BBO Discussion Forums: personal attacks on BBO forums - BBO Discussion Forums

I have looked back on the Muiderberg thread and the 2NT thread. I cannot see any personal "attacks". I can see numerous comments that someone knows nothing about bidding theory or is totally incorrect , or does not wish to listen or is unwilling to learn. These are not personal attacks. Show me one post that says something akin to "You are a f%$#@ idiot" or similar. Stating that someone is ignorant is not a personal attack.

the hog, on 2013-July-28, 20:07, said:

I know what you are conveying, but happen to draw the line in a different place. "Totally incorrect" doesn't cross my line. Nor does "does not wish to listen". Expanding to charactarize a person as knowing nothing, etc., goes beyond.

That doesn't mean I would condone bans for these things.

MrAce, on 2013-July-28, 16:47, said:

FYI, you do see posts from people on your ignore list. They appear as a single line saying "XXX has posted" and you have a button allowing you to expand the post if you're interested.
(I'd post a screenshot but I don't want to publicly call out the one person on my ignore list)

glen, I generally agree with your assessment of moderation in this forum, but on the other hand from my experience with different communities, the older the median age is, the less regulation the community needs, and it doesn't get much older than a Bridge forum

I don't think this thread should be hijacked by discussion of Lurpoa, and I hate to add to this hijacking. But since she is a re-occurring theme in the forums, and it is being brought up here yet again. I thought I would deal with this issue one more time. I apologize to glen for the way this thread has gotten a little out of hand and how my response might make it go further out of hand. We don't discuss discipline of people publically, but since Lurpoa has announced she was barred from the forum and has been seeking public support to get her posting rights back, I do not believe violating any rules by noting that she is correct in stating she was barred. Also, someone took up gwnn's challenge and wrote above

Quote

First off, she was not banned for personal attacks in these forums. To the best of my knowledge none or at least an extremely few of her post where moderated for offensive remarks. At the most, she was the main cause of removing negative voting in the forum, but that didn't affect her status of a poster on BBF either. In fact, removing negative voting was probably a step in the right direction, so we might need to thank her for her behavior that helped get that change installed. Nor was she barred for any dealing with MrACE (we didn't know about it, and if we had, it wouldn't have mattered to us in the forum at least) or for her posting a bunch of hearts in her post (we did change to TOS to make it against the rules to post a VERY LONG stream of any type of symbols due to her post), but did not ban or moderate her post because of that. In fact, to think she was barred for posting hearts (her claim) is to believe the administrators (yours truly included) have a warped sense of what a horrible offense in the forum would be.

I will not share many of the details of why she was barred, but she has emails and private messages from the admins here that -- if she had posting rights -- she could share for all to see. A reading of those messages would make it very clear why she is no longer allowed in these forums. It is public knowledge (another post on this topic) that I got so feed up dealing with her that I offered to step down as an administrator because I refused to deal with her anymore or continue responding to her email (and she wasn't banned at that point, btw). My offer to step down was based on the reasonable assumption that an administrator who refused to deal with a user would not be a good admin. My offer was rejected and others stepped up to deal with her so I didn't have too and they dealt with the small annoyances of moderating all her post in the forum and the huge annoyances she caused administrators outside the forum proper. Eventually, the others got fed up as well, until no one had the energy to deal with her and she was banned (rightfully so in my view, although since I didn't deal with her it wasn't my actual decision). BTW, she knows exactly who barred her, yet I am the first person she mentioned who banned her (see her quoted text earlier in this thread), when it is was clearly evident it wasn't me (the person who banned her even wrote to everyone, including her, and told her she that he/she was banning her).

You may or may not realize that before she was banned, she had her post "moderated". Moderated post are ones that will not show up until some moderator (could be someone other than an administrator) approves it, or edits it then approves it. She was moderated, had her moderation unilaterally lifted for a long time (with instructions on what she needed to do now that it was lifted), only to later have it reapplied when she continued to ignore those simple instructions. Someone said that they checked her post and found no vitriol in her post. Rest assured that perhaps 100's and at least dozens of post with just "why???", or "tell me more", or just one heart (no text) were deleted without ever seeing the light of day in the forums (they were not approved). Many other post of the same nature where deleted during the time her "moderation was lifted" before it was reapplied. I deleted nearly two dozen on one day alone (see the moderation thread). So you might begin to realize why her moderation was in place and what she had to do to avoid it. For what it is worth, others who behave badly often have their post moderated for while.. including some posting now in this thread. Usually after a cooling off period the moderation is lifted.

Now directly to the point. Lurpoa has ask publically why was she was banned? and at other times she has claims it was because her post contained a big red heart. The truth of the matter she has (or should have) dozens of correspondences from administrators here dealing first with why her post were being moderated, why the moderation was lifted, why the moderation reapplied, and finally why she was finally banned. So there really should be no question of "WHY" she had her post moderated or what she had to do to have that moderation lifted. The solution to the moderation would have been trivial, and it is spelled out in detail in these emails and BBF private messages sent to her. Despite specifically (on numerous occasions) telling her moderation was not about the big red hearts, she still to this day makes that claim. The solution would have been so simple for anyone to avoid the problems she was having with the adminstrators here.

