What to do about the troublemakers?

[tiltjlp]

I'm not talking about folks we simply disagree with. Differing opinions usually aren't any problem, and can make for some interesting anf lively discussions and debates. I'm talking more about people who post hostile and insulting messages, like Cowboy did against the Dude, or like Kabuki Jo did aimed at the current staff at vpf.

Now common sense would suggest that we all simply put anyone who irritates us on a regular basis on our Ignore Lists. We'd all have different Ignore Lists, because not everyone who bugs me will bug you. But if we all Ignore those folks who tend to upset us the most, in theory at least, the community should be more peaceful and we can all get back to pinball.

The only problem is that after a while I get curious about what so and so has been posting. So I remove so and so from my Ignore List, read a few of so and so's posts, and my blood begins to boil. Sure, that's human nature. We're all nosy at heart. But unless any of you can suggest something better, those clowns are going on my Ignore List . . . for good I hope.

John

 

[PacDude]

Ah gee, I thought I was the troublemaker.

You know one thing I never saw in my school days was a bully on the playground trying to convince everyone that the real bully was the 4-eyed geek playing with his video game watch.

 

[tiltjlp]

Ah gee, I thought I was the troublemaker.

You know one thing I never saw in my school days was a bully on the playground trying to convince everyone that the real bully was the 4-eyed geek playing with his video game watch.

Well, sometimes you can get awful long-winded, and even sound a bit full of yourself, but don't most of us do the same thing now and again? The thing with both Cowboy and KJ is that they set out trying to stir up all the garbage that had settled to the bottom. The worst thing you've ever done to me Dude was put me to sleep.

I find it interesting that da prez starts a no holds barred site where we can have it out with anyone we have a beef with. Cowboy is registered but hasn't posted yet. Now either he knows he's going to get blasted pretty hard, or he doesn't have the guts to post on a site where he can't run and hide.

KJ hasn't registered there, probably because as soon as he stirs up trouble at vpf he goes running home to VPU where he can brag to everyone in their chat room. But as for VPU, the forums seem OK, I make release posts there, and even have had a few comments from VPU staff. I don't do chat rooms because of my arthritis, and even if I did, that's one I would avoid, because it's usually so crowded that in the past I never could keep up with what was being said. If I need to chat I chat here, since it's nice and quiet.

John

 

[Pop Bumper Pete]

I have never used the ignore function
I like the soap operas that unfold
The insignificant things that get some people worked up

I find most of the time, it to be quite amusing

 

[bob]

I have never used the ignore function
I like the soap operas that unfold
The insignificant things that get some people worked up

I find most of the time, it to be quite amusing

You just explained why sooooooo many of us don't like to see locked threads I know it's a bitch when it comes to flaming, but the overall soap opera is quite entertaining if you're NOT a moderator.

 

[StevOz]

Yarr soap be blowed yar scurvy slime, when maddog is ranting and a foamin' at da mouth it be time to lock 'em in the bilge for awhiles.

 

[tiltjlp]

Yarr soap be blowed yar scurvy slime, when maddog is ranting and a foamin' at da mouth it be time to lock 'em in the bilge for awhiles.

No being a pirate. I'm not sure what you just said there Steve. I don't have a very long Ignore list. Just a few that tempt me to post things best left unsaid, and a few that tend to give me headaches.

John

 

[StevOz]

There be no man on the seven seas that I's a fear, I'm blind to none and though yea be of pure sprit, I'll raise me tankard and a toast to all.

 

[tiltjlp]

There be no man on the seven seas that I's a fear, I'm blind to none and though yea be of pure sprit, I'll raise me tankard and a toast to all.

Now that's something even I can drink to, although it'll have to be luke warm coffee. :)

John

 

[bob]

Yarr soap be blowed yar scurvy slime, when maddog is ranting and a foamin' at da mouth it be time to lock 'em in the bilge for awhiles.

Are you saying, if you're foaming at the mouth, you should be locked up (R/O) for awhile OR the thread should be locked for awhile? I agree that the foaming mouths need to be dealt with, but I haven't even been posting much in those threads lately, because I figure they will just get locked and archived, which is then a waste of the time, I spent posting in those threads ( I'll probably waste about 15 minutes replying to this thread)

If you're saying the thread should be locked for awhile and then unlocked later, well, that's just not happening.

