Foxcommander

[Gaaboardmod3]

a) I think you'd be surprised.

b) I think you are right. The site would be better without every second thread descending into a political and/or social viewpoint morass, but it's more than just the 'WUMS' that are causing that. Some (a lot) of people seem to genuinely thrive on that sort of stuff. Once they don't go nuts, why would I tell them what is a valid debating topic?

[J70]

this board is pretty much  a snap shot of the online world in general these days with a rapidly increasing dosage of wums, trolls and an expanding air of nastiness.  I've been around a while, but was it always polluted with so many binlids?

It's only a few here, in fairness (although there's some inflation with multiple versions of the same person spouting the same shite).

But it's pretty obvious who has a different opinion but is intelligent and thoughtful ( the more of these, the merrier!), who is just plain not very bright and who is intellectually dishonest and/or on the wind-up.

[trueblue1234]

This should be like the bible when they were putting Jesus up for crucification. Let people vote who should be banned. Srferus or Foxcommander.

[punt kick]

At least bigfella is getting a run for his money as the IT king of the world. 

[Syferus]

a) I think you'd be surprised.

b) I think you are right. The site would be better without every second thread descending into a political and/or social viewpoint morass, but it's more than just the 'WUMS' that are causing that. Some (a lot) of people seem to genuinely thrive on that sort of stuff. Once they don't go nuts, why would I tell them what is a valid debating topic?

The problem is there are plenty of people here who are oblivious to WUMs like Foxcommander and react to them as if they are genuine in their stated positions or opinions - in a lot of cases this leads people down a rabbit hole where others, with opinions not as extreme as Foxcommander's jump in and continue the argument. And by then it has already been framed by comments meant to cause as much offense as possible, so those genuine posters feel emboldened and will go beyond what they otherwise would have in a less heated discussion.

Malcom Galdwell popularised a theory about social 'tresholds', basically what number of people need to be engaging in an activity so that a person who would normally never engage in would take part. You can see the same thing happen here as extreme behaviour is normalised - it just becomes a clusterfùck, a free-for-all.

Being a mod involves taking tough or unpopular actions because they're in the best interests of a forum at large - in this case, I think the only forums that Foxcommander would not have been banned from years ago would be Neo-Nazi or white supremicist ones, and GAABoard. Is that really the company you want this place to be keeping? What is the point of the forum rules then?

[Gaaboardmod3]

Did you just go all Godwin's law on us?

[Syferus]

Did you just go all Godwin's law on us?

In a way, but in this instance the poster is literally espousing Neo-Nazi sentiments consistently. Just because saying Nazi is a meme now doesn't mean it shouldn't be used when it actually describes an account's stance. We're not talking about Mickey Harte making his players say Hail Marys and someone saying he's like Hitler.

Please respond to the substantive point being made in the above post.

[trueblue1234]

syferus could have been banned years ago for some of his untrue comments on a minor player. Every bit as bad as anything Fox posted.

[Gaaboardmod3]

Did you just go all Godwin's law on us?

In a way, but in this instance the poster is literally espousing Neo-Nazi sentiments consistently. Just because saying Nazi is a meme now doesn't mean it shouldn't be used when it actually describes an account's stance. We're not talking about Mickey Harte making his players say Hail Marys and someone saying he's like Hitler.

Please respond to the substantive point being made in the above post.

I'm not sure what the 'point' was. You hypothesised that he would only be allowed here and in Neo Nazi sites. And then said is that the sort of company we want to keep. That's not a point, that's an innuendo based on you making a highly presumptive statement.

So the answer is 'No, I do not want to be associated with Nazi sites, but neither do I believe he'd be banned from all other sites other than this one.'

[Denn Forever]

Did you just go all Godwin's law on us?

Is Godwin's law not themention of Big H?

[Gaaboardmod3]

Lads, my final say on this matter. I know people are frustrated with not banning posters who seem to constantly set out to wind others up. I also know that banning people brings its own frustrations and upsets from those who want very light moderation if any at all.

I know that most people actually want the same thing, a forum where they can chat and discuss things without being afraid that everything they say is being monitored, but at the same time in a place where it will not be destroyed by WUMs or by continuous abusive messages between posters spoiling the thread for everyone.

Out of interest I have a poll set up to take a pulse on attitudes towards moderation, but I absolutely accept that some threads have been spoiled by people who have no interest in doing anything other than winding people up.

I'm also aware that there are other posters whose views are absolutely abhorrent to me personally, and to a lot of other people. The tricky thing is trying to decide whether banning them is right, because they are more destructive than they are worth, or should they be left in situ so that other people can tear down their nonsense.

It's a balancing act, and I try to err on the side of less bannings, but perhaps I need to take stock of things, and maybe a purge is needed. I will review some of these reported threads and see if we can tighten things up a bit.

Also, I am aware that people start topics like this, in general, out of an interest in improving the board so I have no problem on that score.

[Rossfan]

Bam anyone using the term "Free State".
That should get rid of a few

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Sorry - but there's nothing tricky about a decision to ban someone who calls another forum member a c*cksucker.


Mod - you signed up for the job to be a moderator. If you don't want to do it - give it up.

[Gaaboardmod3]

Sorry - but there's nothing tricky about a decision to ban someone who calls another forum member a c*cksucker.


Mod - you signed up for the job to be a moderator. If you don't want to do it - give it up.

what post is that? Was it reported?

[J70]

There should be no problem with opposing points of view IF the person involved discusses honestly.

Unfortunately not always the case.