While I don't have the private email correspondences between her and all the other administrators, I do have ones between myself and her. Including the l the one I sent her when her the moderation of her post was first applied, and why it was applied, and what she had to agree to do have it lifted. Then the one I sent her when I unilaterally lifted the moderation requirement on her post with a reminder of what she was not to do. Then the one where I had to reapply the moderation requirement because she continued to do what she was specifically asked not to do (again, it wasn't about big red hearts). My last correspondence to her was one where I was responding to her calling me "a joke". "a liar". and that my response to her (my second to last correspondence to her) was "totally unacceptable." (The second to last told her, again, the simple thing she had to do to stop having her post moderated). In other emails she called me un-American I remember. She copied her message to fred, uday, and others where she said this of me, while leaving out my message and claiming in that message I was moderating her post because of big red hearts (not true) and a few other things that were highly factually incorrect (like saying no one ever told her why her post were being "excluded" (moderated) when I had her replies to my tellling her why she was being moderated and what she had to do to have it lifted!!) and about things I wrote to her in the earlier message without direclty quoting what I actually said. I would gladly post my last two messages to her and her response to me but only with her permission. I could have banned her then, but did not. Needless to say, I did respond to all (everyone including her) pointing out in detail the history of the correspondence and the details and dates of post moderation/removal of moderation/ and reapplying of the moderation, and stating at that time I would no longer approve or delete her pending moderated post or respond to her private messages going forward, other than if she agreed to follow the very simple requirements so her post would no need to be moderated then I would lift the moderation requirement. On the same day I offered to step down as an administrator (see above).

Someone in this thread was right, I don't get paid for "service" I provide on this forum, and so I certainly know I wasn't being paid enough (nothing) to deal with problems she was causing me. I think others got to the same point, just slower than I did. Eventually this lead to her bannishment. I think you can take the problem she caused MrAce outside the forum and multiply it by many fold to get an idea what was gong on here behind the scene. Read Barmar's post about her in the moderated post thread for example (or the fact that she got me to throw my hands up in exsaperaton) to get some idea of why she in now persona non grata in the forums. The fact is she could have easily, very easily, for her to avoided the whole thing, or stopped the process that ultimately resulted in her bannishment at any time over a number of months. Including for instance, a simple ok I will do as you ask in response to my last message to her, or a number of other chances she was given by others after my last message to her.

glen, on 2013-July-28, 19:26, said:

Ok thanks for making what you expect from mods more clear.

I stand corrected about my assumption.

I think I am probably one of the first posters that Lurpoa "bonded" with on these forums. I answered one of her first posts here in the B/I forum and she replied with a thank you comment on my profile. Later, when voting was introduced, she up-voted pretty much every post I made for a while, even the rubbish ones. I have over 100 from this period. At some point something happened; I am not sure what but instead of asking beginner questions in a normal way she started becoming aggressive towards certain posters and trolling. Then came the down-voting, talking in the third person and pretending to be an expert. Naturally that got a pretty strong reaction from the community.

During that time, I tried to support Lurpoa and deflect the worst of the reaction. Having been an online (non-BBF) forum contributor for a very long time, I have seen this kind of thing often enough. Handled correctly, such posters can sometimes be brought back to being useful contributors. This made me unpopular with a portion of the posters too; I was even accused of actually being Lurpoa. Anyway, I gave this strategy a little time until the reaction was dying down and then tried to persuade Lurpoa on how to come back to BBF. Sadly this did not work. I guess the negative feelings on both sides were too deep. After she rejected this, I stopped posting regarding her at all and this is the first time since then I have posted on the subject.

The worst part is that since this time, Lurpoa has simply made every effort to use whatever means are available to disrupt the normal running of an online community. I have been a moderator for a large forum and you should not underestimate the amount of work a single poster can create when they really want to. At some point it just stops being worth it for the zero benefit the user provides. When a poster is making a positive contribution and the occasional TOS breach, this is one thing; but a poster who provides no positive contribution and breaches the TOS with practically every post is quite another. Anyone who does not understand this should get back in the real world of internet trolling.

In short, I support the ban in place until such time as Lurpoa can give a guarantee that she understands and will follow the TOS and become a positive contributor. If that did happen then I would support a trial period under moderation. If there were breaches within that time then there should be no question of a further trial for at least another year, perhaps ever. It just is not worth it. I am sure we all want the community here to be as broad and all-inclusive as possible. But the most important part of this sentence is the word "community". If a poster cannot be part of the community and causes difficulties for the community then I do not see why they should be welcome.

the hog, on 2013-July-28, 20:07, said:

So it was there, damn I always miss the best threads

As usual, well written reply Zel.