Now to clear this up a little... I think if you lock and archive all threads that get out of hand and pass out D/A's to the troublemakers (good luck in satisfying everyone on who the "actual" troublemakers are) that this will eventually kill the forum.

Why is VP Forums different from ALL other forums? ALL other forums can survive without their mouthy members, but Visual Pinball needs authors to survive. VPF needs good authors to survive as the forum's is supported by donations. IMO, the trouble makers are about 90% authors or another way of saying this is... About 50% of the authors are troublemakers.

Possible soutions? Multiple Forums :) Let these arrogant loud mouth authors teamup or form individual groups of buddies and then hang out with each other at their own site. The problem with this is there is nowhere for me to go then, since I'm such a nice guy and don't fit in with those other loud mouth assholes. :D

I hope Pirate day is over :)

 

[Pop Bumper Pete]

I have no problems with people having a difference of opinion, or getting heated up over their respective view-points.

I have problems if member (1) is debating member (2), back and forth, back and forth, then suddenly member (3) chimes in with a more personal attack, member (1) comes up with something a little harder, then members (4), (5), (6) start posting with more personal attacks against member (1)
Then when we moderators show up and ask for calm, (3)(4)(5)(6) point out that member (1) started it all, he always starts things, so why don’t we ban member (1)?

Maybe what is needed is a third man rule, the third person to make a derogatory comment in a thread is the one who gets a D/A?

Just a thought
tmfp

 

[tiltjlp]

Yarr soap be blowed yar scurvy slime, when maddog is ranting and a foamin' at da mouth it be time to lock 'em in the bilge for awhiles.

Are you saying, if you're foaming at the mouth, you should be locked up (R/O) for awhile OR the thread should be locked for awhile? I agree that the foaming mouths need to be dealt with, but I haven't even been posting much in those threads lately, because I figure they will just get locked and archived, which is then a waste of the time, I spent posting in those threads ( I'll probably waste about 15 minutes replying to this thread)

If you're saying the thread should be locked for awhile and then unlocked later, well, that's just not happening.

Now to clear this up a little... I think if you lock and archive all threads that get out of hand and pass out D/A's to the troublemakers (good luck in satisfying everyone on who the "actual" troublemakers are) that this will eventually kill the forum.

Why is VP Forums different from ALL other forums? ALL other forums can survive without their mouthy members, but Visual Pinball needs authors to survive. VPF needs good authors to survive as the forum's is supported by donations. IMO, the trouble makers are about 90% authors or another way of saying this is... About 50% of the authors are troublemakers.

Possible soutions? Multiple Forums :) Let these arrogant loud mouth authors teamup or form individual groups of buddies and then hang out with each other at their own site. The problem with this is there is nowhere for me to go then, since I'm such a nice guy and don't fit in with those other loud mouth assholes. :D

I hope Pirate day is over :)

Now you never waste time responding to any threads here, since none ever get locked, and we're all so witty and urbane.

 

[tiltjlp]

I have no problems with people having a difference of opinion, or getting heated up over their respective view-points.

I have problems if member (1) is debating member (2), back and forth, back and forth, then suddenly member (3) chimes in with a more personal attack, member (1) comes up with something a little harder, then members (4), (5), (6) start posting with more personal attacks against member (1)
Then when we moderators show up and ask for calm, (3)(4)(5)(6) point out that member (1) started it all, he always starts things, so why don’t we ban member (1)?

Maybe what is needed is a third man rule, the third person to make a derogatory comment in a thread is the one who gets a D/A?

Just a thoughttmfp

I personally don't like the Third Man rule, because it ignores the person who started all the trouble. I really don't understand what I said that got me my Official Warning at vpf. I felt my comments were partly amusing and partly insulting to Cowboy, rather than an attack. But since the staff has a job to do, and since at least Cowboy apparently got a harsher D/A than I did, I took it like a trooper. But I would like to know what part of my post got me into trouble, but if I don't find out, no big deal.

So now I have a slowly growing Ignore List. Most of the names on it are people whose posts I simply find have little value to me, but a few are on there because they really irritate me. I simply have to resist the urge to find out what they've been saying, since those two or three fools aren't worth getting banned for.

