He was "banned" a while back because someone reported a post he'd made as Spam, when actually it wasn't. However, a mod banned him by mistake because he didn't take enough care to check whether the post was really spam or not.
I lifted the ban several days later. However, I hadn't noticed that the user had singed up again under a different name. I sent a PM to ask the user which handle they wanted; it wasn't woohoo! so that handle is banned.
In short, woohoo! didn't actually do anything wrong.
Congratulations go to, Woohoo for getting himself banned, to Josh.B for joining this elite group in just a couple of days, and to SpotOn for...... not being banned.
Just noticed that you can add the ban tag to JoshB. If it were up to me we'd add harleighquinn, who is a highly disputatious fellow, of the "I can't even figure out what everybody's arguing about" variety.
There is, for reals, a certain type of "troll" that doesn't come on all hot and heavy and insulting, but rather uses incessant questioning and immediate taking of umbrage and targeted disparaging of certain members in order to drive threads into the ditch. Those types are a lot harder to identify and deal with, because typically no one post is particularly out of bounds.
Just noticed that you can add the ban tag to JoshB..
That's just temporary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
There is, for reals, a certain type of "troll" that doesn't come on all hot and heavy and insulting, but rather uses incessant questioning and immediate taking of umbrage and targeted disparaging of certain members in order to drive threads into the ditch. Those types are a lot harder to identify and deal with, because typically no one post is particularly out of bounds.
This sounds to me a lot more like "poster I don't agree with" than "troll". I do agree that there were some people who were just trolling and we took too long to get rid of them, but in some other cases, you'll have to continue using the ignore feature.
This sounds to me a lot more like "poster I don't agree with" than "troll". I do agree that there were some people who were just trolling and we took too long to get rid of them, but in some other cases, you'll have to continue using the ignore feature.
Nope. There are lots of people I don't agree with that I have back and forth with. It goes swimmingly. I'm talking about a posting style, in the aggregate, that always seems to tend toward, well, what I described.
And its obviously not just me bitchin'-- there have a been lot of long time members talking about the decline in the content of the forums, people who are gone, people who may just give up.
I know that doesn't matter in the least to the powers that be-- clicks are money, and squabbling brings more clicks I guess. But for a community, which this used to be, not so great.
Nope. There are lots of people I don't agree with that I have back and forth with. It goes swimmingly. I'm talking about a posting style, in the aggregate, that always seems to tend toward, well, what I described.
And its obviously not just me bitchin'-- there have a been lot of long time members talking about the decline in the content of the forums, people who are gone, people who may just give up.
What I'm trying to say is that if the poster really is that bad, it's difficult to see how they will not be breaking the posting guidelines on a regular basis. Their posts should be reported; either they'll chill out a bit or they won't and will eventually accumulate enough infractions to be permanently banned.
I'd also say that some people are just dicks. However, whether someone is a dick or not is subjective; you may perceive someone to be a dick due to their posting history, but someone else may not. This is where it's difficult to draw the line; if someone is permanently on-topic and refrains from personal attacks but still manages to come across, according to some members, like a total git, I'm not convinced they should be banned. Perhaps they should be warned that other people feel that they are being a git, and given the opportunity to modify their posting behaviour. But that requires either posts to be reported, or comments made in the feedback forum, so that the moderators are aware of the problem.
Finally, a good deal of the problem lately has been people responding to anti-apple posters in a very confrontational and childish manner. Who is the problematic individual in that case? Who is the one derailing the thread? Is it the one making an on-topic comment, albeit anti-Apple or Jobs, or is it the one going "you're such a troll, I bet you're teckstud" etc. etc.?
Just recently in another thread, I had to delete an absolute crapload of posts by Ireland and Quadra 610 going on and on about how they were sure that SpotOn was a troll and a second handle for AppleRulez. At the time, their posts made up almost half of the entire thread! Meanwhile, SpotOn had made a single, cohesive, on-topic, non-negative post. Who was spoiling the thread for everyone else?
People need to calm down, report posts they consider to be trolling and stick to the subject matter of threads rather than throwing accusations around and/or ganging up to bully other members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I know that doesn't matter in the least to the powers that be-- clicks are money, and squabbling brings more clicks I guess. But for a community, which this used to be, not so great.
Two things:
1.) If AI decends into a cesspool of childish bickering then I would imagine that wouldn't be great for traffic.
2.) Consideration of financial consequences has not once factored into my moderating decisions.
What I'm trying to say is that if the poster really is that bad, it's difficult to see how they will not be breaking the posting guidelines on a regular basis. Their posts should be reported; either they'll chill out a bit or they won't and will eventually accumulate enough infractions to be permanently banned.
