For Barjon

[SOCRATES]

Another idea, the members choose to display under their avatar or something.

Support positive posting Logo

its a visible badge of supporting standards awareness of acceptable behaviour laid out in the spec, and will gather momemtum. Those who choose not to display it may have an issue or be worried that they may not be able to control themselves and argue till blue in the face for why they shouldnt be displaying one.
but..... worth a go?

It is not a matter of control. This is not a nanny state. It is an arena for grown ups.

The problem is that there are too many rude children and yobbish adolescents let loose around this site and are allowed to roam and misbehave and are totally out of control.

Now, by the same token that i am patient and reasonable and so on....equally I do not suffer fools at all. Any fool who engages me inappropriately arouses the Rottweiler in me and gets a chunk bitten out of his bottom in a flash, as some members here have already found out.

What intrigues me is the fact, that having experienced it they persist in deiberately looking for further trouble or agitating others to do so.

 

[dbphoenix]

Yes, Albert, we're all so afraid of you.

 

[the blades]

Any fool who engages me inappropriately arouses the Rottweiler in me and gets a chunk bitten out of his bottom in a flash, as some members here have already found out. What intrigues me is the fact, that having experienced it they persist in deiberately looking for further trouble or agitating others to do so.

erm....because this is an internet bulletin board :?:

As you well know, when I've "had you on the canvas" several times Soc, it didn't really hurt did it?

UTB

 

[trendie]

Another idea, the members choose to display under their avatar or something.

Support positive posting Logo

its a visible badge of supporting standards awareness of acceptable behaviour laid out in the spec, and will gather momemtum. Those who choose not to display it may have an issue or be worried that they may not be able to control themselves and argue till blue in the face for why they shouldnt be displaying one.
but..... worth a go?

I think the Law of Attraction is working here.

If the thread inspires, or is educational, or posits ideas, and has a sort of syllabus or well-defined purpose, people will respond in like manner.

If the thread comes across as pointless, is a sort of spam-proxy, or deliberately controversial, it attracts responses of like kind.

the same people will write helpfully on one thread they find interesting, and join in the bun-fight on others, because they sense the absurdity.

 

[barjon]

[...........................Now, by the same token that i am patient and reasonable and so on....equally I do not suffer fools at all. Any fool who engages me inappropriately arouses the Rottweiler in me and gets a chunk bitten out of his bottom in a flash............................]

socrates

That selfsame sentiment is shared by others, although they might express it in different terms. And therein lies much of the problem.

People who express disagreement or offer an alternative view cannot be cast as fools merely because of that so long as they express themselves civilly. Where they do not express themselves civilly - and the moderation difficulty is always determining the point at which lack of civility becomes rudely offensive - to retaliate in kind not only adds petrol to the fire but is equally bad. In the sporting arena, of course, retaliation is often treated more harshly.

cheers

jon

 

[Crap Buddist]

It is not a matter of control. This is not a nanny state. It is an arena for grown ups.

The problem is that there are too many rude children and yobbish adolescents let loose around this site and are allowed to roam and misbehave and are totally out of control.

Now, by the same token that i am patient and reasonable and so on....equally I do not suffer fools at all. Any fool who engages me inappropriately arouses the Rottweiler in me and gets a chunk bitten out of his bottom in a flash, as some members here have already found out.

What intrigues me is the fact, that having experienced it they persist in deiberately looking for further trouble or agitating others to do so.

Yeah agree, and by adopting Support positive posting, it may or it will prevent some direct personal attacks as it raises awareness and thats a postive as I see it, as the raising of awareness will directly be related to behaviour and seeking to improve the exchange of and quality of communication by way of improved behaviour .

So adopting Support positive posting awareness can control awareness or seek to improve it, its not guarenteed to control behaviour just help improve it slightly by bringing the awareness to eye level slightly, whether it lands or not I dunno so would be good to put it to the test.


Can you see a solution if you run this site today now, to enhance the experience for all members to allow exchange of views,ideas, challenge of old pirnciples etc, what needs to be done? And banning is not an option, we can prevent the scuffle or seek to minimise it before it gets chance to take hold maybe.

If people have full awareness of their own self conduct,( handy in trading,) on these boards at all times, then again this may help hostile postings ease , back to awareness, we need to raise it I think.

