Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to deal with flaming.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
There was an interesting thread about the degeneration of certain threads earlier today on this board called "Enough Already!".

Unfortunately it got closed down (presumably because it, ironically enough, degenerated into a flaming slugfest).

Some valid points were made on how to deal with flaming and trolls though. I would like to keep that part of the discussion going. Please, don't bring who-said-what-to-who into it...

Question is, what to do? I believe a lot can be done without bringing the mods into it. They do a good job, but as there are some 40 000 of us, it would be good if we to could do something.

I believe the best way to keep the boards civil is to ignore the posts that pisses us off, and to make an extra effort to reply to the well written ones that we disagree with.

Also, how-bout something implemented with the reply button making you breathe slowly, and count to ten, before you are allowed to reply to a post.




posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The ignore button should be viewed as your own personal "Happy Pill". It leads to wonderful places and a long, prosperous life.

Live long and click often.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I think the best way to deal with hate is facts. It doesn't affect the hateful in any meaningful way most of the time, but it does prove beyond doubt in the eyes of bystanders that the hateful person in question is unwilling to listen to reason.

I think discussion is amazing, argument is similar, fighting is best left to schoolyards.

We can try to use logic, but usually the most hateful are, not coincidentally, the least logical.

I participated in that thread, and I'm not surprised it got closed. I've had it happen to at least one of my own threads, it was a little dissapointing, to say the least.

Most of us just want to learn. It's harder to do that when people are pulling hair and trading expletives.


JAK

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Honestly, I have actually done this.

Some posts have totally insenced me to the point I have clicke the reply button and totally let rip, and at some length.

Then I have U2U'd the draft to myself so I can read it later when I have cooled off a little and then decide whether I really should post such harsh words or not...
    ...usually not.
Jack



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
That's a very good tactic JAK.


I sometimes open up the reply window, and just stare at it for a few minutes, smoke a butt, twiddle my thumbs, inspect my belly button, and decide against posting anything.

It's the same principle. Think before writing.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I know, I ALWAYS preview my posts before submitting them, but even then I sometimes submit something I regret later.

I have never used the ignore button, seems to much like censorship to me... Ah, the trials and tribulations of being open minded...



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
question:

how exactly can we advocate freedom of speech, if we cant deal with everyone's speech even when it seems ignorant to us ?

[edit on 2-4-2005 by BaastetNoir]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko

I have never used the ignore button, seems to much like censorship to me... Ah, the trials and tribulations of being open minded...


Using your own personal sensors is a far higher calling than griping about that others won't place them as blanket censors on the whole community - at least IMHO.

I choose the lesser of the evils



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I stand by my previously explained opinion.
Some people are out to piss others off and they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

There is something called common sense, respect for those that you are discussing with, and if you can not control yourself, and insist on being rude and provoking, ATS is not the right place for you to be.

Just ignoring these trolls is not going to help, because reality is that they are not being ignored by everyone and they do succeed in moving a thread off topic.

Personal attacks are warnable, as made obvious by the warnings I received today, yet indirectly personal attacks are allowed it seems.

The current system and general attitude (just ignore them!) on ATS allows trolls to have their way with ATS, and punishes those that get annoyed by trolls.

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAK
Then I have U2U'd the draft to myself so I can read it later when I have cooled off a little and then decide whether I really should post such harsh words or not...
    ...usually not.
Jack


Ah, so thats how JAK keeps cool.

I think its very easy for all of to get sucked into these things. With this being such a large online community I guess some of this to be expected. Hopefully those of us who post a lot on here are able to keep our cool.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Jakko, both you and I got somewhat carried away at some point in that thread. I just feel that there must be some way for coolheaded members to dampen the mood in a thread thats going out of control.


Even if experienced members gets carried away, there would almost always be someone present that could try to "pull the combatants apart" somehow. I don't know...





:



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Just a quick heads-up. Freedom of Speech does NOT exist on this website...and YES you will be censored by one of the Staff if that Staff Member believes something you may have posted is out of line.


Advice: If you see something you feel is unacceptable...either a)ignore it, or b)notify a Staff Member via the 'Suggestion/Complaints Button' or via direct u2u and leave it to them/us to deal with. That way you don't get your hands messy and wind up a casualty in any ensuing flame war.

