Trolling

A good discussion that may result in changes in the future, for now it stands,

Rickler wrote:

GOB wrote:

Ricks, Tring, why do you believe that Punchdrunk should be treated differently to others?

I am not saying he should be treated differently to others - have their been any others yet?

I just felt the ban was a little long - that is an arbritary decision.

What's wrong with 48 hrs and an apologie?

Nothing. But you weren't party to the decision, had no input and I'm not even sure you saw the offensive material.

Some people on here are beginning to sound like Man U connected. On the basis that if you harang the Ref long enough you will get a decision in your favour instead of letting the Ref rule the proceedings. I don't believe for one minute that any action was taken last night lightly or without reason. You have moderators to referee matters and if you take away their right to do so then you might as well close everything down and go home. That would be a pity. If I was offensive and offended somebody I would not have a problem being told about it. The difference is I would appologise and stop doing it not step it up and continue. Compared to a lot of sites I think a 7 day suspension is lenient and certainly not OTT.

Let me start by saying I don't have any issue with the decision made by the mods.

But 2 questions.
Is the 7 day suspension a rule that was in place before?
Is there any scope in posters deciding what sanctions should be put in place? By this I mean there being some sort of poll where members decide on what would deserve a suspension or ban and how long it should last. When done it could be stickied in the admin section and that way it would be very clear what the consequences to ones actions would be. Not only that but these discussions would be moot as the sanctions would be already in place and democratically decided on. I'm rather badly talking about a user agreement that is formulated by the site's members and NOT something that is done on a case by case basis.

If I thought for one minute that avatars and comments such as those posted last night would be allowed to stand on ATD I would seek a majority moderator vote to close this site down immediately!

Free speech like true democracy, doesn't exist, there's no such a thing but we are as close to it as possible and it comes at a price and that price is responsibility. If users are not responsible enough to use the tool of 'free' speech then they lose the right to have it! Simple!

It was decided by the only three moderators on site at the time and by all three agreeing, to ban the culprit, however, that still seems unacceptable to Tring and Rickler. Why, heaven knows, but it's becoming a bore having to spell it out!






Pete, I'll happily respond to that....

Good and valid points Pete....

Is the 7 day suspension a rule that was in place before? - No. The suspension was decided by those mods online at the time. But you make a good point Pete and maybe we need to evolve and create a more substantial rule book. Please remember we are a new site and it's been difficult to evolve at the rate of growth that has been experienced. However, users will have the opportunity to remove and replace moderators every 12 months if they are unhappy with regards to how moderators run the site.

Is there any scope in posters deciding what sanctions should be put in place? By this I mean there being some sort of poll where members decide on what would deserve a suspension or ban and how long it should last. - I was thinking about this earlier, it's a hard one in that the user concerned would not be able to defend himself and that would make it a bit of a kangaroo court as well as making things more public then they need to be. Sometimes there are some sensitive situations that are personal, we've had one to deal with recently that again make it difficult to make public. It may well be worth further debate though?

Other mods may feel free to respond.

I would also like to make it clear to all users of ATD that ideas and views of how this site is run are very welcome and encouraged. It has always been the view that this site should be owned by the fans and not any individual or individuals. Again, I believe we operate as close as possible to that concept and elections are in the pipeline.

My first Q & A thread, eat your heart out Jimmy!

Edit to add: I should also state that I am not a moderator on ATD or owner, but as the original site designer I am sometimes called on to provide an opinion and to do this in private I have moderator rights. I do not use moderator tools other then to do as I done yesterday to move the chatbox to the top of the home page on match days. A similar position is held by Rickler.

Once the first elections are held I would expect this type of 'relationship' to cease and the moderators take 100% control.

Pete1886 wrote:

Let me start by saying I don't have any issue with the decision made by the mods.

But 2 questions.
Is the 7 day suspension a rule that was in place before?
Is there any scope in posters deciding what sanctions should be put in place? By this I mean there being some sort of poll where members decide on what would deserve a suspension or ban and how long it should last. When done it could be stickied in the admin section and that way it would be very clear what the consequences to ones actions would be. Not only that but these discussions would be moot as the sanctions would be already in place and democratically decided on. I'm rather badly talking about a user agreement that is formulated by the site's members and NOT something that is done on a case by case basis.

I like the sound of this suggestion. It would save any possible repeats and arguments whether it was justified or not.

I wouldn't keep using this site if that sort of material is allowed again, and I reckon that would be the same for a fair few others. I like Punchdrunks posts usually and I have nothing against him and I hope he comes back next week and continues posting on here.

As far as the decision that was made last night, for me it was the right thing. If we are going to have mods then they must be allowed to make judgements on things like this or the site would just turn into a free for all.

Please everyone just accept what has been decided and not have a falling out at a time when Pasoti is imploding. My guess is we will have an influx of new accounts following the events on Pasoti. Lets have some guidelines clearly stated and keep growing.

Some good points being made, can we make them in the "Site Section" please.

Cheers for responses Gob. I know that each case should be dealt with on an individual basis, but there could be already decided sanctions in place e.g. if a poster ignores a mod warning then they are automatically suspended for an hour (this rule having been decided by a vote on poster guidelines in advance). Then we would all know where we stand with regards to our conduct.

It maybe that such rigid rules need not be put in place but it would certainly mean that everyone would know the consequences of their actions.

The idea sounds good Pete as does the voting for users when it comes to handing out bans and it should definitely be discussed further.

It's interesting that unless an issue is raised there are no concerns of how the site is run, this is the first since the site was created and it's created a debate. When the site was created I asked for views on several things regarding the running of the site but it fell on deaf ears, nobody was concerned and that's a sign that things are running smoothly.

The next thing to sort out is the election. The Mods have put through a few ideas that I believe are in the Site Section but more are needed so we can get it off the ground.

Feel free to add anything you like because the mods on here are a very busy bunch lately.

GOB wrote:

The idea sounds good Pete as does the voting for users when it comes to handing out bans and it should definitely be discussed further.

It's interesting that unless an issue is raised there are no concerns of how the site is run, this is the first since the site was created and it's created a debate. When the site was created I asked for views on several things regarding the running of the site but it fell on deaf ears, nobody was concerned and that's a sign that things are running smoothly.

The next thing to sort out is the election. The Mods have put through a few ideas that I believe are in the Site Section but more are needed so we can get it off the ground.

Feel free to add anything you like because the mods on here are a very busy bunch lately.

Can we have this in the site section please

Fark orf!

I agree with the decision, but the use of the terms 'trolling' and 'sniping' reminds me far too much of our messed up Uncle Tony. Not particularly aimed at Cerbs but rather at the it's current use in society, I think they are pretty lazy expressions...why not just say what has actually been done!

FOUL PLAY FOUL PLAY!!!!

Why has mock got special posting powers the rest of us haven't? I demand an enquiry into 'mockgate'. All the mods should resign!!!!

Mock Cuncher wrote:

I agree with the decision, but the use of the terms 'trolling' and 'sniping' reminds me far too much of our messed up Uncle Tony. Not particularly aimed at Cerbs but rather at the it's current use in society, I think they are pretty lazy expressions...why not just say what has actually been done!

As I've said before, you would make a perfect mod for ATD.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

I agree with the decision, but the use of the terms 'trolling' and 'sniping' reminds me far too much of our messed up Uncle Tony. Not particularly aimed at Cerbs but rather at the it's current use in society, I think they are pretty lazy expressions...why not just say what has actually been done!

I agree Moch, I hate both of those terms and I think the reason for a suspension/ban should be better described. It should be discussed.