Toughie in any mixed social community, but whats the solution today?

 

[Splitlink]

I think the Law of Attraction is working here.

If the thread inspires, or is educational, or posits ideas, and has a sort of syllabus or well-defined purpose, people will respond in like manner.

If the thread comes across as pointless, is a sort of spam-proxy, or deliberately controversial, it attracts responses of like kind.

the same people will write helpfully on one thread they find interesting, and join in the bun-fight on others, because they sense the absurdity.

I believe that is so, too, and it must be remembered that as, more often than not, the rotweiler has his posts scrubbed and is, sometimes, banned from the board, himself, something must be wrong with the rotweiler.

If the rotweiler is as bad, if not worse, than the people it is attacking,perhaps the mods should put him on a leash and not allow it on certain threads . These mad animals lash out, not just at the annoyances , but at everyone else, which makes it a social menace and, sometimes, under the guise of free speech, they invade other threads and start attacking the people there, as well.

Split

 

[nine]

Part of your challenge is that you are likely to ban the unskilled problem and not the skilled problem - if skill is defined as perceiving and then staying on the correct side of the line.

dB in his old role as guru and **** stirrer at et was an expert in that. Hes avoided that in his current incarnation on that board and is much politer here for the most part. Socrates is even more skillful successfully insulting most members on the board without raising red flags.

Also you have the problem that frequently those who offend do contribute positively in other threads. My personal trigger are the overly arrogant posters - I tolerate stupidity well but arrogant stupidity does excite a tendency to respond if a little bored.

So, IMHO, its not the swear words etc that should be used to determine your response its the intent. And perhaps the information balance of all posts. If you asked how much information Socrates offered he'd be miles behind dB but if you are mainly concerned about entertainment, thats a different equation.

socrates

That selfsame sentiment is shared by others, although they might express it in different terms. And therein lies much of the problem.

People who express disagreement or offer an alternative view cannot be cast as fools merely because of that so long as they express themselves civilly. Where they do not express themselves civilly - and the moderation difficulty is always determining the point at which lack of civility becomes rudely offensive - to retaliate in kind not only adds petrol to the fire but is equally bad. In the sporting arena, of course, retaliation is often treated more harshly.

cheers

jon

 

[SOCRATES]

Part of your challenge is that you are likely to ban the unskilled problem and not the skilled problem - if skill is defined as perceiving and then staying on the correct side of the line.

dB in his old role as guru and **** stirrer at et was an expert in that. Hes avoided that in his current incarnation on that board and is much politer here for the most part. Socrates is even more skillful successfully insulting most members on the board without raising red flags.

Also you have the problem that frequently those who offend do contribute positively in other threads. My personal trigger are the overly arrogant posters - I tolerate stupidity well but arrogant stupidity does excite a tendency to respond if a little bored.

So, IMHO, its not the swear words etc that should be used to determine your response its the intent. And perhaps the information balance of all posts. If you asked how much information Socrates offered he'd be miles behind dB but if you are mainly concerned about entertainment, thats a different equation.

I find your comments interesting and would like to add some...er...refinements if I may...
you see....there are skills and there are skills....I will proceed to expand on this......the most important skill of all is effective trading and being able to futurologise and so....everything is known in advance and then....it is like joining dots on a child's playbook.

Now the problem is, for reasons that defeat me in understanding...why it is....that all of this...blatantly obvious as it is...and staring everybody in the face....is overlooked and indeed warped out of recognition by the great majority.

Then there is another skill you refer to...and because the English Language is so beautiful...it lends itself to be used in such a way as to be borderline between bitter sweet humourous and politely rude when necessary...and this line can be so skilfully blurred...u c.....as to make it indistinguishable except to the most proficient English Language speakers...ahem....and of course...as nowadays there is a tilt towards imported slang....much can be put under the wire without it being detected.

With regard to the both ideas you present in combination....and since you bracket me ....in the same paragraph with db (God Forbid)...I am obligated to make the following observations:~

You see, what happens is that all of you are misdirected, misguided. I will expand..nearly everyones' thought processes are in mainstream containment. But this topic does not lend itself to mainstream containment....it lends itself to thinking out of the box, so to speak.

db thinks and expresses himself as best he can....he limits his explanations and propounds and expounds in mainstream parlance...which is very suitable for the hoi palloi...the proleteriat....the herd ( as R. S. refers to the public) ...because the public...is the goat...(R.W.)
and so the public, through no fault of their own, and through conditioning, seek harmony with explanations that suit their individual and collective mindframes, mindsets, and mindstates.