Another heads-up: Some of us Staff are getting more a little brassed off with the amount of flaming and trolling - particularily the trolling that barely remains within the T&Cs of this site. Normally infractions will encounter a Warn...of which you can generally amass 5 of them before receiving a Posting Ban for a while as a bit of a Time Out. For some - they seem to have the mentality of "Meh - I'll take the Warn in order to say something unacceptable to this person, what do I care, I have 4 more chances yet". Well...nah...not going to happen. I for ne will be banning without Warns, without consultation, without listening to excuses. Play nice or get out of the sandpit...can't find your way out of the sandpit, no problem, I'll help you.



Peace,
ALIEN



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

asposted by Jakko
The current system and general attitude (just ignore them!) on ATS allows trolls to have their way with ATS, and punishes those that get annoyed by trolls.


How about a no-tolerance, a zero-tolerance [no "grey area," its either wrong or right, no 'ands', no 'ifs', and no 'buts'] system that deals with any type flaming, hate rhetoric, or trolling as an automatic ban? A graduated warn system that raises the penalty [in points] of each warn gained, and/or a reduction in the amounts of warns it takes to get banned [which is currently 5...say reduce it to three]?

Would that be acceptable?
The problem I am seeing is that when you, the members, seek a remedy to a problem, and the staff of this site reacts, it amounts to either to soft or too tough, infringing on a police site, taking freedoms away, restricting my freedom of speech, type rhetoric. It almost would seem to me that it is this community that places the staff in a "damned if we do" and a "damned if we don't" situation(s). That a true or false case? That ever crossed anyones mind when they say: "current system and general attitude"?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
No Seeker, such a system wouldn't be right either.
I realize the staff can not react exactly how everyone hopes, but that doesn't mean provoking and rude posts should be seen as "a normal part of ATS you should ignore".

The rules regarding these kind of posts could be quite simple I think, it all has to do with wether or not you are provoking or insulting your fellow ATSers.

I realize that such a rule would also have an endless array of greys, and that it would all be subject to subjectivity.

But you do have to ask yourself, what is your main objective when you say something horrible about a person that you know many people like/respect/admire?
Of course it can be your well-explained opinion to dislike such a person, but does that mean it is ok for you to out yourself in the rudest way possible?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I mentioned about two or three systems, Jakko. To which do you refer to as "such a system wouldn't be right"?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The zero-tolerance automatic ban system. ;+)
Sometimes people abuse the term "opinion" to upset and shock ATSers with some rude comment.

I remember back in school I had this kid in my class that thought he could say anything to his teachers because "we live in a free country, it is my opinion".

After the first "it is my opinion that you are a bad teachers, it is my opinion that you suck" kind of insults he was obviously kicked out of the classroom.

The right to say what you think is something great, and not everyone on earth has this right. Why do some people feel the need to abuse this right, to seek the boundaries of this right and test other people with their "right" to out their opinion in whatever rude way they like?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
When talking about topics like this one, we have to remember that we all exist in real world too and who we are there is reflected in our posts here.
As the world becomes a darker place, more and more dark souls find their way to ATS too. You can't stop that, I think.
The question is, how much is tolerated on ATS? How far can this hate go before breaking the rules?

There will always be those who are not very pleased with the fact that they can't advocate genocide without getting a warning, but generaly most members do see such posts as hateful and worthy of a warn.

IMO, if someone gets 3 warnings within 15mins, they are up to no good and deserve a temporary posting ban. If they get one more warning right after being allowed to post again, then a ban is in order.

Also, there are two kinds of hate-mongering posters.
There are those obvious ones, posting obviously hateful one-liners usualy with very bad grammar, the usual flame posts.
Then there is the other kind, who post long posts, good grammar, several links, a pic or two, they make it look like an "intelectual" post, but in fact it contains the exact same message like the one-liner. It just looks like something inteligent. These posts often go wihout warning and in the end cause a thread full of flaming and hate. Extreme posts provoke extreme replies and these posters are very well aware of it.
Maybe that is something that could be regulated better...



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
For some - they seem to have the mentality of "Meh - I'll take the Warn in order to say something unacceptable to this person, what do I care, I have 4 more chances yet". Well...nah...not going to happen. I for ne will be banning without Warns, without consultation, without listening to excuses. Play nice or get out of the sandpit...can't find your way out of the sandpit, no problem, I'll help you.


These people do exist, in signifigant numbers. I applaud your stand on this issue. People even go so far as to flaunt their warnings, as a status symbol. That's more than a little childish. So, indeed, out of the sand pit.

I will continue to do my best to refrain from insults and below-the-belt attacks, and I hope the smoking trails of more and more ATSers falling from the sky will warn off potential trouble makers in the future.

