looked into the possibility of only putting Patriots fans or haters on ignore? I think this would make some threads much more pleasant to read.

I'm a Pats fan, but I am not admitting to it.

 

[Chuckanut]

IMHO, moderators are the worst way to control groups like this, except for everything else.

I think the moderators have done a great job. Most of the time I have had my hand slapped I agree with their decision. A few times I didn't. Overall they seem to be able to keep us on the road to healthy and interesting discussion.

 

[CardsFan]

IMHO, moderators are the worst way to control groups like this, except for everything else.

I think the moderators have done a great job. Most of the time I have had my hand slapped I agree with their decision. A few times I didn't. Overall they seem to be able to keep us on the road to healthy and interesting discussion.

+1 for the mods.

On a related note, I just posted in a thread that clearly is a "Hot topic", and got a "Hot topic" warning. I have not seen this before, is it new? Or maybe I just avoid Hot Topics as a norm?

Either way, I think this is a perfect way to put posters on notice, and give them a chance to calm down before posting.

Thanks again to the mods.

 

[Walt34]

On a related note, I just posted in a thread that clearly is a "Hot topic", and got a "Hot topic" warning. I have not seen this before, is it new? Or maybe I just avoid Hot Topics as a norm?

It's not new, it's been around for I think about two years. It's just a way to remind folks to reconsider and reflect on alternative ways a post may be interpreted by others.

 

[travelover]

..........On a related note, I just posted in a thread that clearly is a "Hot topic", and got a "Hot topic" warning. I have not seen this before, is it new? Or maybe I just avoid Hot Topics as a norm?
............

No, you are the only one that has gotten this warning. Apparently you've been identified as a potential trouble maker.

 

[Walt34]

No, you are the only one that has gotten this warning. Apparently you've been identified as a potential trouble maker.

So says the pot while calling the kettle black....

 

[CardsFan]

No, you are the only one that has gotten this warning. Apparently you've been identified as a potential trouble maker.

You mean, after all these years, I am finally recognized as a sh!t disturber?

That has been my goal in life.

 

[pb4uski]

Have the mods and admins ever looked into the possibility of only putting Patriots fans or haters on ignore? I think this would make some threads much more pleasant to read.

Hold on... if you put Patriots fans and haters on ignore... who would be left?

 

[aja8888]

Hold on... if you put Patriots fans and haters on ignore... who would be left?

Me...

 

[kcowan]

Yup this is one of the more civil forums. Must be the results of good mods. Many thanks and seasons greetings to all.

 

[gcgang]

Not the same but you can ignore posters who you'd rather not hear from. Took four years before I used it. But there's some folks who earn it.

Even if you think they've earned it, you can't "Ignore" some posters.

 

[MRG]

Even if you think they've earned it, you can't "Ignore" some posters.

True but you w*rk with what you have. They're only virtually gone. Of course we're only virtually here; so maybe they are gone in the real world?

It does keep me from wasting my time reading or replying to someone who's goal is to troll.

 

[travelover]

Even if you think they've earned it, you can't "Ignore" some posters.

Yea, moderators for example.

 

[harley]

Even if you think they've earned it, you can't "Ignore" some posters.

Especially since so many people "quote" the ignored posters. You just can't win.

Although I have noticed a few posters who seldom get responded to. It makes me wonder if most everyone has them on ignore.

 

[SecondCor521]

It looks like you are right. I did a search earlier and found this thread:

https://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=259017

Which made me think this was supported in vBulletin. Reading the thread further, it looks like this is an add-on to vBulletin.

I'm not that familiar with vBulletin and how easy/hard it is to add this type of mod, but maybe this is something that the forum admins/moderators can consider adding?

<snip>

Ignoring doesn't solve this problem. That only filters out specific users. What I'm asking is if there's a way to prevent specific users from posting to a useful thread to prevent the thread from being locked.

If we're talking about something informative that we can all benefit from and 80% of the posts are good and 20% are against the community rules, it's a shame to let the 20% cause the thread to be locked. I'd rather see the 20% locked out of the thread and let the other 80% keep contributing.

+1000.

I realize that this would require modifying the board software. It seems to me that the powers that be are happy with the status quo, which is understandable as long as people are reasonably satisfied with the current arrangement. I'm disappointed if that turns out to be the case. Oh well.

