Selective Banning

by Elsewhere 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  COMF

  those who are trouble-makers will be banned by most people

  Looks like you've got more faith in people than I do, Elsewhere. I think it's more along the lines of the story about the lady who called the sheriff to report that some teenage boys were skinnydipping in the river in front of her house. The sheriff came out and asked them to move downstream, which they did, but shortly the lady called again to report that they were still visible from her upstairs window. So again the sheriff came and asked them to move farther downstream. After a bit came the lady's call again, this time to complain that they were still visible from the roof of the house with binoculars.

  Some of our protesters' behavior seems oddly similar, no?
• 

  The Alchemist

  A few problems with this idea as I see it. Some people would take it upon themselves to suggest who is to be banned. Campaign if you will. This could happen for purely personel or political reasons. The other problem is that people may act in haste. The person you ban today may have become your friend and ally tommorow
• 

  Carmel

  Reluctantly in regard to handling the few misfits and malcontents, I have to side with the libertarians. Frankly, I have no trouble ignoring them as it is. Some posters I simply do not engage, as they have an agenda which i chose not to be a part of. so I simply ignore them, as I am sure many do to me. What's the big deal about some loudmouth troll playing electronic games? Those that clamor for censorship of "troublemakers" are usually found to have not breast fed long enough.

  caveman
• 

  A Paduan

  A very jw suggestion imo useful for hit and run even but don't try and post back to me about this if you think I'm wrong, because I won't see your post or read it anyway.

  la la la la la la la la la la la la la la ..............

  A paduan
• 

  StinkyPantz

  Well Elsewhere if you ever start your own website then you should do that.
• 

  Simon

  I am intending to provide a 'community moderation' feature which will work something like this:

  Someone posts something stupid or trollish? Throw a tomato at them*

  Someone posts something good or intelligent? Award them a badge*

  * Not decided on the exact terminology yet ... they are just plus points and minus points to indicate your attitude to that particular post and will possibly be just a little tomato and certificate image next to a post that you click on. Remember, you are rating the post, not the thread or the poster (well, the poster indirectly)

  Thsi will then help in several ways:

  If all of a sudden a post is getting lots of bad marks then I know to look at it. Likewise, if a poster has a very negative balance then it can serve as an alert.

  The weight of someones vote will vary based on their own current status and how many votes they cast (so 'Mr Angry' who just gives everyone bad votes will start to be ignored by the system)

  The number and balance of the votes could affect the system with varying degrees from deactivation in extreme cases to limiting or enhancing the posting allowance for example.

  This way, everyone has a small say in what goes on and can control to some degree what is allowed to be posted.

  It will also make it easier to rate the good threads and hide the bad threads (automatically ignore fights if you want?) rather than the current system of rating an entire thread (but not being able to indicate which post(s) you thought were good or bad)
• 

  plmkrzy

  Someone posts something stupid or trollish? Throw a tomato at them*

  LMAO!

  TOMATOE FIGHTS!
• 

  Pathofthorns

  Simon, your suggestion sounds similar to the thread rating system in place. While few seem to use it, exceptionally good threads seem to be rated and some exceptionally bad ones get rated too..lol

  The "tomato system" brings politics into the picture and gang or clique voting paterns could develope. It could also create more posters willing to put up posts and threads to win public opinion instead of discussing the serious topics this place is known for.

  Posters that have a larger network of friends here will be less likely to get "tomatoes" than those who might post exactly the same words but are either a "pro-JW" or a fundy christian. This is not really fair but it is human nature. It is also human nature to want to read a post with alot of tomatoes too.. (smile)

  I think Elsewhere's suggestion is a superior one because it will make the poster accountable to himself and he will have himself to blame. Especially if you make a provision for us to filter obscene language etc, some could choose to read electronically edited versions of posts. Or you could have a provision where we could label our post as "controvertial" where heated topics like abortion, racism etc are discussed and people could filter these out too.

  At the end of the day you will find few people turn the filters on. They want the obscene language and the nudity and the controvertial posts. It is ironic that we don't want to see what we really like to see. It is just that in small amounts these things are like spice and the life of the board, but in overwhelming amounts they are the death of it.

  Such difficult decisions to make but I personally have great faith that the majority are good persons. People have bad days, they say stupid things but things always work themselves out in the end.

  Path
• 

  teejay

  Simon,

  I like your idea.

  Rather than an ignore feature that erases from view ALL posts of a particular poster (something I'd personally never use, anyway), your proposed system would let us award an individual post as exceptional or criticize, as the case may be. Really, it's something that in the past I wish had been place.

  Occasionally, someone who may not be one of my "favorite" posters has said something that was truly exceptional and I've wanted to tell them so -- more or less 'award' them for their insight. On the other hand, one of my favorites has done the opposite -- for example, gotten personal with one of their rivals or gone off on a totally irrelevant tangent, and I've wanted to make *those* feelings known. Your system would make that possible.

  Of course, on-board alliances always hold the possibility for unfair targeting of the more... uh... controversial ones of us who tend to hold unconventional views. For that reason, the badges/tomatoes will not always hold the meaning they should. But then (imo), that's the way it is with the rating system now in place. Posts can/will always be awarded/denounced for different reasons by different posters, but at least with your proposal we will be able to highlight an exceptional post within a thread that may not be.

  Then too, the author of the post would be able to see how the board has reacted to their post. This might be especially useful when a particularly offensive post is shown to be so by multiple hits of tomatoes! It might make the author realize the need to change either their viewpoint or, at least, their language. Maybe not.
• 

  Sentinel

  Wow, if only that premise would really work here.

  ...Everyone, everywhere, being totally happy all the time.

  Realistically, ...unrealistic.

  Everyone of us has a lapse in etiquette at times. We aren't perfect. I would hate to "ban" someone, or have someone "ban" me because of that. I might miss out on a very excellent post from them.

  I would rather have someone just tell me that I am being a jerk or have been offensive, so I could correct myself and post responsibly. Sort of like "a jerk alert" site, where you could make an expression of the exact offense, and then let it go at that. There would be no bandwagon to jump on, and no undue abuse of the offender.

  The more the offender offended, the less folks would read their posts. Then, if they get too out of hand, Simon can erase them.

  Karen