Locking a thread due to insults supports the negative behavior on the part of the abusers.
Now they know all they have to do to close a thread that's bugging 'em is hurl insults.
Likewise, you are punishing those who have reported the insults - don't report insults on threads or they might be closed.
I suggest banning the abusers from the forum instead.
The flamers know how to find their targets regardless of which thread has the most recent rash of insults.
The problem has nothing to do with the thread and everything to do with disrespectful people.
Banning is a pretty serious move. We have all seen excellent people banned for a misstatement.
And they can come back as another name.
Would rather see the insults redacted, or a 3 strilkes your out policy.
If your going to do banning, should be email address, person's name not by screen name.
The method Mozilla uses on its newsgroup (yes they use NNTP newsgroups which Ilike better than this Jive Stuff), they are given 3 passes with an email Warning from moderator each time. After 4 you are teminate for up to year.
In case of the adobe forms should be similar except no allowed back in after the three strikes.
The policy should be written up and posted as a footnote at bottom of window for subject or between the windo that you read the subject and the icon. See This
Note should be:
Results Of Breaking Policy:
For most cases, I like the redaction/censoring of the comments, but at the end of the day, it is the MOD's call. Some use the redaction/censoring method, while others (and it might depend on the thread), opt to lock.
Banning is very serious, as you state, and should ONLY be considered in extreme cases, at least in MY book.
Stating the obvious: Moderators never ban anyone in Jivetopia. In Jiveland: that is something only Adobe can do. We can make recommendations. Rarely is anyone other than obvious spammers banned.
We can lock a thread, edit contents, edit and lock. Of course, we can delete entire threads. Which of the tools used really is dictated by the specific situtation personal preference. My preference is to carefully edit a thread or to lock it depending on the situation. The problem with any of the choices except for deletion is the time it can take to do the best possible job. Any editing is problemsome. We are not only changing a members words, but removing context of later remarks. There is no good solution. Sometimes the best soluton is allow peer pressure direct the flow of a discussion. For the most part are members are curtious and well intentioned. Anyone can have an off day, including the moderators.
Curt Y wrote:
We have all seen excellent people banned for a misstatement.
I haven't. Still - I get your point .
Curt Y wrote:
Banning...they can come back as another name.
Excellent point. Until true identity required for participation, banning "forum identities" should probably be minimized.
Curt Y wrote:
Would rather see the insults redacted...
Actually, just yanking posts that include content whose purpose is to denegrate an individual, would solve 9X% of the problem. Yes, there are some grey areas, but I think most cases are pretty clear...
Curt Y wrote:
...or a 3 strilkes your out policy.
See response above to banning...
I understand that forum administrators would rather not have to "police the forums". Unfortunately, a vocal few can ruin it for the rest of us, like thieves degrade the quality of life outside the forum for honest people.
We are not only changing a members words, but removing context of later remarks.
- not editing a post.
- if it has any denegrating content, replace entire post with a stub containing:
- who posted it
- why it was replaced, in very general terms.
People can always repost to make up for lost content that may have had some actual value.
After a while, maybe people will get the message, and if they really have something useful to say, they will exclude the denegration, since they know it will result in the entire post being deleted.
For my taste:
Just my opinion.
I learned some very elementary lessons from my grandfather at a very early age ... namely that courtesy should be common ... respect is earned ... you reap what you sow ...
"Flamers" come in all types.
For example: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/969410?tstart=0
Speaking purely hypothetically …
When someone has a lengthy history of relentless posts containing conjecture, pontification and self-proclaimed expertise, they are likely to draw unwanted attention when their offerings fail to produce the evidence to back up the claims made. There are bound to be those who will disagree. Posting here is not a one-way street ... Participants should be prepared to back up their findings to support their comments. Otherwise, their contributions are pointless editorializing and become a waste of valuable server space or fodder for escalation of argument. Claiming victim status on each occasion when someone disagrees with a particular point of view can be tedious and tiresome.
I have always thought this U2U forum was for "discussion" ... and that daily "blogs" were a private enterprise ... in the latter venue, the originator indeed holds the reins and can control the content ... conversely, this is a community. Those who contribute here have to either exhibit the tolerance for others to participate by expressing opposing points, no matter how prideful they may be ... or strike out on their own elsewhere and see if they can attract the audience they actually desire if they only wish to acquire completely like-minded praise for their point of view. This is after all a forum and not a vehicle for the sole purpose to create a fan club to support one's ego.
If participants here, want to be treated with courtesy, they should be courteous. If they want to be respected, they should treat others with respect. It's disingenuous to have a history of antagonistic behavior ... then complain to the mods when they feel they have been treated unfairly ... It's a bit disconcerting to witness someone kindle a fire and then direct blame to others for the resulting inferno …
Well said, Butch. The thread you cited has just been locked, but who was it who was handing out the insults there? Rather than claiming to be insulted when people don't take us as seriously as we want, it can be good to remember Kipling's "If" http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm - it can be very comforting.
Your suggestions are perfectly reasonable, Claudio, but both Butch and I are focussing on how your moderator can make a decision. The bar has got to be a lot higher than a complaint from someone who has brought critical comment upon himself and then pretends to be Mother Teresa.
I do tend to agree with the OP's point to the extent that I don't like threads being locked. I feel they should almost always be left open, clear abuse handled as you say, and posters should not take themselves too seriously when their views are derided.
Claudio González wrote:
I don't seem to notice any conflict between my suggestions and the comments of Butch_M and johhnbeardy.
Nor were ther any intended differences from my offering ... only to point out that there is much more to consider than what the OP offered in the inital post ... as in what individual participants consider as "abuse" or "insult" ... by linking the most recently locked thread we can all see both of those behaviors can originate from the most unlikely sources ...