But the collective and individual torpor of the public...is not harmonious with an incisive professonal viewpoint....which is difficult for most people to acquire on the basis they actually prevent themselves from being able to think and act out of the box. Therefore when ideas are presented that avoid out of the box and confrom to mainstream ...they are easily absorebed...and no sooner does a crowd appear...they are even applauded...and that is the mistake.

But all of this mainstream material...can and is found in textbooks u c...and textbooks are not written to empower the public...cynical as this may seem to you but it is true...textbooks are written to dumb down the public...to make the public confrom to what is mainstream and to prevent the public to detect....let alone embrace...what is out of the box.

Now db blunders on...and regurgitates all this stuff out of textbooks he has read, and if you PM me I can give you a pretty accurate list (as I can detect by his slant on things) of what he has read. And he clings to these pronouncements, many of which are cast in stone, many of which are irrelevant, many of which are outmoded by todays' fast moving markets with reasonable transparency, and nearly all of which ....frustratingly...sound good to newbies and not so newbies...but are totally, in a practical sense. unworkable.

And when I happen to point out this to him...naturally...it causes him to take it as a personal affront...and he responds with disrespect...and causes me to put him in his place...as it is not wise for him to contradict his elders and betters...and one would think...that after a sustained diet of such treatement his lightbulb would go on...but it doesn't.

Going back to what you first mentioned about him being a guru. This is not correct, because a guru, and if you look in the dictionary you will find the definition of a guru is a very wise man.
A wise man does not repeat parrot what it is he reads in textbooks. A wise man ia a man able to think for himself and is the fountain of original thought, and not parroted thought.

Add to this intellectual inabilty his propensity for engaging me inappropriately at every opporutunity which is very unwise of him, and then of course I am obligated to reply, in a very controllled and cirucmspect manner you understand, because the last thing we want to do here is to educate him, and the result is you get the occasional fireworks display for all to see, but not unfortunately for all to understand, and indeed grasp correctly for the reasons I have stated above.

 

[sandpiper]

and the result is you get the occasional fireworks display for all to see, but not unfortunately for all to understand, and indeed grasp correctly for the reasons I have stated above.

Sound effects to be found here: http://www.voodoo.cz/victory/trafalgar.html

 

[SOCRATES]

That's right...that is the 74 Gun Warship which is on patrol looking for the Black Swan as well, u c ?...

 

[sandpiper]

That's right...that is the 74 Gun Warship which is on patrol looking for the Black Swan as well, u c ?...

aye aye Captain... HMS Ibis... black swan class

 

[SOCRATES]

I love it - thank you - Admiral Lord Nelson and Bronte happens to be my personal hero...thanks again.

 

[nine]

lol ... entertainment is very important.

 

[dbphoenix]

lol ... entertainment is very important.

And Albert is nothing if not entertaining

Unfortunately, he is also particularly adept at leading the unwary down the garden path into the brambles . . .

 

[timsk]

An alternative suggestion . . .

"The issue need not necessarily be the number of mods but rather what it is exactly that the mods are supposed to do. Praising a moderator for doing a great job and criticising him for doing a terrible job are equally inappropriate if no one agrees on what it is that the moderator is supposed to do."

I am not a moderator and so I don't know what their precise brief is. However, I would imagine it is to ensure - as far as possible - that all posts are within the T2W site guidelines. As with any set of rules, there are those that are black and white (e,g. the use of multiple nick's) and those that require a degree of interpretation both by members and moderators alike (e.g. under 'Unacceptable Content' of the guidelines: "2.1 The use of inappropriate or offensive language is not permitted in these forums"). One man's meat is another man's poison and so what is acceptable to one member may be unacceptable to another and the poor ol' mod get caught in the crossfire. Clearly, it is a very difficult job, hence my praise for Jon earlier in the thread.

