Jerkocide

[Kreskin]

Check out how an admin of a different board wants to handle their membership.

I have this weird idea for an admin policy on a forum. In my experience, ideas which are radical and weird have an alarming tendency to be fantastically stupid, so I prefer to get a few outside opinions before I do anything with them.

Basically, here's the idea: every board has a certain number of jerks. You can't get away from it. So I was thinking, instead of tasking my moderators with eliminating all the jerks, why not task them with eliminating half of the jerks?

The essential process is to use the "report" functionality in the forum software to identify the jerks. When a message is reported, a mod simply examines it and decides - based on current and historical evidence - whether the person in question is a jerk. If so, he sets the "jerk" flag on the account, which puts a little identifying mark next to the user's name whenever he posts. That way, everyone knows if we think you're a jerk.

Now, every time we have more than twice as many jerk flags in the database as we have banned jerks, we ban one. We take all the jerks who have not been banned, and the mods consider which of them is the biggest jerk. Once we have a consensus, we ban that jerk. Because we do this with every two jerks that arrive, we've always got exactly half of the jerks still on the board, and the other half have been banned.

Since this still allows more and more jerks to show up, and we don't want jerks to take over, we add an additional clause: if the jerk population exceeds 10% of the board membership, we will identify and ban an additional half of the jerks, reducing the jerk population to 5%.

Of course, I don't want to say "once a jerk, always a jerk". If you're flagged as a jerk, you stay flagged for some period of time - say thirty days - and if no reports are made against you during that thirty days, the jerk flag goes away. So if you have the jerk flag, that means you did something within the last thirty days.

Finally, we need a way that jerks can apply to have the ban lifted. The way I'd like to do this is to have an email address where you can apply to take the place of a bigger jerk. Essentially, when we evaluate jerks on the board, we also evaluate jerks off the board who want to come back. If there's a bigger jerk on the board, we kick him off and bring back the lesser jerk.

Has anyone tried anything like this before? How did it work? Does this look like a reasonable way to handle things?

 

[Curiosity]

Speaking for the "jerks of the internet".....

I resent being herded like critters off a forum.... one would think we jerks can handle getting thrown off on our own without any help!:?

 

[gopher]

Deson't sound kosher to me.

A couple of years ago the liberal website democraticunderground.com ran a couple of articles about web forums and how right wingers conspire to control them.

Some wealthy guy named Buckhead operates out of Atlanta, Georgia and he pays people to post such objections against specifically targetted people. If someone writes things that right wingers cannot answer properly, the right wingers start to post insults against him. Then when he replies, they complain to the admins that the poster uses abusive language. In this way, they conspire to have that person removed from the forum.

There is no way of knowing that this is not happening on this or any other forum as they know how to hide their identities.

The better way to handle the forum is just to keep the language clean and to remove anyone who uses profanities or other forms of intimidation.

 

[Colpy]

Deson't sound kosher to me.

A couple of years ago the liberal website democraticunderground.com ran a couple of articles about web forums and how right wingers conspire to control them.

Some wealthy guy named Buckhead operates out of Atlanta, Georgia and he pays people to post such objections against specifically targetted people. If someone writes things that right wingers cannot answer properly, the right wingers start to post insults against him. Then when he replies, they complain to the admins that the poster uses abusive language. In this way, they conspire to have that person removed from the forum.

There is no way of knowing that this is not happening on this or any other forum as they know how to hide their identities.

The better way to handle the forum is just to keep the language clean and to remove anyone who uses profanities or other forms of intimidation.

Feeling a little paranoid this morning, Gopher?

Personally, I have never complained to a moderator, nor will I ever complain to a moderator.

Throwing people out seems a little radical, although some people are truely whacky..........

I'd just as soon deal with the incredibly ignorant myself.

 

[Curiosity]

Well I'm still learning (I think) how not to knee-jerk but..

I fall into the "flamer" trap every time..... when I should be counting to 20 or more...

Those are my Waterloo.... the planted obvious essays designed to make points without commitment.....

 

[gearheaded1]

Sort of...

This sort of flagging technique could be used, but need not be visible to users of the forum. (I.E. someone could complain just to push the flag-o-meter over the edge)

Moderators could have their own tracking tools. Like a means to internally post their comments to other moderators on users.

 

[Tonington]

I've never reported anyone either, much like Colpy I'm sure that most can deal with the problem themselves. The only problem I have is when the result is a spamming of threads. It discourages the discourse the thread was intended to take, perhpas in that case it's best to lock threads and then those who want to discuss whatever said topic was can start another?

 

[cortex]

I quite agree throw those bizzarre freaks off every forum.
I cant stand them either --bloody wackos!

 

[Nuggler]

I quite agree throw those bizzarre freaks off every forum.
I cant stand them either --bloody wackos!