...
I accept that the moderation process is subjective, if only because so are the posting standards to a large extent. However I think it is not typically difficult to assess when a thread has gone off the rails, and for the most part, who was/were the culprit(s) in the derailing. I am an advocate for the gentle but firm reminders of the rules and the tactical deletion or editing of posts by the mods. Nobody likes to see their posts removed or changed by a moderator, even (perhaps even especially) the habitually confrontational. From my experience, this sort of discipline works wonders. Is it 100% effective? Of course not, but then nothing is. The really hard cases need firmer treatment, but they tend to be in the minority.
What I'm trying to say is that if the poster really is that bad, it's difficult to see how they will not be breaking the posting guidelines on a regular basis. Their posts should be reported; either they'll chill out a bit or they won't and will eventually accumulate enough infractions to be permanently banned.
I'd also say that some people are just dicks. However, whether someone is a dick or not is subjective; you may perceive someone to be a dick due to their posting history, but someone else may not. This is where it's difficult to draw the line; if someone is permanently on-topic and refrains from personal attacks but still manages to come across, according to some members, like a total git, I'm not convinced they should be banned. Perhaps they should be warned that other people feel that they are being a git, and given the opportunity to modify their posting behaviour. But that requires either posts to be reported, or comments made in the feedback forum, so that the moderators are aware of the problem.
Finally, a good deal of the problem lately has been people responding to anti-apple posters in a very confrontational and childish manner. Who is the problematic individual in that case? Who is the one derailing the thread? Is it the one making an on-topic comment, albeit anti-Apple or Jobs, or is it the one going "you're such a troll, I but you're teckstud" etc. etc.?
Yeah, the dick thing is tricky, I'll grant you (that's what she.... never mind). But as Dr. Millmoss says, it's usually not that hard to detect who the instigator is, although that requires a closer reading of the thread than just looking at a reported post.
I recently reported a string of posts, which I never do, just because the poster in question was being, well, a massive dick. But it was a kind of aggressive and steadily escalating dickishness that made it ban worthy, IMO. The odd remark or a couple of people squaring off generally doesn't bug me that much, but sometimes you get into what strikes me as explicitly trollish (in the sense that it's designed to win by agitating every enough that they lose their minds) stuff like constantly calling out everyone for "ad homs" while busily declaring these same people idiots and, in the case I'm mentioning, likening them to biting dogs needing to be put down. Which, I dunno. Not sure why that didn't earn an immediate ban.
You know what I mean? There's telling people they're full of it or spouting nonsense or wrong as always, shit like that, that's pretty much background noise. And then there's the campaign to fuck with people in a super personal, kinda creepily intense way. It may not be trolling in the sense of trying to get Mac people mad, but it is trolling in the sense that the poster is willing to blow up the thread if it means they can "win" and demean whoever it is they've taken a dislike to.
Quote:
Just recently in another thread, I had to delete an absolute crapload of posts by Ireland and Quadra 610 going on and on about how they were sure that SpotOn was a troll and a second handle for AppleRulez. At the time, their posts made up almost half of the entire thread! Meanwhile, SpotOn had made a single, cohesive, on-topic, non-negative post. Who was spoiling the thread for everyone else?
I think there's been heightened sensitivity as of late, though, because very clearly there have been a number of very determined people with axes to grind that are getting banned and coming back under new names. And some of them are actually pretty clever in how they're constructing new personas designed to fly under the radar while quietly twisting the knife.
Actually, that sounds slightly insane and paranoid even to me (even though I know its actually happened). SEE? TROLLS MAKE ADDABOX GO CRAZY.
Quote:
People need to calm down, report posts they consider to be trolling and stick to the subject matter of threads rather than throwing accusations around and/or ganging up to bully other members.
Agreed. Although if we're talking about SpotOn he's perfectly capable of rounding up his own cronies and running some pretty nasty shit. Way more personal and vicious than anything leveled at him.
Quote:
Two things:
1.) If AI decends into a cesspool of childish bickering then I would imagine that wouldn't be great for traffic.
I'm not sure that's true. See also: the internet.
Quote:
2.) Consideration of financial consequences has not once factored into my moderating decisions.
Nor would I ever think or imply that, I'm just talking in terms of general site management.
Comments
He was "banned" a while back because someone reported a post he'd made as Spam, when actually it wasn't. However, a mod banned him by mistake because he didn't take enough care to check whether the post was really spam or not.
I lifted the ban several days later. However, I hadn't noticed that the user had singed up again under a different name. I sent a PM to ask the user which handle they wanted; it wasn't woohoo! so that handle is banned.