Quote

You had me at that. I never understood why that particular troll got so much attention back then, and now we're all reminiscing about it.

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-29, 02:34, said:

As Inquiry said, we'd tried temporary measures, and when we lifted them she soon reverted to her past behavior. I can't think of a way that she can demonstrate to us that if we allow her back in she'll behave, so I've given up on her. I hate to be an a-hole about it, but we've already given her 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances.

Vampyr referred to Hrothgar's personal attack on her and at first sight it seems unforgivable. Indeed Hrotgar acknowledged as much. However we do not know what provoked this attack and I suspect the moderators balanced the provocation against the result.

I do know that Vampyr's personal attacks can be quite venomous.

Scarabin, on 2013-July-30, 01:53, said:

I can tell you if you like; but it was trivial and boring.

Quote

Seriously? I have been sarcastic at times, but I have never been witless enough to resort to name-calling.

And, to be honest, though I have sometimes mocked people's posts, I do not remember attacking an actual person. I am sure, though, that you are not lying, and that I have perhaps slipped once or twice.

I feel like I am about to throw myself to the lions or is that the vampires here, as I will no doubt attract a number of responses.

I have always thought that the sarcasm on bbf is the most harmful form of personal attack which for some reason is tolerated and goes un moderated. Obviously intelligent people use sarcasm to veil their personal insults. They are smart and witty but their intent is the same, to insult other members.


sar·casm (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Vampyr, on 2013-July-30, 03:19, said:

Perhaps, but its the thought that counts...

I could have certainly responded with trivial and less boring response, however, it seemed reasonable to skip over inevitable tedious rounds of escalation and proceeded immediately to the end product...

FWIW, I do find it amusing that some many of my favorite forum members have created their own mutual support group.
All you need now is to lure Lukewarm back to the forums and get Al-U-Card to post on a topic unrelated to climate change and you'll have a complete set!

I think it's unfortunate that both barmar and inquiry feel the need to justify banning a bad poster itt. No wonder others will consistently push the boundaries of acceptable behavior when our mods seem so apologetic about doling out any discipline whatsoever, even when the villain is a complete cancer to the entire message board.

"As you know (from your post) these are not allowed in theory. Unfortunately, now that the forum has grown, I don't read every single post, and I am sure Barry doesn't either."

Well this is fine, but it sort of misses the point. It is totally unreasonable to expect a team of moderators to read every post, and I think everyone understands that. However as the forums grow, so do the responsibilities of the moderators to keep things running smoothly. I suspect most of this added responsibility comes in the form of deleting names out of cheating threads and moving threads to appropriate subforums, but as more and more users start posting in the forums it also requires the mods to deal with the one or two bad apples.

If the general attitude of the moderators is "do nothing" when bad posters sprout up, the obvious response is that the regular posters themselves will police threads to maintain order on the forums.

I'd also like to propose an idea regarding our friend with the numeric moniker. I suggest combining all his current and future bridge threads into a single containment thread in general bridge discussion. Make it absolutely zero tolerance for personal attacks, and I think everyone is happy.

Welcome back, jjbrr.

jillybean, on 2013-July-30, 07:03, said:

Indeed. There was a complaint about some of the comments in the "Muiderberg Hoax" thread, and I posted a message saying that the name-calling, such as calling someone a village idiot, should stop. Today there are responses saying that this never actually happened. The message in which the phrase appears was phrased as an analogy, and the posters are apparently trying to claim that this rhetorical device protects them. I don't think so -- the intent is clear.

barmar, on 2013-July-30, 12:20, said:

I - the poster who used the expression "village idiot" - never made any such claim.

My defense, such that it is, is "what comes around, goes around"...

If I think that postings and posters deserve respect, I give it.
Conversely, if I am calling someone the village idiot, you might want to consider the root cause...

barmar, on 2013-July-30, 12:20, said:

I think the best approach is edit/delete, which hasn't been done yet.

For example a post still begins with:

Quote

Now simply edit it to:

Quote

If anything it reads better (though "posts" should just be post). Note that attacking a post is okay, and a post can be stupid, silly, clueless etc.

Likewise in the inane 2NT thread, we have:

Quote

Simply edit it to:

Quote

On a non-bridge forum "Are you on crack?" was the number one insult two years ago ("are you on crack?", "no you are the one on crack" etc.) until the mods took it all out.

Likewise (slightly modified) we have:

Quote

change to:

Quote

Pretty simple.

What happens when mods do this? They learn to attack the postings. We might have:

Quote

(I'm not sure why he wants to insult his dog but its not a personal attack)

I'm recommending not to ban, not to warn, just remove personal attacks from the site. It's simple and effective.

PhilKing, on 2013-July-28, 10:14, said:

Great, I had been looking for a new signature for a while. (Sorry Csaba!)