Moderation question

[JackRiddler]

So the thread about Silverstein - based on actual news, though we can disagree about its significance - was locked after many flame posts and counterattacks. While most of the flame posts were off-topic, there were many factual posts that took time to write (I know mine did) and several debates about subjects related to OP were underway, only to be cut off. Can a better way to handle a situation like this be found? I've been bad sometimes, but in this case I was putting work into my responses and there were several serious posts from others I wanted to take up. Locking the thread makes me feel like I wasted my time. On the other hand, deletion of the offending posts would create an Orwellian atmosphere, when every other post is "message deleted." So I don't know what a better solution would be. Is there a solution? Perhaps to banish to a Firepit, but allow responses to continue?

(EDIT: I realize that sounds like the DU conspiracy dungeon, the difference here being that RI doesn't have the same through-traffic that would be prevented from exposure to a given subject. Also, it wouldn't be based on subject but on how ugly the thread got.)

[chiggerbit]

I was getting ready to ask why Mac and Nordic hadn't been sent to the penalty box, when i saw that the thread had been locked. I don't care if 17breezes position is unpopular and not one that I agree with, it doesn't excuse the bullying that has been going on.

[beeline]

.

I would have preferred the thread remain unlocked, there was a lot of quality information, questions, answers, and, until it devolved into namecalling, a reasonably respectable discourse.

Regarding the namecalling....on the one hand, I'd prefer it remained out of the forum. Then again, if you can't take the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen.

[kissing blarney]

How about starting a duplicate thread that looks something like this:

Flame war: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

Then relegate the offending posts there until the author either decides to edit or delete their posts.

[Jeff]

Answer forthcoming...

[Searcher08]

I suppose it depends if you are coming from a point of view that someone is there to be disruptive for it's own sake. One can have points of view that go 'against the R.I. grain' but still express them without what are (to me) having to engage in shouting matches.
One of the things that I have really liked about R.I. is that many of the posts which are most interesting are a different viewpoint from my own. However indulging a disruptive poster here who is vehemently repeating 'Israel-firster' / MSM / JREF talking points seems to me counter-productive for the health of the board.

[Jeff]

new thread, linking back to old. I've added a link to the end of the locked thread to the new. Flames will be deleted.

[barracuda]

You know, it was all good until the last two pages, but when there's simply post after post of bitching and sniping, what are we going to do? I agree with chiggerbit that Mac and Nordic needed a day off for their behaviour, but then, I would tend to take out anyone who looks at me crosseyed, or disrupts the thread with bullshit. I don't mind banning people, or, as with isachar, handing out suspensions - it's about the only real tool we have.

It seems people have grudges against 17breezes and feel it's appropriate to air them on whatever thread he happens to be on, which frankly sucks. Searcher08 and psynapz both came on the thread with nothing but ad hominum, and Jeff apparently felt that was enough. But if people can't resist their desire to fruitlessly vent, that's the result - they claim 17breezes is a troll, then proceed to destroy any vestige of usedful conversation themselves. For a bunch of supposedly smart folks, it's not a very bright strategy. But I sometimes wonder if it is possible to have a twenty page thread without extremes of opinion and all the emotions that accompany that.

To Jack, I would hope you might take the issues you want to deal with to the new thread, whether that's the "no hijacker" thing, or something more complex. Clearly there's lots more to talk about.

[sunny]

Well gee 'cuda, any thread 17 breezes happens to be on he frankly sucks.

[17breezes]

You know, it was all good until the last two pages, but when there's simply post after post of bitching and sniping, what are we going to do? I agree with chiggerbit that Mac and Nordic needed a day off for their behaviour, but then, I would tend to take out anyone who looks at me crosseyed, or disrupts the thread with bullshit. I don't mind banning people, or, as withg isachar, handing out suspensions - it's about the only real tool we have.

It seems people have grudges against 17breezes and feel it's appropriate to air them on whatever thread he happens to be on, which frankly sucks. Serarcher08 and psynapz both came on the thread with nothing but ad hominum, and Jeff apparently felt that was enough. But if people can't resist their desire to fruitlessly vent, that's the result - they claim 17breezes is a troll, then proceed to destroy any vestige of usedful conversation themselves. For a bunch of supposedly smart folks, it's not a very bright strategy. But I sometimes wonder if it is possible to have a twenty page thread without extremes of opinion and all the emotions that accompany that.