In short, woohoo! didn't actually do anything wrong.
Congratulations go to SpotOn for...... not being banned.
Thank you piot
I've never been banned anywhere, under any nick.
If one starts receiving warnings, it's time to chill.
Not hard.
Let's try that again!
AppleRulez Banned 108
iLuv Banned 121
Josh.B. Registered User 101
SpotOn Registered User 241
Woohoo! Banned 289
Congratulations go to, Woohoo for getting himself banned, to Josh.B for joining this elite group in just a couple of days, and to SpotOn for...... not being banned.
Just noticed that you can add the ban tag to JoshB. If it were up to me we'd add harleighquinn, who is a highly disputatious fellow, of the "I can't even figure out what everybody's arguing about" variety.
There is, for reals, a certain type of "troll" that doesn't come on all hot and heavy and insulting, but rather uses incessant questioning and immediate taking of umbrage and targeted disparaging of certain members in order to drive threads into the ditch. Those types are a lot harder to identify and deal with, because typically no one post is particularly out of bounds.
Maybe I'll actually be able to start hanging around here again. It had gotten pretty annoying.
Hey Patrick. Nice to see you around.
Just noticed that you can add the ban tag to JoshB..
That's just temporary.
There is, for reals, a certain type of "troll" that doesn't come on all hot and heavy and insulting, but rather uses incessant questioning and immediate taking of umbrage and targeted disparaging of certain members in order to drive threads into the ditch. Those types are a lot harder to identify and deal with, because typically no one post is particularly out of bounds.
This sounds to me a lot more like "poster I don't agree with" than "troll". I do agree that there were some people who were just trolling and we took too long to get rid of them, but in some other cases, you'll have to continue using the ignore feature.
That's just temporary.
This sounds to me a lot more like "poster I don't agree with" than "troll". I do agree that there were some people who were just trolling and we took too long to get rid of them, but in some other cases, you'll have to continue using the ignore feature.
Nope. There are lots of people I don't agree with that I have back and forth with. It goes swimmingly. I'm talking about a posting style, in the aggregate, that always seems to tend toward, well, what I described.
And its obviously not just me bitchin'-- there have a been lot of long time members talking about the decline in the content of the forums, people who are gone, people who may just give up.
I know that doesn't matter in the least to the powers that be-- clicks are money, and squabbling brings more clicks I guess. But for a community, which this used to be, not so great.
Nope. There are lots of people I don't agree with that I have back and forth with. It goes swimmingly. I'm talking about a posting style, in the aggregate, that always seems to tend toward, well, what I described.
And its obviously not just me bitchin'-- there have a been lot of long time members talking about the decline in the content of the forums, people who are gone, people who may just give up.
What I'm trying to say is that if the poster really is that bad, it's difficult to see how they will not be breaking the posting guidelines on a regular basis. Their posts should be reported; either they'll chill out a bit or they won't and will eventually accumulate enough infractions to be permanently banned.
I'd also say that some people are just dicks. However, whether someone is a dick or not is subjective; you may perceive someone to be a dick due to their posting history, but someone else may not. This is where it's difficult to draw the line; if someone is permanently on-topic and refrains from personal attacks but still manages to come across, according to some members, like a total git, I'm not convinced they should be banned. Perhaps they should be warned that other people feel that they are being a git, and given the opportunity to modify their posting behaviour. But that requires either posts to be reported, or comments made in the feedback forum, so that the moderators are aware of the problem.
Finally, a good deal of the problem lately has been people responding to anti-apple posters in a very confrontational and childish manner. Who is the problematic individual in that case? Who is the one derailing the thread? Is it the one making an on-topic comment, albeit anti-Apple or Jobs, or is it the one going "you're such a troll, I bet you're teckstud" etc. etc.?
Just recently in another thread, I had to delete an absolute crapload of posts by Ireland and Quadra 610 going on and on about how they were sure that SpotOn was a troll and a second handle for AppleRulez. At the time, their posts made up almost half of the entire thread! Meanwhile, SpotOn had made a single, cohesive, on-topic, non-negative post. Who was spoiling the thread for everyone else?
People need to calm down, report posts they consider to be trolling and stick to the subject matter of threads rather than throwing accusations around and/or ganging up to bully other members.
I know that doesn't matter in the least to the powers that be-- clicks are money, and squabbling brings more clicks I guess. But for a community, which this used to be, not so great.
Two things:
1.) If AI decends into a cesspool of childish bickering then I would imagine that wouldn't be great for traffic.
2.) Consideration of financial consequences has not once factored into my moderating decisions.