I would like to point out on this thread, since my other one was closed, that one of the potential benefits of this is that it might make moderators' jobs more pleasant or easier.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I'm 100% in favor of anything that will enable us to have discussions about matters that are of importance to FIREes, such as healthcare, taxation, etc. Please help make this happen.

 

[ERD50]

+1000.

I realize that this would require modifying the board software. It seems to me that the powers that be are happy with the status quo, which is understandable as long as people are reasonably satisfied with the current arrangement. I'm disappointed if that turns out to be the case. Oh well.

I would like to point out on this thread, since my other one was closed, that one of the potential benefits of this is that it might make moderators' jobs more pleasant or easier.

And per that link:


https://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=259017

it looks like it gets very positive reviews (4.78 average) from the users (which would be the mods/admins). I wouldn't expect good reviews unless it actually made their life easier.

-ERD50

 

[marko]

Here's my suggestion:
I got dinged once or twice early on for a violation of the rules of discussion. I think I was banned for two weeks. I vowed 'never again' as I value this forum so much. Now I think twice, post once (most of the time) always with an eye on if the mods might take a comment as over the line.

So. We all know what is frowned upon. How about just following the rules of discussion, keeping the sensitive topics and responses out of it and focus on FIRE issues?

IMO this forum ain't broke; no need to fix it.

 

[ERD50]

Here's my suggestion:
I got dinged once or twice early on for a violation of the rules of discussion. I think I was banned for two weeks. I vowed 'never again' as I value this forum so much. Now I think twice, post once (most of the time) always with an eye on if the mods might take a comment as over the line.

So. We all know what is frowned upon. How about just following the rules of discussion, keeping the sensitive topics and responses out of it and focus on FIRE issues?

IMO this forum ain't broke; no need to fix it.

This is about the people who don't follow the rules! And it makes a mess for others.

-ERD50

 

[REWahoo]

Immediate solution for those of you who take issue with moderators closing threads: Problem members who cause threads to be shut down will be permanently banned - problem solved.

This is actually the only significant procedural change the mods can make since the software isn't capable of a thread specific ban. It will also make the mods lives easier since members who cause problems on one thread are probably not consistent rule followers on other threads as well.

 

[Cessna152]

While many things can get people riled up, I wonder - is politics the primary cause of rancor?

If so, one option would be to delegate a non-moderated subforum to politics only. They did that on a piloting forum (called the subforum the "Spin Zone") which required a member to explicitly subscribe to the subforum with the understanding that users in the subforum were on their own - if their egos were bruised or otherwise offended by something they read, tough.

It worked for quite a few years. But a small number of users would get seriously upset by someone else in the Spin Zone and would spill their rancor into the main forums. Eventually the mods shut the Spin Zone down - but some of the long-time members of that subforum started a new aviation+politics forum (pilotspin.com) hosted elsewhere which is still running. Mostly hands-off moderation because things are expected to get heated.

(By the way shutting the Spin Zone subforum down did not clear things up - politics started creeping back into the main piloting forums despite it being against the rules.)

 

[REWahoo]

If so, one option would be to delegate a non-moderated subforum to politics only.

Been there, done that, failed miserably.

See this thread and scroll down to "The Soapbox Experiment": http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f32/the-history-of-early-retirement-org-53657.html

 

[CaptTom]

A forum I recently joined has an interesting feature which seems to help.

In addition to the "thanks" button, it also has a "like" button. And on that forum, folks are very generous with their "likes."

Getting that positive feedback really feels good. And while it doesn't prevent hard-core hotheads from spewing their venom, it seems to motivate the majority to keep things civil. Sort of a carrot, instead of a stick.

That forum also happens to have an unmoderated area for those who feel the need to vent. It does seem to help somewhat, but I can also see where disagreements there can get nasty, which then colors the participants' opinions of each other on the main board.

As I've said before, hats off to the mods here, they're doing a great job and I support whatever they decide.

 

[marko]

This is about the people who don't follow the rules! And it makes a mess for others.

-ERD50

That's what I was getting at. If those who don't follow the rules get dinged and not allowed to participate for a few weeks they'll either get in line, leave for more active pastures or end up being banned for life.