Jump to content

What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?


Greg

Recommended Posts

Respectfully, what does your post have anything to do with the thread? I would suggest you start a new thread or find the appropriate one.

I believe following that rule would lead to an improvement in this forum.

That rule is not being followed currently. What do you think? Do you think it matters? Of all the violations of the forum rules that occur, this one is very bizarre because I have received very different private explanations for violating this rule and none of them make any sense to me whatsoever. Yet, all of these people share one thing in common.

Anybody up for debating my this suggested improvement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe following that rule would lead to an improvement in this forum.

That rule is not being followed currently. What do you think? Do you think it matters? Of all the violations of the forum rules that occur, this one is very bizarre because I have received very different private explanations for violating this rule and none of them make any sense to me whatsoever. Yet, all of these people share one thing in common.

Anybody up for debating my this suggested improvement?

I'd be more concerned with the current trollers than anyone who breaks this rule. Would be nice to address the real concerns brought up my members here. Which we have suggested actions for. But this seems to be more important to moderation than what we have been saying for about 40 pages in this thread?

And what exactly is there to debate with your point? Seems cut and dry there.

And the reason for anyone making another account (I did once) because there was no way to communicate with a moderator about the infraction. I had to make another account and email the mods because I wanted answers. The reason for the account was because (as we find out now) some of the reporting/notification features were broken. So, I don't think giving people crap for that is a good idea.

Unless they are deliberately holding and actively using two accounts.

Overall I believe getting rid of trolling and the trollers would be more effective for improving the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be more concerned with the current trollers than anyone who breaks this rule.

You and I disagree on what constitutes a troll and the act of trolling.

And what exactly is there to debate with your point? Seems cut and dry there.

Do you think it is a good rule? Yes? or No?

Where do you think this forum would go if members were free to silently get away with relinquishing a profile and starting a new one? multiple times?

I believe it is a good rule. Some of the membership disagrees.

I want to hear what people think and I want those thoughts expressed openly.

I believe it is a good rule because it provides an incentive to members to be more careful with their posts.

And the reason for anyone making another account (I did once) because there was no way to communicate with a moderator about the infraction. I had to make another account and email the mods because I wanted answers. The reason for the account was because (as we find out now) some of the reporting/notification features were broken.

That makes sense. That is not the activity that gets my goat.

Unless they are deliberately holding and actively using two accounts.

Not exactly.

They stop using their old profile and start using new ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I disagree on what constitutes a troll and the act of trolling.

I would say that many here agree with me. Most here clearly know what a troll post is. We are the ones spending the most time in the forum and participating. So we would be better to point out a real troll post.

Do you think it is a good rule? Yes? or No?

Where do you think this forum would go if members were free to silently get away with relinquishing a profile and starting a new one? multiple times?

It does not matter if we think this, or any rule is good. The rules are made up by Greg and some are very long standing. Your job is to enforce those rules. Are you?

I believe it is a good rule. Some of the membership disagrees.

I want to hear what people think and I want those thoughts expressed openly.

Go read the other 40 pages of this thread then.

I believe it is a good rule because it provides an incentive to members to be more careful with their posts.

This is laughable. We also believe no trolling is a good rule. But one we would actually like to see enforced.

Sure multiple accounts go against the rules of the board. So what are you going to do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I disagree on what constitutes a troll and the act of trolling.

as do you and I... as do you and several other members that I've conversed with. We all appear to have a somewhat common understanding of what a troll is... what trolling is. I'm not aware of your definition - please advise... if you've provided it previously, I can't recall it or I never saw it. Again, please advise - thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every anonymous board has trolls and multiple avatars for the same individual. I am not sure if the technology for spotting multiple avatars is available and accurate. When an individual is intent on vandalizing a board they will find a way. Discussion and interaction depend on co operation from at least one other poster. The is no rule that you have to react to a post. It may require some self discipline but those following a topic can spot the trouble makers and understand when someone does not respond in kind.

You cannot complete a phone call if nobody picks up.

The greatest insult that one can give to anyone on an anonymous board is NOT a scathing counter attack but ignoring the jerk who is trying to get you angry. The jackass is soon isolated and ignored by the serious participants.