John

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

I have problems if member (1) is debating member (2), back and forth, back and forth, then suddenly member (3) chimes in with a more personal attack, member (1) comes up with something a little harder, then members (4), (5), (6) start posting with more personal attacks against member (1)
Then when we moderators show up and ask for calm, (3)(4)(5)(6) point out that member (1) started it all, he always starts things, so why don’t we ban member (1)?

excellent excellent observation. i hope we talk about this more at the other joint, including your idea/proposal.

 

[PacDude]

If you simply ban everyone that was on the old staff from 2+ years ago, your problems will disappear like magic.

Hey, maybe VPU (and its link thereof) should be a banned word like they did to VPFF.

 

[tiltjlp]

If you simply ban everyone that was on the old staff from 2+ years ago, your problems will disappear like magic.

Hey, maybe VPU (and its link thereof) should be a banned word like they did to VPFF.

Or even better, let every member put one other member they feel causes trouble on R/O for two weeks. Just think of all the free time we'd all have since every active, posting member would be on R/O for the same two weeks. :idea:

John

 

[Anthias]

Good idea john, but can it wait a fortnight? because I got two weeks off after tomorrow, meaning I may actually be around to miss the place :D

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

If you simply ban everyone that was on the old staff from 2+ years ago, your problems will disappear like magic.

Hey, maybe VPU (and its link thereof) should be a banned word like they did to VPFF.

i've got a better solution- every posting member at every VP site should put every other member on ignore. every VP site should delete links to every other VP site and ban the use of their names. we should keep all VP comments to ourselves and only share our works with ourselves, but we can send text bots* in to keep posting random irrelevant messages publically.

* or monkeys at typewriters

 

[cowboy]

I have no problems with people having a difference of opinion, or getting heated up over their respective view-points.

I have problems if member (1) is debating member (2), back and forth, back and forth, then suddenly member (3) chimes in with a more personal attack, member (1) comes up with something a little harder, then members (4), (5), (6) start posting with more personal attacks against member (1)
Then when we moderators show up and ask for calm, (3)(4)(5)(6) point out that member (1) started it all, he always starts things, so why don’t we ban member (1)?

Maybe what is needed is a third man rule, the third person to make a derogatory comment in a thread is the one who gets a D/A?

Just a thought
tmfp

sure does let pacdude off the hook doesnt it. How come Im not surprised.

 

[tiltjlp]

I have no problems with people having a difference of opinion, or getting heated up over their respective view-points.

I have problems if member (1) is debating member (2), back and forth, back and forth, then suddenly member (3) chimes in with a more personal attack, member (1) comes up with something a little harder, then members (4), (5), (6) start posting with more personal attacks against member (1)
Then when we moderators show up and ask for calm, (3)(4)(5)(6) point out that member (1) started it all, he always starts things, so why don’t we ban member (1)?

Maybe what is needed is a third man rule, the third person to make a derogatory comment in a thread is the one who gets a D/A?

Just a thought
tmfp

sure does let pacdude off the hook doesnt it. How come Im not surprised.

But it also lets you off the hook. doesn't it, Mr LOL? Just remember that whatever you say will remain for every to see, exactly as you wrote it. Do you really want evidence of your BS available for the world to see? I doubt if even you convoluted and flowery prose will hide the truth from anyone.

John

 

[Pop Bumper Pete]

not really cowboy, in some threads that I have archived/locked Sir Pac (VP author supreme) would have recieved a D/A under the idea that I have suggested

 

[cowboy]

TMFP we should really find a time to discuss this in the chat at VPU. But until then I guess this will have to do. First Id like you to take some time to peruse my posts in the alt forum da prez set up if you havent already, so you have all the information as to where Im coming from. Second Id like you to read every post including the deleted ones so as to fully apprise yourself of the points Im trying to make, again if you havent already.

