Should the moderators throw out disruptive people?

[gwpriester]

The recent appearance of Fontman, the occassional surfacing of Peter P, and the run of Young Ross Junior has broght some cries of throw the jerks out of the conference!

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

<A HREF="http://www.gwpriester.com" TARGET=_blank>
www.gwpriester.com </a>


XaraXone

[This message was edited by Gary W. Priester on March 10, 2002 at 15:13.]

[gwpriester]

The recent appearance of Fontman, the occassional surfacing of Peter P, and the run of Young Ross Junior has broght some cries of throw the jerks out of the conference!

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

<A HREF="http://www.gwpriester.com" TARGET=_blank>
www.gwpriester.com </a>


XaraXone

[This message was edited by Gary W. Priester on March 10, 2002 at 15:13.]

[Wolfgang]

While I am no friend of the mentioned three, I think it would be useless to exclude them.

First, I reserve the right to ignore them. I don't use this right all the time, but nobody can make me read or respond to their idiot statements if I don't want to.

Second, they could easily re-register under a different name and start spreading even more sh*t for being kicked out.

Ross jr. transformed to GraphicsFreak1984 and stays in the PSP-forum, Fontman will buy fresh beer on monday and then be quiet again. And I did not read anything of Peter P. in some time ...
So what ??

As much as I hate to see troublemakers in this great place, I do believe in free speech as well ...

Wolfgang

[alkolka]

After voting "Fontman and Peter P should not be excluded" I was amazed to find myself in the distinct minority.

I would have voted to ban exclusion entirely did the possibility not exist--however remote--of someone posting a message so offensive or illegal that exclusion was appropriate.

In my opinion, fourm moderators should have exclusionary rights, but should exercise them only in the most extreme circumstances. Here in the US we ammended our constitution to codify the right of free speech while still reserving for our Supreme Court the ability to define exceptions to that law (for example, it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater).

I'd hope that peer pressure will continue to handle most cases of abuse. For those others, our moderators need the big hammer.

Al Kolka
alkolka@attbi.com

[danifou]

Like Wolfgang, I do believe in free speech...

What I like about this forum is the global aspect of it. People are exchanging ideas, asking for opinions etc., with an open mind and willingness that I've never seen before in other forums...

Of course there will always be the ones with a negative opinion or inflamatory comments. By letting them stay in this forum group, there might be a chance for them to "change" their attitude and become better human beings. If not,like Wolfgang said, the right is ours to ignore them completely.

Dan Fournier

[RAMWolff44]

I do agree with Wolfgang and Dan as well.

WE are all entitled to say our say, but I don't think that's it's nice or RIGHT to allow abusive behavior in here either. As I stated in an earlier post, I think in "Recycled patriotic tutorial...." thread, that I believe we all can change, maybe, BIG MAYBE, that Fontman will eventually just join in and actually add something of value instead of irritating snide remarks with out allowing any of us to challenge him or try to discuss it as to why all this inflammatory crap keeps spewing from his written hand.

I agree with Mays, this is an art forum and art and related subjects are what we should be discussing but at the same time, if we allow people like that in here we need to just completely ignore them (human nature doesn't like to ignore unpleasant remarks and criticisms like that) or we try to 'council him and bring him into the family. It would be nice, but I doubt that will happen.

So I stick with my vote to vote him out, openly so everyone knows that's my 'end all' choice. I just think that there is no reason to allow someone like him or Peter P. in here to disrupt the nice flow.

RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[GroWeb]

I have not voted on this one because the option I would choose is not listed. I feel that there should be a clear, predictable process for such situations. This is proactive in that it gradually ramps up the pressure on the person to change the behaviour. It also gives the moderators a solid set of guidelines to follow so they will not be so vulnerable to reactive personal attacks. First the offending person needs to be told that the behaviour is not appropriate. On the second incident s/he needs to be formally warned that his/her continuing such behaviour will result in removal from the list. Only then, upon further disruptive behaviour, would the person be expelled, and this would be best presented by at least two of the moderators as a collaborative decision.

With regard to Fontman, at this point I would vote for formally warning him that the next incident will result in his removal from the list. Peter P. has not been here recently, so in his case I would suggest waiting until his next piece of inflammatory input arrives, then give him a formal warning. It is probably important also that the formal warning clearly identify the type of behaviour that is expected in future if expulsion is to be avoided.

Thanks for working with us on this important issue, Gary.

Glen.

[Crow Haven]

I will certainly accept the decision of the majority here. My own personal opinion is to vote those, who post just to attack others, "out"...and I consider those sorts of attacks disruptive and a major time-waster for all here. Look at what happens every time an attack of this nature occurs---and it's not a singular event---everything just about stops and our time is tied up spent on this person just as they probably had planned. He got what he wanted...what do we get????? Well, probably more of the same from him whenever he chooses.

It's the nature of a "bully". They only understand one thing--what they perceive to be "strength"...and that doesn't include leniency towards anyone. You give him a chance, he would probably just think you're weak, "a weenie", in his mind...and that makes you an "acceptable target" once again to a person of this mind-set.
I'd just show him the door---if he comes back with a "mask" and behaves the same, just oust him again. I wouldn't put up with attacks. If the majority says let him stay, then I say don't bother to complain next time he does it again---and he probably will. I will just ignore him if that is all that is available.
I will say, however, that my first feeling about others jumping in to "defend" others posting on the forum from his attack was not at all negetive but one of pleasant surprise that the members would act in defense of others here "as friends", that they really cared about it. Chivalry, or call it what you like, is clearly not dead! I appreciated it even though I'm able to put up a "fight" if trodden upon too. Thanks everyone! I don't think the impulses of others to come to help is a bad one.
However it turns out, I hope we won't be revisiting this issue again about these people, they waste our time---let's not let them do it anymore!

---As The Crow Flies!---
Maya

[masque]

There are people who go to football (soccer) matches in this country for the sole reason of starting a fight, not to watch the match. There are people who enter into conversations with the sole intention of disagreeing with everyone else just to be controversial. At the same time there are people who want to protect me by censoring films, music, books etc., and I don't like them much either.
If we (you) don't like it, ignore it. If a comment gets a response, then it's most likly achieved it's intended goal.

Rise above it,ignoring something until it goes away is often the best action, or non action, to take...... similar to my approach to dust on book shelves.

derek

[This message was edited by masque on March 10, 2002 at 13:56.]

[dalel]

I agree with Glen. There should be a sequence of steps that are understood to be POLICY on disruptive members, posted for everyone to read. There is no reason to make an enemy by tossing someone out without any recourse, nor any reason we should put up with the emotional garbage of out-of-control people.

The fact is, those who write out-of-control posts will continue their emotional outbursts, unless and until someone asks them to conform to a higher standard.

In another forum that I have been a member of for some time, when the forum manager receives several complaints about the posts of a negative member, he immediately removes the privilege of posting from that person. Then he sends the person an email of "probation", suggesting that the person may be allowed to once again post if that person agrees to avoid posting negatively.

I've seen some great turnarounds from this practice; flame-posters who went out of their way to try to be very positive!

I hardly think that the concept of "censorship" applies to a forum. What matters is the agreement of the majority of a group about what is acceptable or desirable. Some forums may enjoy controversy, and even encourage flame posting. Is that the kind of forum TalkGraphics is? Doesn't seem that way to me.

And in case you take this too lightly, one guy on one of the forums I visited briefly, threatened several of the members (including me) in emails, and somehow had discovered several of the member's addresses, and let them know about it. Not funny. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Dale