:blob7:Yes, by all means.........:laughing7::laughing7::laughing7:

Dam nut-cases:wave::wave:

Some actually want to disagree with........ME:grommit:

Like I argue or fight or something:flower:

Get a grip:cheers:

or I'll report myself:read2:

 

[LittleRunningGag]

I love to be baby sat. That way whenever someone is mean to me I can call on big bad mod to punish them properly. Words hurt oh so much.


Seriously though, the best board I've ever been a part of is completely free from moderation. The obvious exceptions being the removal of spam, and the occasional 'lighten up.' But actual bannination? Whats the point? Do words really offend you that much? Do you really want to be the one that stifles speech?

If you don't like someone ignore them. I find self control an effective tool.

 

[selfactivated]

Ive adminastrated 3 sites (the newest to be open soon) In the 5 years of running sites Ive actually banned only 3 people. A pedaphile, a hateful hawian and a young girl that hit me in the head one time to often (she had a huge authority problem) The owner of the board with the pediphile was mad because I banned him so I quit. I opened my own board from there and securities are unbelievably high but our children are safe. Noone get on without my ok. The 3rd will be my biggest challenge, It will be an open board with few securities. But my point is, securities are up to the admin, I feel they should be consistant and fair BUT this is not always the case?

 

[gopher]

Feeling a little paranoid


Eh? I haven't been thrown out of any forums lately. Have you?

Forums work best when there is no innuendo and profane language. I hope you can find that agreeable.

 

[Kreskin]

Deson't sound kosher to me.

A couple of years ago the liberal website democraticunderground.com ran a couple of articles about web forums and how right wingers conspire to control them.

Some wealthy guy named Buckhead operates out of Atlanta, Georgia and he pays people to post such objections against specifically targetted people. If someone writes things that right wingers cannot answer properly, the right wingers start to post insults against him. Then when he replies, they complain to the admins that the poster uses abusive language. In this way, they conspire to have that person removed from the forum.

There is no way of knowing that this is not happening on this or any other forum as they know how to hide their identities.

The better way to handle the forum is just to keep the language clean and to remove anyone who uses profanities or other forms of intimidation.

The name Buckhead reminds me of a webhost I use to have. The webhost was the worst on the planet. They guaranteed 99% uptime monthly but were lucky to be at 80%, if that. The guy, same name if I remember, operated their forum and was in the office taking submitted tickets. The site would go down for 24 hours plus, he wouldn't respond to tickets, and if you mentioned the issue in the forum he'd go nuts - actually calling names, berating customers. Paying customers. He banned me, though had no trouble taking my money. I thought I was in the twilight zone.

As for the mass jerk-banners, that seems crazy. The morale around there would be a sight to see.

 

[Curiosity]

I personally don't believe in banning

I think anyone who feels capable of joining a forum has the ability to work things out - and if that is not an option - they can take another street around the problem member.

Banning reminds me of school, along with bullying, taunting, spitting, and finger pointing.

It just isn't a solution. But I don't have to make those decisions anyway.

 

[gopher]

I agree with both Kreskin & Curiosity -- banning isn't the solution as it intimidates others from joining the forum and that discourages dialog and the exchange of ideas. Eventually, the individual posters work out their differences and I have seen that happen on several sites.

 

[Curiosity]

Gopher

Rather than banning - I have chosen to leave also - not because I feel intimidated but because I can only fight so much of my time - especially useless circular discussions which go nowhere.

Too much fun and learning to be had on forums to spend time in downers. Only thing we learn in fighting is our own limits - not much else.

 

[selfactivated]

neither of you are a pediphile so I can understand your opinions yet I dont agree. Children MUST be protected, PERIOD.

 

[Curiosity]

Selfactivated

I doubt if we were discussing people like pedophiles who are criminals not "jerks".... I doubt any board would allow them their space - and if they did - their forum would be up for some trouble.

Aren't pedophiles to be reported to the police? Even on a forum if a person is writing as a pedophile, should he/she not be turned in?

I know those ugly man/boy love sites can't stay in one place for more than a day and they move on .. hunted down as they should be....

 

[selfactivated]

We did. Several of us contacted local and FBI.

Not to long ago I had a problem with adbots on my other site and called the police also. They say to just keep letting them know and delete the accounts they create after emailing the investigators. John and I are on first name basis lol he says Im a good Duck watching over my ducklings

 

[Sassylassie]

Labeling a poster a jerk and sticking a little icon by their profile is the most offensive thing I've ever heard of, if the fool enacts this Jerk Icon he should turn around and take a long look in the mirror because his actions are classic JERK material. If he wants a cold sterile forum perhaps he should only let his friends join all two of them. Remember one man's jerk is another man's mental giant, we are all jerks sometimes.