Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting Gendji:

Quote:
I do not see a problem there, if someone has repeatingly broken the rules and has been abusive to other people, he/she brought that onto him/herself. Why "protect" people like that.

No, the point is that it is impossible to ban someone from a free forum - they can just create another account.  Another hundred if they like.  Hence the alternative to require a paid registration to post.

Quote:
About the poll itself. A poll with only two options doesn't have any value as far as i am concerned.

Especially when these options do not describe what people have been saying in regard to forum moderation.

This poll isn't about "is moderation perfect" - it only breaks the choice into two options because the question is whether to bring back the reputation feedback.  For that question, there are only two possible options.

I always thought this forum was paid registration only, my mistake, sorry for that  .

I wouldn't have a problem at all with this forum being paid registration only. If I.P. logging doesn't work to ban a person. U can have a section where people can register without having a paid registration, if they have questions about buying the software etc. and give them access to the rest as soon as they do.

I understand what the poll is about, i still can not make a choice, neither of the two options change anything for the better in my opinion.

I think Forget's idea of having a free are for newbies (potential customers) to ask questions and the rest of the forum registered users only is a great idea.

I'd like to see the moderation continue but with a reason given when a post is edited/removed.  I'd also like the red arrow being left on as a means of flagging posts up for the mods, wether or not they deem it necessary to act on a flagged post is at their discretion.

I think Invelos needs a system with consequences. Under the current moderation, offending posts are removed, and as far as I've been able to determine, no further action is taken. To me, as I currently perceive the situation, this is sweeping the problem under the carpet. Some changes I would like to see:

* Feedback (from users) on why they marked a post (restricted character count). We've seen before users taken offence where nobody else can see it. This should give the moderators some insight into why something was marked.
* Consequences (PM from moderator / restrictions / temporary banning)
* General attacks (on "everyone" / the community at large) treated more seriously

I think moderation serves a purpose, and has gone some way to "cleaning up" the forums. However, I keep seeing offenders re-offending. I understand that some posts will be given the benefit of the doubt, and others will be overlooked, and can accept that. But to see the moderator actions continually directed at the same user(s) for the same action(s) suggests to me that their time is being wasted.

As for "off-topic", I'm not sure if the software for these particular forums allows it, but I know that phpBB forums, and possibly other software, allow merging and splitting of threads. It can be a little confusing, but it means that helpful discussion that happens to be off-topic can be retained. When we have five threads on the same topic, they can be merged. A discussion e.g. on parsing in a thread about romanisation can be extracted to aid the flow of the original thread.

Since our forum name is tied to our online collection, I don't see re-registration being a major issue. We aren't dealing with trolls and spammers here, just legit users who were apparently raised in a barn. I think moderation is the way to go, but there's no need to be heavy-handed. Leave off-topic alone. When a post gets moderated, then people discuss this fact, then their posts get deleted, it looks really bad like the moderation is being used to deflect criticism.

Moderation is much-needed, even a lot stronger as far as I'm concerned, but really: there need to be serious repercussions. Just removing or editing the post alone is not enough. We see users make offensive posts, we see them being removed or edited by the moderaters, and then we see the same users making exactly the same kind of posts all over (and over,...) again. I'm really not too worried about how the moderators operate exactly (IMHO, nothing even remotely interesting has ever been removed yet), but without palpable repercussions, it doesn't seem like the situation will improve.

Like others, I can't really make a choice between the two options.  I'd like them both!

I really like the idea of being able to give green arrows to people.  Whether they help someone earn stars or not, I do think it's a good way for people to know that their posts are appreciated.

Unfortunately, I also think the red arrow needs to stay.  Again, whether or not it affects stars, we need a way to inform the poster (and the moderators) that a post was not appropriate.  It also helps the moderator team, because if the moderators had to read every post in every thread, they would be VERY busy people.

While I (and others) find the off-topic posts annoying, they really aren't a big problem.  Gentle nudges from the moderating team are more than enough to keep this in reasonable control.

I do think moderation needs to stay around.  If the goal of the stricter moderation was to educate the posters as to what is and is not appropriate here, it has failed.  We are seeing the patterns of personal attack continue.  Removing or editing the posts through moderation is not changing the behavior.  I think it is important to remove personal attacks so the wounds don't fester and the arguments don't get worse.  But, I also feel it's important to work toward stopping the problem entirely.

Temporarily or permanently banning a member from posting and voting should be one of the consequences of repeated personal attacks.  Most of the posters that participate here are paid members, so while it's possible to set up additional accounts, it doesn't seem likely.  Especially considering that the forum with the most abuse is the Contributions forum and the free version limits you to 50 titles in your online. 


The real solution to the biggest problem here is to get answers to the issues being discussed in the Contributions forum.  When we have opposing opinions on a situation and neither side has the authority to decide which one is right, or at least how it should be handled 'right now', we end up with ugliness.  I understand Ken and Gerri are busy people and can't always step in to resolve an issue, so maybe they need help.  I'm sure there are people here who would be willing to volunteer time to address some of these.  If they are given guidelines for authority, they can resolve disputes before they become arguments.  Or, they could at least filter the issues and then work with Ken and Gerri.  If the issue is raised and is being addressed, there is no need for the argument to continue (in theory!).