As to rules, you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Edited by Big Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this forum is really serious about wanting to avoid falling into a cesspool of personal attacks, you'd think they would welcome a person starting fresh with a new persona. Nothing reduces personal banter more than not knowing the person you're bantering with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe following that rule would lead to an improvement in this forum.

That rule is not being followed currently. What do you think? Do you think it matters? Of all the violations of the forum rules that occur, this one is very bizarre because I have received very different private explanations for violating this rule and none of them make any sense to me whatsoever. Yet, all of these people share one thing in common.

Anybody up for debating my this suggested improvement?

reference information please:

- you state the rule is not currently being followed... is that with respect to multiple accounts or proxy use... or both?

- you state the rule is not currently being followed... is it being enforced? And if so, what type(s) of enforcement have been actioned?

- for member assurances as to monitoring/appropriate analysis/evaluation, how is the rule monitored - how do you know..... e.g., do you check for a common IP with multiple accounts? How do you check/confirm proxy use (say anonymous IP type stuff out there)?

- are there currently active members using multiple accounts concurrently? For giggles, is there a sock-puppet relationship active? If so, c'mon..... name names!

as for my personal opinion, if a member desires a change... a new board persona... why not? Just so long as the prior account is never used subsequent to the creation of a new one.

as an aside, since you appear to be in an engaging mood with your questions, can you confirm those claiming to be Americans on this board actually present American IPs? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody up for debating my this suggested improvement?

The only thing I would debate is that it shouldn't be a blanket rule. You need to take it on a case-by-case basis. I disagree with how this rule was applied in Derek's case, but it should be applied without hesitation to someone who is suspended or banned from the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for my personal opinion, if a member desires a change... a new board persona... why not? Just so long as the prior account is never used subsequent to the creation of a new one.

I think this is the key point. We want to avoid sock puppets, and we want to prevent people from circumventing bans. Beyond those two issues, I can't see any issue. In the case of Derek's return, I can't imagine what the issue is, since he was (1) never banned, and (2) is up front about who he is-- it is not a sock puppet account.

I can't imagine any possible benefit to the board that would come from evicting Derek. Rather the opposite.

You and I disagree on what constitutes a troll and the act of trolling.

I think you disagree with just about everybody on what constitutes a troll.

A hypothetical user who wades into threads trying to derail discussion of the topic by baiting people with material like "hur de hur Canada, hur de hur de hur, hur de hur de the Queen, hur de hur" is a textbook troll and is a real detriment to the board.

-k

Edited by kimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hypothetical user who wades into threads trying to derail discussion of the topic by baiting people with material like "hur de hur Canada, hur de hur de hur, hur de hur de the Queen, hur de hur" is a textbook troll and is a real detriment to the board.

I never did that. Was that aimed at me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody up for debating my this suggested improvement?

Is there a point? It appears, in this tiny microcosm that is MLW, arguing debating with you on such matters is akin to pleading your defense to a policeman in Tijuana. In other words, spending time doing so in a logical manner is utterly useless and a waste when confronted with an official that both interprets and implements the rules based on how he see’s the wind blow.
As has been said many times, this is clearly a privately owned forum, as such, your website, your rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a point? It appears, in this tiny microcosm that is MLW, arguing debating with you on such matters is akin to pleading your defense to a policeman in Tijuana. In other words, spending time doing so in a logical manner is utterly useless and a waste when confronted with an official that both interprets and implements the rules based on how he see’s the wind blow.

As has been said many times, this is clearly a privately owned forum, as such, your website, your rules.

Did you imply Charles can be paid off with the Mexican cop reference?;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you imply Charles can be paid off with the Mexican cop reference? ;)

How successful can one be not paying off a Mexican cop? ;)

Like I said, it's a privately owned forum, not a Democratic society with rules and fairness…It‘s more a Junta…simply put, Charles isn’t (nor should he be in fairness) accountable to anyone but the site owner…..that of course, I’d both hope and expect, would change if any of or all the forum members actually paid for this site…..but we don’t.

As such, we can stay and accept that members will disappear form time to time and that Charles won’t be held to account, or we can cross the proverbial river late at night for somewhere else.
That’s the way I see it. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We want to avoid sock puppets...

