This is not meant as a swipe at the moderators and administration of the board. Let me make that perfectly clear.

One of the strengths of this board is that posters are not allowed to go off on meaningless tangents, personal attacks, rants, diatribes and straying off-topic. The problem is that all it takes is one thoughtless poster to close the entire thread, no matter how well the debate is carried on.

Typically the moderators or administrator issues a warning that the thread is drifting off-topic or cautions a specific poster (or several posters) that they are being unconstructive, issuing one-liners, attacking others personally and not the substance of their remarks and so on.

What I am wondering is this: Why close an entire thread due to the bad behavior of one or two individuals? The option of issuing "strikes" against posters is a pretty hard stick to apply when the carrots fail.

Is it possible to temporarily suspend or revoke the posting privileges of a individual who in the moderators opinion is deliberately hijacking a otherwise civil and on-point thread?

I've been on both sides of this question and have had my knuckles rapped when I've gone off on a tangent or tirade. I pose the question only because I regret when the actions of a minority drag down the reasoned debate of the majority.

Hi

Rather then them have their post "suspended" (which is possible by the way) I say just delete there post and stick them with a warning. If the poster(s) answer is like the very first (Example Topic: Bush is the best ) And then this is just a "rant"just delete the topic. But if it is IN the post just delete there post. Simple.

How about disabling them from posting in that particular thread?

Mike would have to address any coding questions like the one raised by Billy Jean.
Bear in mind that by the time a staff member gets to an out of control thread, it's too far devolved from the original question. Honestly it's easier to close it, give a cooling off period, and then re-open a similar thread a little later. (This is often stated in the closing notice)
Many times when a thread gets to a point that it must be closed, all of the constructive debate that can be applied, has been. Some topics can only realistically be debated for a finite period of time.

Closing a thread is the last resort, and one not applied lightly. I believe that with the warning, strike and closing options available, we strike a pretty fair balance. But this is just one Mod's opinion.

Why is it a person can derail two threads a day and get them closed, but if you say the "a" word with dollar signs, you get a strike?

Closing threads is not controlling the situation. It's only moving the problem. My vote is to tackle the problem and not make everybody pay for it. Although sometimes closing a thread is better (because it's been beat to death), some are closed because of bad behavior. Fix the bad behavior please - 4 moderators in one day had no problem doing that to me, so I know it can be done...

I agree with Nighttimers sentiment--it's a shame to close a good thread because of the actions of one or two individuals. Not sure how easy it is to suspend someone from posting in a thread--so what about just suspending the thread for a while? Everyone can cool off, then the thread can be reopened to continue. I do see where some threads have already reached their natural end of life, and should be allowed to just go away. So, I guess that would leave it up to the moderator to determine whether to close a thread, or merely temporarily suspend it.

I tend to agree with Dontreadonme. We generally avoid closing threads unless we feel that they have gone beyond constructive territory and can't recover without difficulty. Sometimes a fresh slate is positive, because it helps to leave the garbage behind.

I do agree, however, that it is unfortunate that the actions of a few can take an entire debate off course, and we do try to reign in posters that are having a problem adjusting to the forum Rules and Survival Guide both via the forum and PM.

There is a moderation queue that requires moderator approval before a post appears on the board, and we do use it with disruptive posters.



I'm unaware of any one person who is derailing two threads per day.



One of the reasons that we leave them closed rather than re-opening them after the "cool down" period is because new threads give new members the opportunity to participate, whereas old threads are often too far along to get involved in.

In considering our moderation policies and procedures, we have weighed all the options available to us. We have made the decision to close topics for several reasons.

We are all volunteers. It is a much more efficient use of of the volunteer staff's time to post a public reminder, and then follow up with the closing of the topic if the reminder is not followed.

The other alternative? PM the offending member to let them know they violated the Rules. What is wrong with that option, you may ask? Well, everyone has been told to read the Rules. Everyone has been told to read the Survival Guide. Everyone has pledged to the follow these when the signed up and agreed to be bound to the Terms of Service. There is a link to the Rules on every single page. How much more hand-holding should a volunteer staff give to someone who hasn't shown us the courtesy of following our Rules? The answer is none.

PMing a member who has not read or is not following the Rules is a waste of time for us. In 95% of the cases the PM discussion degrades from us telling the member which rule was broken, into a discussion on why the member disagrees with our rules. OK, we get it-- some folks don't like the rules. Those people are clearly able to go start their own forum and apply any rules or policies they see fit. After all, this place was started for less than a hundred bucks.

My personal philosophy of "government should not provide for any person what he can provide for himself" applies here-- The site should not provide for any member what he can provide for himself. If I counted up the times I've received PMs from members asking simple, common questions that are clearly covered in the Rules it would be a significant number. If I added up the time I've spent answering basic questions regarding the Rules and explaining the Rules to people who so-obviously have not read them, it would likely be measured in days.

What we all must bear in mind is that the closing of an individual topic does not mean we have closed the ability to discuss the topic in the future. As much as I love this site, and as much as I think the debate we have here is productive to both the individual and the country as a whole, I am also realistic in realizing that we are not going to solve any world issues here. We are merely going to discuss our opinions with others. Closing a topic regarding to Peace in the Middle East, for example, is not going to prohibit peace in the Middle East; leaving it open is not going to guarantee peace.

Closed topics can surely be reopened at a later date.


Yes, it is possible to suspend the posting rights of an individual. However, we have setup a means of discipline that works well without having to suspend member accounts outright. We use a combination of public notice, and privately issuing strikes and/or placing members in the moderation queue. We have a procedure for discipline, and it must be followed.

Jaime and I have been considering different and more efficient methods of rule enforcement, and will begin a discussion amongst the staff in the coming days. If and when there are any changes to our moderation policies, there will be an announcement posted and the rules will be updated accordingly.


Why delete a post when it can serve as an example for the whole forum? Publicly closing a topic and noting that it was closed because of member action relays a clear message: We close topics when the posters don't follow the rules. It stands as an example to other members on what is expected on the forum, and serves as an example of what will happen when the rules are not followed.


That would require custom coding to implement, and is, frankly, not worth the time. Every time a member was barred from posting in a topic, they would PM a staff member. If history proved true, they would PM multiple staff members. If they PM multiple staff members, they are taking extra time from the volunteer staff that could be better spent otherwise.


Precisely.


Are you sure you want to bring that up again in a public forum, even after I personally have given you plenty of opportunities to discuss this in private and warned you that any further public discussion would result in further disciplinary action? Since you brought it up, let me point out that you received a strike over 5 months ago!. If you are still upset about a strike from your rule violations of 5 months ago, you may consider looking within for your answer. Additionally, it is completely insulting to the entire site that you still have not given us the courtesy of reading the Rules-- if you had, you would be fully aware of the procedure for strike removal. As I've told you a million times before, PM me if you have a problem with your strikes. Otherwise, get over it.


I agree that it is a shame when a good topic is derailed and subsequently closed. Do realize, however, that closing a topic is not our first option. We do delete individual posts that are not in line with the rules. However, when it has gotten to the point that the offending posts have caused the topic to spin out of control, we prefer to close the topic. Additionally, topics about which we receive multiple reported posts after issuing warnings are closed.

Closing a topic for a certain amount of time would either require custom code, or be a manually applied solution. It is much easier and much more efficient to close it permanently and reopen it after some time has passed.


Agreed.

Thank you, everyone, for your input. I've addressed everyone's comments and concerns as set forth in this topic. As always, what Jaime or I say is official site policy. If you have any more comments or concerns, feel free to PM me.

Mike