Of course, Seekerof's suggestion to lower the warn/ban threshold has merit as well, and I would even go far as to advocate three strikes, you're out law. Two warns, third brings the hammer down.

I don't think a zero tolerance policy towards flaming is warranted, but hate speech definitely should be dealt with harshly. There is an incredible, sobering, amount of racism on the web, and necessarily on this site. I think it needs to be quashed if it violates hate speech law, that is, any speech intended to injure or incite others to cause injury.

Saying you don't agree with someone, saying they're not accurately perceiving the facts, that sort of debate has a place I think. If it gets too heated, by all means, warns are in order. But I think the REAL problem lies with people who use this board to spread a message of intolerance.

Also, intent is a very big factor, and should be used to determine appropriate action. If someone jumps on a thread and starts jabbering about how all jews are evil, money grubbing, satan worshippers, that's obviously hate speech, because it's intended to injure and incite others to hate. If someone points out something A jew has done, or the Jewish state of Israel has done, that's not hateful in general. Again, it's all in the intent.

I think the mods have a pretty well developed troll-dar, and I have confidence they'll make good decisions even if the rules become more strict.

There was one member I remember, who came on, and on his first or second post said all Gypsies are thiefs and liars, it was hateful and ignorant. They received a couple of warns for their behavior, and since then, their behavior has improved somewhat - even if their opinions are just as deplorable. So there is something to be said for 'training' the trolls to play nice.

[edit on 2-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I read most of that thread and saw nothing new when it comes to expressing views on posts of objectionable content. I am no fan of organised religion, this is no secret, and at the top of my religious list is the RCC and consequently the papacy. However, JPII is face to face with his maker learning whether or not the doctrine and dogma he embraced during all of his 84 years was in fact God’s truth. As he became incapable of performing his duties, I was satisfied that this day of reckoning was nigh and therefore refrained from assaulting his constitution. However, his being near death did not require that his usual detractors find reverence for him, for in my opinion if a person is not respected when s/he is up and walking and all they way to their death-bed, there is no reason to suddenly find respect for them while they lay in it.

What I read from the originating post and others is a distinct intolerance for the stating of any opinion that is not pro-Christian at any time. The language used to mark anti-Christian views is that it is hateful, which obviously sends the message that to have an opposing view is to be harbouring hate and there can therefore be no truth to the opposing view since it is couched in words of malice.

From what I see on ATS as of late, Relentless’ view, and those who share it, is winning, for the speed at which Religious topics dealing with Christianity is being moved to BTS is blinding. I could have proven my case simply by just starting a thread with this post.

Relentless’ message has been heard and his/her wish being implemented in a manner which I liken to sending a child to his room because the parents cannot tolerate precocious behaviour. If it is done often enough the child will just conform and fall in line, shut up or never leave his room. I get the impression it is more important, palatable and intellectually stimulating to be advancing theories about short, slimy, grey shape-shifting lizards as running the world so as to give the story conspiracy credibility than to discuss global issues that have been contentious and heated for millenia.

It seems to me that the ignorance in the motto has actually taking on very definitive meanings: deny Muslims; deny Jews; deny non-Christians; deny Wicca; deny Islam; deny atheism; deny Liberals; deny gays…etc. The most contentious and malicious threads I see on this site are those attacking the Islamic faith, yet I cannot help but notice the utmost grace with which the likes of Babloyi and Tomcat Ha respond never once crying foul.

Perhaps the object of ATS is to spawn discussion for only those on the same side of the fence.

Now my post here will be viewed in one of two ways: it is either a flame to those who take it as such, or, it is my honest opinion on what I see happening.

I also ask alien: what actions constitute trolling?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
A graduated warn system that raises the penalty [in points] of each warn gained, and/or a reduction in the amounts of warns it takes to get banned [which is currently 5...say reduce it to three]?


I guess the current system might seem a bit soft on some people. Personally I care a lot about ATS and would feel gutted just from getting a warning.

I reckon mods banning people without warnings is warranted if the situation requires it. It is important however to make sure no mod takes out a "bad day" on an unlucky member. Maybe if it took two mods in agreement to ban someone instantly?


It almost would seem to me that it is this community that places the staff in a "damned if we do" and a "damned if we don't" situation(s). That a true or false case?


I guess you are. If things run smoothly (as they do 90% of the time), we just shrug and continue our business without further thought. If we feel you do wrong however, we scream and shout and moan...

Yep, you're probably in a no win situation. We wouldn't want you anywhere else though.


I DO believe we need to be able to have heated discussions without fear of getting banned though. Just as long as we keep civil and stick to facts.



:





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join