Oh dear, they're starting the crackdowns. :smile: — Wheatley

Feels like Irish buses. Nothing for ages then three come at the same time.

Btw: Banned MathematicalPhysicist for low quality. — Baden

Meh, the guy had what, 25 posts in two years? Granted, they weren't any good, but there was no pressing need to get rid of him.

Good call about the other three (if my count is right).

Meh, the guy had what, 25 posts in two years? Granted, they weren't any good, but there was no pressing need to get rid of him. — SophistiCat

And yet you'd be the first to complain about low quality if we let him post his OPs. So... what? We should run around deleting low-quality posters' stuff to keep you happy while not doing the obvious and banning them? Eh, no.

Good call about the other three (if my count is right). — SophistiCat

You're welcome.

And yet you'd be the first to complain about low quality if we let him post his OPs. — Baden

I would be complaining if he was posting 25 stupid OPs a month (as some do). One OP in two years? Meh. Not worth hurting his feelings.

But worth doing to maintain quality on the forum. Also, hurt feelings are not, or shouldn't be, a deciding factor in the decision to ban. They really ought not be considered at all really, as its about rules enforcement rather than preservation of anyones feelings. By the same token, we shouldnt ban anyone for hurting anyones feelings either. Ive always found “feelings” to be a somewhat lacking metric.

As one of the people who got the mad fucker unexpectedly banned by reporting an abusive post (against, ironically, another banned member), I would also hope that he or anyone else would be given a chance to moderate their behaviour on reflection, but obviously I respect the decision of those with a broader knowledge of his posting behaviour. (Nothing I saw spoke well of him, but I just got here.)

Also, personally I'm shameless, but it does seem unusual to name the people responsible for reporting abusive posts that led to a ban. That's not something I've seen on similar sites, but then as far as I know I've never gotten anyone banned before. I understand the idea is that it ought to be anonymous so that people feel safe to do it.

The first of these points would give me pause to report an abusive post on here, which, if others felt the same, could lead to unchecked bullying. The second would not, but might deter others.

. Also, hurt feelings are not, or shouldn't be, a deciding factor in the decision to ban. — DingoJones

Yes, unless there are extenuating circumstances (someone is complaining about being extremely depressed or suicidal etc and we're worried our actions could have an unusually strong effect) we just ban on the basis of the required standard.

Also, personally I'm shameless, but it does seem unusual to name the people responsible for reporting abusive posts that led to a ban. That's not something I've seen on similar sites, but then as far as I know I've never gotten anyone banned before. I understand the idea is that it ought to be anonymous so that people feel safe to do it. — Kenosha Kid

I'm sorry, I didn't think about it in that way. You didn't get them banned, it was their post history. Enough of us agreed to ban and no one registered disagreement or hesitation.

Reporting a post only means bringing something to our attention. We are responsible for all mod decisions and no-one else.

[Cross posted]

It's fine, I meant it quite dispassionately.
I understand, and feel no guilt, and yet... it still effects the outcome.

I disagree I mean if it weren't for idiocy and ignorance I don't think I would have ever wanted to do anything in life other than just sit there and be happy. No reason to want to get ahead or gain power or knowledge because there simply wouldn't be any scourge to fight. Or in the case of forums, points or opposing ideas to disprove or at least put into question. Not calling anyone who was banned any of these qualities I'm just speaking in general.

Furthermore, is there some hidden category I have unchecked where there's this vast influx of activity we can't seem to see. It's a great forum but I wouldn't say in a position to start throwing folks overboard because they don't dot their I's and cross their T's.

Which brings us back to the suggestion of limited or restricted accounts. At sign up, by age of account, by peer review, etc.

If you want idiocy, it's not in short supply on the internet. Happy hunting!

Speaking of which, banned @Oku for low quality. This one only took three posts, which could be a record. (But it was not a difficult decision considering the content.)

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

We don't have "fun" in Ireland. We get drunk in bogs and forget where we live. That's my plan for tomorrow.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You guys, I found the solution!

You have a New Category that is automatically applied to certain posters: new accounts or those rated as such and either a button just like "Start New Discussion" which is the hugest and most interaction-seeking option on the entire page... or a link under 'Most Viewed' either or that says "Show/Hide Novice Posts". Then the problem is over! Done! Finito! No need to thank me PF, just doing my job.

Wish I saw this 5 minutes ago.

Bring it.

:lol:
Just had a look. Case and point lol
I have a two birds with one stone solution: post all the banned (fir low quality) users stuff to a sub-forum called “youll have to do better than this” and here will be the place Newbs will be regulated to until such a time they get “reverse banned” into the main forum. Like a promotion, once they post something in the “youll have to do better than this“ sub forum that doesnt belong there cuz its not garbage.

He was blatantly evangelising for a religious sect or cult, no question about that. Note from the ToS:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Fell under that heading. Sufficient grounds.

Somethign similar was implemented in the previous incarnation of the forum. Roughly, folk could post to an equivalent of the lounge, that did not show up on the main page or on searches.

My guess is that this would still require some moderation, and so add to workload.

It was called the 'unmoderated section', and many users hated it.

"The old forum had a dedicated place for actually terrible threads - I think it was called the black hole or something - and it was an absolute clusterfuck, like, it made me nauseous even skim reading it." @StreetlightX

its about rules enforcement — DingoJones

Ive always found “feelings” to be a somewhat lacking metric. — DingoJones

I am gonna go ahead and Godwin the thread.

Accidentally hit the reply button to your post. Meant the one below yours.

Right, makes sense. A practical consideration for moderation that should trump the inconvenience of the slight post pollution that gets in the main forum. I didnt really think of that.

Sure you did. :cool:

I am gonna go ahead and Godwin the thread. — SophistiCat

Unfortunately you went right over my head there. What do you mean by Godwin the thread (i googled the law/man but still don’t get it) and how do the two quoted portions relate?

Are there mods here who were mods in The Other Place? They might know more detail. I think that the main motivation from the mods perspective was not having to reply to folk complaining about being banned or having their mate banned.