How highly do you rate the moderators?

[Aquila SPQR]

The thing is though that many trolls bring up valid, thoughtful points. Albeit in a badly formulated post.

Trolls, by definition, almost never have thoughtful points. They mostly think they are funnier than in reality (or have silly beliefs about others), that's all. Moderators should focus on them and simply ban them if they write too much. This won't hurt the forum - it would make it more... civilised IMO

Well, maybe I'm just a bit conservative european, but I really believe in maintaining a proper level of discussion and would never do anything offensive without serious reason.

 

[Plotinus]

If people troll, they get infracted for it. If they get enough infractions, they get banned.

The system is not perfect, but it is less imperfect than any others that have been suggested or attempted.

If anyone who makes a post that someone else thinks is trolling were to get permanently banned straight off, there wouldn't be any members left.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

If people troll, they get infracted for it. If they get enough infractions, they get banned.

The system is not perfect, but it is less imperfect than any others that have been suggested or attempted.

If it is not perfect, then why you don't try to make it perfect? Or haven't made it perfect already?

Forum's policy towards spammers and trolls is too soft, that's all. Maybe they get infractions, but the limit (to ban someone) is set too high or something like that (also infractions expire too fast IMO).

If anyone who makes a post that someone else thinks is trolling were to get permanently banned straight off, there wouldn't be any members left.

There's no need to exaggerate. I spent here some time and found (among hundreds of normal users) only few, but persisting, trolls.

 

[Whomp]

If it is not perfect, then why you don't try to make it perfect? Or haven't made it perfect already?

Forum's policy towards spammers and trolls is too soft, that's all. Maybe they get infractions, but the limit (to ban someone) is set too high or something like that (also infractions expire too fast IMO).

Bear in mind, the forums are self-regulating. If you feel certain trolls or spammers are not getting their just due, then report it. This will have a much greater impact since we don't look at all threads but review all reports.

There's no need to exaggerate. I spent here some time and found (among hundreds of normal users) only few, but persisting, trolls.

If you'd like to send me a list of the few feel free to pm me their names. My guess is we already know who they are and are under heightened scrutiny.

 

[Cutlass]

If people troll, they get infracted for it. If they get enough infractions, they get banned.

The system is not perfect, but it is less imperfect than any others that have been suggested or attempted.

If anyone who makes a post that someone else thinks is trolling were to get permanently banned straight off, there wouldn't be any members left.

See, the problem is that the bans are temporary to a fault. Except for spammers, you have outstandingly high tolerance for people who troll and flame to the point of a ban, come back and do it again. And again. And again. If someone has had a temp ban several times, and it has not changed their behavior, then failing to ban permanently just drives away good people instead of bad people. It becomes perverse punishments.

 

[Abaddon]

The trollers tend to come up with the most interesting stuff. Ot would be very mundane without them. People just need to learn to rise above it.

Flamers/racist etc or spam however, should be delt with a lot harsher.

That being said, I'd have been banned long ago if it were so, an who would really want me gone?

 

[Abaddon]

See, the problem is that the bans are temporary to a fault. Except for spammers, you have outstandingly high tolerance for people who troll and flame to the point of a ban, come back and do it again. And again. And again. If someone has had a temp ban several times, and it has not changed their behavior, then failing to ban permanently just drives away good people instead of bad people. It becomes perverse punishments.

There is a system in place where the bans do get longer an longer til a permanent. There are several members who wl get 6 month bAns next time, an permanent the next.

 

[Cutlass]

There is a system in place where the bans do get longer an longer til a permanent. There are several members who wl get 6 month bAns next time, an permanent the next.

I am aware of that. I also know that if someone hasn't learned their lesson in a few short bans, then they are not going to. So instead of inflicting those people on us over and over again, they should be removed sooner.

 

[Kyriakos]

When you see a troll being here all the time, you know there is some problem Why keep these lowlives at all? Let them rot by theirselves

That said, even if the ignore option was changed somewhat to completely make one oblivious of the ignored people's presence, it would be better. Personally i have put on ignore all of the trolls for some time now.

 

[Mise]

Till has a greasemonkey script (works in most browsers) that allows you to completely ignore people. I think the link is in his sig.

 

[Yared]

that guy has a script for everything.

What's wrong with how it is now? That you can still see that someone has posted?

 

[Abaddon]

Yes, curiosity makes it impossible not to click on the spoiler!

 

[Yared]

wow

 

[Plotinus]

I'd like to point out that criticisms of site policy, such as toleration levels of rule-breaking behaviour or the penalties that are put in place, are not really criticisms of the moderators. These things are not up to the moderators - we just try to enforce the rules, not decide what they are.

 

[Yared]

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

[azzaman333]

I'd like to point out that criticisms of site policy, such as toleration levels of rule-breaking behaviour or the penalties that are put in place, are not really criticisms of the moderators. These things are not up to the moderators - we just try to enforce the rules, not decide what they are.

Different moderators enforce the rules differently, so it can be a criticism of moderators.

 

[Plotinus]

Different moderators enforce the rules differently, so it can be a criticism of moderators.

No, that's a completely different complaint.

Saying that different moderators enforce the rules differently would indeed be a criticism of moderators, because it would be inconsistent policing of the rules, and policing the rules is the moderators' responsibility.

Saying that the rules themselves are problematic is not a criticism of moderators, because determining what the rules are is not the moderators' responsibility.

So these are quite distinct issues.

 

[Cutlass]

I'd like to point out that criticisms of site policy, such as toleration levels of rule-breaking behaviour or the penalties that are put in place, are not really criticisms of the moderators. These things are not up to the moderators - we just try to enforce the rules, not decide what they are.

And would you say, after all these years, and as many of you as there are, that you have no influence? You don't have the ability to say to the group "Person X is nothing but trouble, and does not learn from infractions. And so we would be better off without them."?

 

[PeteAtoms]

I've had little issue with the moderators, and nothing bad enough to make me think about never coming back to CFC.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I troll a bit, but can count to 8 so I have never been banned (touches wood).

My main mistake seems to be making bad taste or insulting jokes without realising, mainly due to alcohol.

I'm also quite good at rising to troll bait.

I just lay off off-topic and hang out in strat & tips for a while instead (or start a load of PBEM games).

EDIT: What I am trying to say is it helps to post ON TOPIC sometimes