What I'm trying to say is that if the poster really is that bad, it's difficult to see how they will not be breaking the posting guidelines on a regular basis. Their posts should be reported; either they'll chill out a bit or they won't and will eventually accumulate enough infractions to be permanently banned.
...
I accept that the moderation process is subjective, if only because so are the posting standards to a large extent. However I think it is not typically difficult to assess when a thread has gone off the rails, and for the most part, who was/were the culprit(s) in the derailing. I am an advocate for the gentle but firm reminders of the rules and the tactical deletion or editing of posts by the mods. Nobody likes to see their posts removed or changed by a moderator, even (perhaps even especially) the habitually confrontational. From my experience, this sort of discipline works wonders. Is it 100% effective? Of course not, but then nothing is. The really hard cases need firmer treatment, but they tend to be in the minority.
What I'm trying to say is that if the poster really is that bad, it's difficult to see how they will not be breaking the posting guidelines on a regular basis. Their posts should be reported; either they'll chill out a bit or they won't and will eventually accumulate enough infractions to be permanently banned.
I'd also say that some people are just dicks. However, whether someone is a dick or not is subjective; you may perceive someone to be a dick due to their posting history, but someone else may not. This is where it's difficult to draw the line; if someone is permanently on-topic and refrains from personal attacks but still manages to come across, according to some members, like a total git, I'm not convinced they should be banned. Perhaps they should be warned that other people feel that they are being a git, and given the opportunity to modify their posting behaviour. But that requires either posts to be reported, or comments made in the feedback forum, so that the moderators are aware of the problem.
Finally, a good deal of the problem lately has been people responding to anti-apple posters in a very confrontational and childish manner. Who is the problematic individual in that case? Who is the one derailing the thread? Is it the one making an on-topic comment, albeit anti-Apple or Jobs, or is it the one going "you're such a troll, I but you're teckstud" etc. etc.?
Yeah, the dick thing is tricky, I'll grant you (that's what she.... never mind). But as Dr. Millmoss says, it's usually not that hard to detect who the instigator is, although that requires a closer reading of the thread than just looking at a reported post.
I recently reported a string of posts, which I never do, just because the poster in question was being, well, a massive dick. But it was a kind of aggressive and steadily escalating dickishness that made it ban worthy, IMO. The odd remark or a couple of people squaring off generally doesn't bug me that much, but sometimes you get into what strikes me as explicitly trollish (in the sense that it's designed to win by agitating every enough that they lose their minds) stuff like constantly calling out everyone for "ad homs" while busily declaring these same people idiots and, in the case I'm mentioning, likening them to biting dogs needing to be put down. Which, I dunno. Not sure why that didn't earn an immediate ban.
You know what I mean? There's telling people they're full of it or spouting nonsense or wrong as always, shit like that, that's pretty much background noise. And then there's the campaign to fuck with people in a super personal, kinda creepily intense way. It may not be trolling in the sense of trying to get Mac people mad, but it is trolling in the sense that the poster is willing to blow up the thread if it means they can "win" and demean whoever it is they've taken a dislike to.
Just recently in another thread, I had to delete an absolute crapload of posts by Ireland and Quadra 610 going on and on about how they were sure that SpotOn was a troll and a second handle for AppleRulez. At the time, their posts made up almost half of the entire thread! Meanwhile, SpotOn had made a single, cohesive, on-topic, non-negative post. Who was spoiling the thread for everyone else?
I think there's been heightened sensitivity as of late, though, because very clearly there have been a number of very determined people with axes to grind that are getting banned and coming back under new names. And some of them are actually pretty clever in how they're constructing new personas designed to fly under the radar while quietly twisting the knife.
Actually, that sounds slightly insane and paranoid even to me (even though I know its actually happened). SEE? TROLLS MAKE ADDABOX GO CRAZY.
People need to calm down, report posts they consider to be trolling and stick to the subject matter of threads rather than throwing accusations around and/or ganging up to bully other members.
Agreed. Although if we're talking about SpotOn he's perfectly capable of rounding up his own cronies and running some pretty nasty shit. Way more personal and vicious than anything leveled at him.
Two things:
1.) If AI decends into a cesspool of childish bickering then I would imagine that wouldn't be great for traffic.
I'm not sure that's true. See also: the internet.
2.) Consideration of financial consequences has not once factored into my moderating decisions.
Nor would I ever think or imply that, I'm just talking in terms of general site management.
That's just temporary.
Really? That's a shame. The threads seemed quite good today, now I know why.
SpotOn, great to hear about the change of heart. Look forward to seeing your comments!