To Jack, I would hope you might take the issues you want to deal with to the new thread, whether that's the "no hijacker" thing, or something more complex. Clearly there's lots more to talk about.

For my part I am putting those two on ignore since I don't think they are capable of anything else once indulged and altho I have ignored a LOT of their insults I can only take so much of it when I see it. But that's on me and my occasional lack of control. I hope it helps. Thanks Cuda and Chigger for your comments.

[DoYouEverWonder]

new thread, linking back to old. I've added a link to the end of the locked thread to the new. Flames will be deleted.

Thanks.

I was hoping to get back to JR's post after work tonight. Some of us actually have real jobs and can't answer immediately, especially when an appropriate answer takes some time and research to compose.

In regards to the problems on the first thread, and every other thread about 9/11, is that no matter what side someone is on bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated. I'm opposed to banning people in general, but I do support suspending repeat offenders or locking them out of a thread.

Another option that I've seen work in other (9/11) forums is that posts not directly related to the OP are deleted or split off into a separate thread. Which it sounds like you're doing with the current mess. I don't recommend this for every thread but it does help the ones where people show up to deliberately derail them.

[MacCruiskeen]

I was getting ready to ask why Mac and Nordic hadn't been sent to the penalty box, when i saw that the thread had been locked. I don't care if 17breezes position is unpopular and not one that I agree with, it doesn't excuse the bullying that has been going on.

Don't accuse me of bullying, because that's what you're accusing me of here, despite your prudent use of the passive voice. The bully is 17Breezes, very clearly. The fact that he's a craven and dishonest arselicker does not make him any less of a bully; on the contrary: the two things go hand in hand. If anyone doubts this, I invite him or her to do a simple search of our respective posts and see which of us has been an arselicking pig-ignorant bully in 90% of his posts.

You*, chiggerbit, have introduced my name to this new thread (and Nordic's, but he can speak for himself). So while we're at it: no, chiggerbit, I don't like you either. Not one bit. And that first became really clear to me in the Jani thread, where you combined a superficial and entirely cost-free nicey-niceness with a persistent knee-jerk defence of brutal authority [in that case the parents']. Nonetheless, I was unfailingly polite there.

But enough is enough.

You also made a really annoying point of interjecting senselessly opinionated one-liners about things you obviously knew literally nothing about, and of demanding information that had already been given, thereby forcing people to give it to you again, and again, and again. (But always nicely, but of course, but of course; so only an evil bully could ever object to your lazy and selfishly timewasting carry-on.)

It's no wonder, then, that you now make a point of bad-mouthing me (but nicely, nicely- but of course!), while a) trying to get me banned and b) sympathising unreservedly with that poor downtrodden pig-ignorant trolling sycophantic would-be bully, Mister 17Breezes. For you and he are nothing if not siblings in spirit.

Link.

*Worth emphasising.

On Edit: First sentence slightly revised and clarified, after Simulist pointed out that it was easily misundestandable.

[Simulist]

I was getting ready to ask why Mac and Nordic hadn't been sent to the penalty box, when i saw that the thread had been locked. I don't care if 17breezes position is unpopular and not one that I agree with, it doesn't excuse the bullying that has been going on.

Don't accuse me of bullying, because that's what you're doing here, despite your prudent use of the passive voice...

You're wrong about that. Chiggerbit isn't "bullying" anyone.

[MacCruiskeen]

I was getting ready to ask why Mac and Nordic hadn't been sent to the penalty box, when i saw that the thread had been locked. I don't care if 17breezes position is unpopular and not one that I agree with, it doesn't excuse the bullying that has been going on.

Don't accuse me of bullying, because that's what you're doing here, despite your prudent use of the passive voice...

You're wrong about that. Chiggerbit isn't bullying anyone.

I didn't say she was. I said she was accusing me of bullying, which she very obviously was, despite her prudent use of the passive voice.

[Simulist]

I was getting ready to ask why Mac and Nordic hadn't been sent to the penalty box, when i saw that the thread had been locked. I don't care if 17breezes position is unpopular and not one that I agree with, it doesn't excuse the bullying that has been going on.

Don't accuse me of bullying, because that's what you're doing here, despite your prudent use of the passive voice...

You're wrong about that. Chiggerbit isn't bullying anyone.

I didn't say she was. I said she was accusing me of bullying, which she very obviously was, despite her prudent use of the passive voice.

Fair enough. I can see how your quote can be read that way.