One solution might be to take a leaf out of the head teachers handbook when deciding who to appoint as school prefects. When there is an unusually strong and assertive pupil who is also prone to some wayward tendencies which results in leading his or her more impressionable peers astray, they are sometimes made into prefects. The hope is that once they understand the duties and responsibilities of their new role, they will rise to the challenge and suppress their disruptive antics and allow their more positive qualities to flourish for the benefit of all concerned. Of course, there are risks associated with this approach and the whole thing can backfire disastrously. To avoid this, new moderators (prefects) would be put on probation under the watchful eye of a head a senior moderator (barjon?) whose word on all matters would be final. Just a thought.
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

An alternative suggestion . . .

"The issue need not necessarily be the number of mods but rather what it is exactly that the mods are supposed to do. Praising a moderator for doing a great job and criticising him for doing a terrible job are equally inappropriate if no one agrees on what it is that the moderator is supposed to do."

I am not a moderator and so I don't know what their precise brief is. However, I would imagine it is to ensure - as far as possible - that all posts are within the T2W site guidelines. As with any set of rules, there are those that are black and white (e,g. the use of multiple nick's) and those that require a degree of interpretation both by members and moderators alike (e.g. under 'Unacceptable Content' of the guidelines: "2.1 The use of inappropriate or offensive language is not permitted in these forums"). One man's meat is another man's poison and so what is acceptable to one member may be unacceptable to another and the poor ol' mod get caught in the crossfire. Clearly, it is a very difficult job, hence my praise for Jon earlier in the thread.

As I suggested a year ago, when this topic was addressed yet again, it is not necessary for everyone to agree on what is acceptable and what is not; it is enough to look at results. If a moderator finds himself deleting "hundreds" of posts which are the result of the behavior of a couple of people, and even resorts to the closing of threads because these two or three can't be controlled, then there clearly are grounds for some action other than please don't do that. The vast majority of "offensive" posts get a response or two or three and that's it and are hardly worth a mention. But the two or three who love the attention (declining, for example, the option of private groups) and create and feed the turmoil in order to get it are, in essence, daring the powers to do anything about it.

If the powers want to spend their time deleting posts, that's their prerogative. But they should have no reason to expect that this course will do anything about the problem.

 

[laptop1]

I wanted to speak up in defense of our moderators . The common argument being they are here to moderate, and therefore should not be speaking their opinions.Good moderators are essential for good forums; great moderators are essential for great forums... and the absence of moderators typically leads to ghost towns inhabited only by spam bots.

Basic moderator duties are deleting or modifying inappropriate posts, even educating newcomers about forum guidelines and not to favour one member over the other.

 

[timsk]

As I suggested a year ago, when this topic was addressed yet again, it is not necessary for everyone to agree on what is acceptable and what is not; it is enough to look at results. If a moderator finds himself deleting "hundreds" of posts which are the result of the behaviour of a couple of people, and even resorts to the closing of threads because these two or three can't be controlled, then there clearly are grounds for some action other than please don't do that.

What action do you suggest?

The vast majority of "offensive" posts get a response or two or three and that's it and are hardly worth a mention. But the two or three who love the attention (declining, for example, the option of private groups) and create and feed the turmoil in order to get it are, in essence, daring the powers to do anything about it.

Presumably you don't include your good self in this group? I ask because others might - and therin lies the problem for the moderators. It isn't a black and white good guys verses bad guys situation. You may find some comment of mine offensive and, therefore, to you it contravenes the site guidelines. Ditto for me about a comment of yours, but that doesn't mean necessarily that the mod's ought to take action just because one of us is offended.
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

What action do you suggest?

The actions prescribed by the guidelines are a start.


Presumably you don't include your good self in this group? I ask because others might - and therin lies the problem for the moderators. It isn't a black and white good guys verses bad guys situation. You may find some comment of mine offensive and, therefore, to you it contravenes the site guidelines. Ditto for me about a comment of yours, but that doesn't mean necessarily that the mod's ought to take action just because one of us is offended.

As I said, it depends on results. If I'm offended by something you say, or vice-versa, that's one post, maybe two, not 40 or 50 or 100.

Not that any of this is critically important to me since I won't be initiating any more threads. I'm just offering a solution that goes beyond deleting posts, which, as far as I've seen, has done nothing to improve the situation.

.