By "sock puppet", I assume you mean people who are saying things they don't actually believe. It would be good practice for an aspiring writer to develop characters in a forum like this. If the writer were good enough, the characters would be strong and believable and no one would ever know. The problem is when the writer isn't really a writer and it's obvious what they're doing. Then it's even more annoying to read than just regular bad fiction.

But in terms of restarting avatars, speaking as someone who can barely tell a guyser from a gosthacked, I can't see what difference it makes what fake name you write under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "sock puppet", I assume you mean people who are saying things they don't actually believe.

I don't know the origin of the term but I assume "sock puppet" means a banned poster popping up under another name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. A "sock puppet" account is one that is used to agree with / support / promote a certain other poster's positions/arguments/threads, etc. By having multiple people agree with a poster, that can lend credibility to that viewpoint in the eyes of some other board users, or project an appearance of consensus/popularity/etc. Sock puppets can be multiple accounts all operated by one individual person, or they can be other persons who are paid or convinced to act in this way.

Sock puppets are more frequently encountered on forums where something is actually at stake, rather than ones where people debate just for fun. For example, over on the bitcoin forums, people often post IPOs of new companies, try to sell products/services, etc, and sock puppet accounts are frequently employed to try to make it seem like other users have used that product/service, trust the service provider, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think it is a good rule? Yes? or No?

It does not matter if we think this, or any rule is good.
Yes, it does.

Regardless, I reckon you folks behave in such a way that is motivated by whether you think the rule is any good or not -- unwittingly, no doubt. I am not saying you all log into the forums and type in your passwords saying "Oh, goody, goody! I get to type in my single user registration at MLW and dive into some fun thanks to this specific rule!" but rather, that you post knowing fully that your posting history is open and accountable to your fellow members.

But in terms of restarting avatars, speaking as someone who can barely tell a guyser from a gosthacked, I can't see what difference it makes what fake name you write under.

Some of these people are disruptive in their departures and want to avoid any recognition of their previous histories.

The important difference is in accountability for their past posts. In my opinion, this is how things should be:

If you cared to discern Guy from Ghosth, there would be no open impediment to you distinguishing their posts. You could do so by sifting through the open historical record of this forum. Also, if you cared to follow the writing of either of those registrations, you could go all the way back to their first post.

However, the way in which some folks have circumvented and justified their circumvention makes them openly unaccountable to their previous history.

Charles we all know you're taking about Derek.

No. I am talking about all of them.

Let me paint a mosaic:

A drama queen pisses on his fellow members and disses the forum before leaving "never to come back again." This brings down the quality and disrupts communication in the forum. Other folks complain about the people leaving the forum and yet, the very people who left try to sneak back in. I want to know what your all think about the long term effect of letting that slide.

The only thing I would debate is that it shouldn't be a blanket rule. You need to take it on a case-by-case basis.

That is exactly how it is being handled now.

I want to know what you all think about what criteria should be used.

I believe there should be the following criteria: The new registration must be linked to the previous one in such a way in that there is a full accountability of their previous posts AS IS WITH A SINGLE MEMBERSHIP or words to that effect. Maybe some of you lawyer-likes can tighten up my legaloise with better jargon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly how it is being handled now.

I want to know what you all think about what criteria should be used.

I believe there should be the following criteria: The new registration must be linked to the previous one in such a way in that there is a full accountability of their previous posts AS IS WITH A SINGLE MEMBERSHIP or words to that effect. Maybe some of you lawyer-likes can tighten up my legaloise with better jargon.

To clarify then using myself as an example:
In your view, if I fully acknowledge my prior contributions from my previous account (“Derek L”) there is no problem?
As you’re well aware, on my return, once personal messaging was enabled I contacted both you and Greg via PM stating who I was (and of course I reused my prior email and I assume IP) and my desire to return. As such, I would think from an administrative point of view, this is complying with your above stated desire for past acknowledgment.
As to other members, as far as I know, those that belonged to the forum during my previous membership are well aware of the connection between this and the past account….hardly any intended subterfuge to say the least. As for newer members that joined after my departure, all I can suggest is full acknowledgement that this account and the one pervious (“Derek L”) is the same person with interests in namely firearms laws/politics and defence procurement/the F-35.……..Good enough?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...