Now in regards to your idea, do you really think that it will provide an effective means of resolving outstanding issues in the community? Or do you think that it will resolve the particular issues that you personally have, that try your patience specifically? I fully understand your reasoning here TMFP in that, if Im interpreting correctly, you believe that by limiting the debate to the two initial participants, you limit the scope of its negative impact throughout the vpforums community. But thats not a given. The fact is that it only takes one person to piss alot of people off. Whether said post is directed to an individual member or broaches a larger issue or both is beside the point. If you either do nothing in regards to the initial transgression and/or preclude people from expressing their opposition you re going to have people who are not only pissed off concerning the initial transgression but also pissed off from being muzzled so as to keep them quiet. People get involved because they want to make sure all the points that are needed to be made are made. Some of these issues people are particularly passionate about, and those issues have a right to a full and proper airing. Where you deny this in order to maintain your own personal sense of acceptable decorum while allowing the initiator of the transgression to remain unscathed is only going to further alienate alot of members. In fact it already has. Another thing to keep in mind is the issue of justice. Some people are more equipped to defend their positions than others either because they dont have knowledge base or skills or they dont have the energy to do so and would sooner surrender than endure further onslaught even where their position is sound. As a fellow member I catagorically refuse to sit by and see someones weakness taken advantage of as I saw it done at vpforums without consequence.

Further, if you think my primary objective is to have Pacdude D/A'd you re missing the point. Though this may appear to be only a distinction in semantics, fair and equitable treatment is my main concern. Yours seems only to limit the scope of forum disruption in the short term. You have to think long term on this one, because alot of people are pissed off at the way things are now, and its only going to get worse if you adopt the proposition you have put forward. One of two things are going to happen. The staff are going to get a helluva lot more flack, and/or you re going to get your peaceful forums because alot of folks are going to be so pissed off they wont participate in it anymore. I once took a heavy handed approach to exactly the same kinds of issues, when the goal of the forums was to be a family friendly one. The result was a split in the community, which was alright with me......at the time. But with the reunification becoming the new priority, vpforums has brought the two opposing positions together without adopting a mechanism that can facilitate their coexistence. Whether or not the third party rule would have equal effect on Pacdude, the idea you re proposing does not do that. Pacdudes in forum behavior has not been the subject of ongoing contraversy for nothing regardless of whether third or first post. Nor has mine. The idea Ive put forward will negatively reinforce that which ANY given party contests. People would be motivated to self censor their own content. In turn to contest frivolously would lead to tit for tat, which would be a game nobody would win.......so they would soon stop as to do otherwise would be foolish. The staff s responsibility to move the contested and contesting post would be their obligation to the forum rule.....so they wouldnt be subject to flack as they are just following the rule. All members have an obligation to keep the forum clean....so if they find something objectionable to them it would be their duty to contest it. ie if I write something that Pacdude objects to he contests it and the posts go to the alt forum with or without an audience. It solves two functions. It keeps the forums clean, it reduces flack to the staff, and it allows free speech in an anything goes area separated but still a part of vpforums.

Everyone is happy. If you disagree tell me why.

not really cowboy, in some threads that I have archived/locked Sir Pac (VP author supreme) would have recieved a D/A under the idea that I have suggested

Edited by tiltjlp for proper pareagraph formatting since Cowboy is a dolt

 

[cowboy]

I have no problems with people having a difference of opinion, or getting heated up over their respective view-points.

I have problems if member (1) is debating member (2), back and forth, back and forth, then suddenly member (3) chimes in with a more personal attack, member (1) comes up with something a little harder, then members (4), (5), (6) start posting with more personal attacks against member (1)
Then when we moderators show up and ask for calm, (3)(4)(5)(6) point out that member (1) started it all, he always starts things, so why don’t we ban member (1)?

Maybe what is needed is a third man rule, the third person to make a derogatory comment in a thread is the one who gets a D/A?

Just a thought
tmfp

sure does let pacdude off the hook doesnt it. How come Im not surprised.

But it also lets you off the hook. doesn't it, Mr LOL? Just remember that whatever you say will remain for every to see, exactly as you wrote it. Do you really want evidence of your BS available for the world to see? I doubt if even you convoluted and flowery prose will hide the truth from anyone.

John

Just because its incomprehensible to your shallow intellect tiltjlp doesnt mean its hidden.....

 

[destruk]

I think by removing posting priviledges for all the members, and just allowing tables to be uploaded/downloaded, that would permanently resolve these problems.

 

[Pop Bumper Pete]

cowboy, it was nothing more than a thought/idea

the current staff group is too small to debate and think through an idea like this

posting in a public forum gets more viewpoints

the threads I have the biggest problem with is when 4,5,or 6 members are flaming/attacking one member, I think this is wrong

It doesn't matter anyway
TMFP