Erasing Threads.

David W · Post by **David W** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:55 am

Sorry, sense of humour caused temporary thread drift.

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:44 am

Excessive policing generally results in excessive misbehaviour...

Or even the other way around I would suggest?

Helmut Von Moltke · Post by **Helmut Von Moltke** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:02 am

Some spam threads by the Russian spammers are deleted, no problem with that. Depends on what type of thread, the important thing, especially if they have intresting debates in them, they should be left to visitors to see if they have good points and can give people food for though. (Although of course, if something hateful or bad is in there, perhaps only the post should be gone, by not the thread....

)

Doktor Krollspell · Post by **Doktor Krollspell** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:21 am

Hello Gentlemen!

First, good point Sid! Even the threads that go astray generally have components of interest in them. Just punish the wicked, I'd say...

Secondly, 17SS! You'll see the relevance once you get married...

Regards,

Krollspell

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Mon May 08, 2006 1:52 pm

All, will put my hand up here as someone who very recently asked jason to delete two threads, of which I was one of TWO major posters. the reason I did this was although the threads had been closed, the other posters content was SO objectionable I found that it served no purpose remaining around - and viewable. In fact, having the drivel around could have lost us valuable new and interesting people if the content had been viewed

phylo

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:12 am

Hi Phylo,

I would prefer the objectionable threads to stay up. They illustrate what is unacceptable and make it clear who is responsible. A closing note by the moderator as to the reasons for the closure and who was culpable should make clear to new posters that standards are being maintained here.

It also puts considerable power in the spoilers' hands. If they don't like the way an argument is going, they may be encouraged to work to destroy the entire thread.

Cheers,

Sid.

Lorenz · Post by **Lorenz** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:43 am

Sid G. wrote:

I would prefer the objectionable threads to stay up. They illustrate what is unacceptable and make it clear who is responsible. A closing note by the moderator as to the reasons for the closure and who was culpable should make clear to new posters that standards are being maintained here.
It also puts considerable power in the spoilers' hands. If they don't like the way an argument is going, they may be encouraged to work to destroy the entire thread.
Cheers,
Sid.

If I may be allowed a comment, I support your line of action except for one part, Sid. I don't think the moderator would have to actually name the culprit(s). Jason and most of the moderators would not go for that, I suspect, and I don't think it would really be necessary. If the offending thread is left up, it should be clear who the guilty parties are. I would also add that the moderator who closes the thread should send a strongly-worded PM to the miscreants warning them they they only get three chances (or whatever) and then they're history.

I have been very active under different screen names on 5 WW II discussion boards/forums for the past 6 years, and my experience has been that the people who cause the trouble keep coming back and causing more trouble unless they are booted. They do it to seek attention, push an agenda, be mean and nasty because that's their nature, etc., etc. Three warnings should be sufficient and then out they go.

--Lorenz

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Tue May 09, 2006 7:32 am

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Phylo,

I would prefer the objectionable threads to stay up. They illustrate what is unacceptable and make it clear who is responsible. A closing note by the moderator as to the reasons for the closure and who was culpable should make clear to new posters that standards are being maintained here.

It also puts considerable power in the spoilers' hands. If they don't like the way an argument is going, they may be encouraged to work to destroy the entire thread.

Cheers,

Sid.

Naming the culprit (if not obvious) could well lead to future baiting of that person.

IMO there should'nt be a blanket policy on erasing threads, but each should be judged or there merits or lack thereof. Its my experience that most members don't take that much notice of past actions, and especially those with an agenda.

Jason Pipes · Post by **Jason Pipes** » Tue May 09, 2006 10:13 am

The mods have the ability to delete messages and I have given them the ok to do so when and where needed. They did not realize they had this power earlier but they do now. We all try to remove spam as soon as we see it. If someone else has a better solution for how to fight spam, list it. 6 people moderating the forum on an ongoing basis is about as good as you are going to get.

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:13 am

6 people moderating the forum on an ongoing basis is about as good as you are going to get.

As in most Forums you never get all the Mods on at the same time,and off-course we all have lives outside these forum walls which precludes a 24/7 watch.

I have noticed that out of your 6 mods, 5 are resident (stated profile location) in continental N.America, and potentially only 1 outside it. Given the time difference between there and Europe (some 5-6hrs), maybe it would wise to try and recruit more Mods from this side of the pond to give a better time balance for Moderating the forum.

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Wed May 10, 2006 5:35 am

Cheshire Yeomanry wrote:Given the time difference between there and Europe (some 5-6hrs), maybe it would wise to try and recruit more Mods from this side of the pond to give a better time balance for Moderating the forum.

CY, that is a very good point! There are two elements of it worth discussing.

The first is that Jason chose people that volunteered, and/or he's known on here for a while. I'm sure there were probably more interested, but we were the only ones silly enough, I mean, willing enough, to volunteer!

The other issue about time is a very good point. That's where I come in. Since I work midnights in a jail, and we have internet access (for the time being, at least!), I can keep an eye on things during the night over here. I believe in your neighborhood, the clocks are 5 hours ahead of mine, which is 3 ahead of Jason's. Thus, when I scan at 0300, it's 08-1100ish across most of Europe. [I'm not intentionally leaving anyone else out, I just can't think that far when I'm tired!

] So, it may not be much, but at least li'l ol' me is keeping an eye on things.

Tricky devils, ain't we???? Gotta keep an eye on us Colonials, we're sneaky!

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:21 am

Gotta keep an eye on us Colonials, we're sneaky!

Yep especially those that deny there English ancestry and claim to be of Irish stock.

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:18 pm

Cheshire Yeomanry wrote:
Excessive policing generally results in excessive misbehaviour...
Or even the other way around I would suggest?

Not in my experience of co-running one of the largest, most active militaria-related websites on the net. Bossy, prodnosing behaviour by people abusing their moderator powers tends to rub even the most civil and docile of people up the wrong way when they see or experience it. If you leave people to their own devices, they tend to police themselves. There again, we have a kind of 'screaming room' section where pretty much anything goes and that functions as a release valve. Our 'serious' forums are surprisingly trouble-free, Some of them do not even have moderators. Mind you, we don't get many Dave Spart or Bolshie types over there.

PK

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:32 am

Hi Paddy,

I would suggest that CY is right.

You are talking about abuse of policing, not policing.

Cheers,

Sid.

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:45 pm

Hi regarding the opinions that putting a comment on regading Identity and responsibility could result on someone getting baited.....my recent experiences with a number of folk on here would indeed indicate that while they DO frequently post valuable questions or data, they ALSO frequently go off on one and objectionably and inaccurately so. So they'd be baited for only PART of their activity on here.....

Regarding the banning of threads, I voiced an opinion, which Jason was equally as free to disagree and not action as he was to agree and act on. If he had said no then there would have been no problem as he's been here so long and in a position of responsibility so long.

Believeme, if he agreed it was baaaad.

phylo