Site Comments : Baiting

[C4G-TK]

I'm not one to cause problems or intentionally overstep my bounds, but I was wondering what the policy of BAITING people is on this site?

Also, I wanted to know what the policy is on TROLLING.  I admit that I have two sign-ins for this forum.  One is for one forum that I operate and another is for the second forum that I operate.  It is much easier for me to organize my sites by having two ID's because some threads that I've replied to only pertain to one site.  Since there isn't an ignore feature (that I am aware of) on this site to help me stop seeing new replies to threads I've already replied to having the two ID's for two different entities makes my life much easier.  I am not on here using both IDs to do anything underhanded either, so maybe the term TROLLING doesn't apply to me anyway.  Also, I have plans for my original ID to be deleted in two months when that site is no longer functioning.)

But, back to the topic at hand.  The category board for this area is SITE COMMENTS, so I felt this would be the appropriate area since it said to post comments about the site here. 

My comment:

As a regular user who appreciates the work of the people who run the SMF site...
As a regular user who appreciates the work of the mod author's who volunteer their time and effort in bringing the SMF program more life...
As a regular user who has tried to help others when I could in order to give back to the two groups above for helping me...

... I have no problem with the SMF site punishing the people who BAIT others.

But, I think that if the person being baited replies to the INSTIGATOR, then they should not be at fault for defending themselves or their work.  I think that it shouldn't be a blanket punishment no matter who you are as it would appear.


Example:

If someone baited me and I took the bait then I should suffer the consequences because I don't contribute in a productive manner. 

But, if a Mod Author takes the bait from someone, then the Mod Author should not suffer the same consequences because they contribute to so many people and ALSO to the SMF site because without the Mods that are present, SMF would not be ANYWHERE near where it is today.



Now, I did not mention any names here.  As far as I know, I have not broken any rules since the board said to post your SITE COMMENTS here.  That is my comment about the site and its rules (wherever the one about BAITING may be located and what action may be taken against you if you defend yourself from bigoted members).

Thank you for your time.  I needed to get that off my chest and hope that certain actions recently taken against a certain specific Mod Author is reversed.

-TK

[JBlaze]

If this is in reference to the recent "flame war" on the Aeva mod support topic, it has already been discussed.

It is a good point, but just becuase someone responds to the bait of an "ignorant" person, doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished. If you have good common sense and are mature enough, you will realize that by ignoring the "baitor", they will soon go away.

Waht works in 2nd grade works as an adult most of the time (except throwing a fit )

Just my 2-cents. Take it how you will.

[C4G-TK]

Understandable.

1) Could you reference the thread where this topic has been discussed in order for me to read it?

2) I agree that the person who baits will soon go away.  I'm just saying that more SUPPORT should be given to those who are here offering their mods (their work).  When someone who is blatantly baiting them, instead of throwing them into the fire (excuse me, the same category as) as the person who baits, I have no problem with only one side being punished.

3) One thing that I have learned about forums is that perception by the members is what keeps things calm.  When the perception is that a majority of the members don't agree with the current rules there is sometimes a need to change the rules.

4) I feel that Mod Authors are just as important to the lifeblood of the SMF product as the people who actually volunteer/work for the SMF product.  Without the Mod Authors, as stated previously, SMF would be a very bland system and not worth the download as compared to other forum software.

[JBlaze]

1) Could you reference the thread where this topic has been discussed in order for me to read it?

It was not discussed in public.

[C4G-TK]

1) Could you reference the thread where this topic has been discussed in order for me to read it?

It was not discussed in public.

Then, is it within reason that this thread is not in violation to anything and can discuss the topic at hand?

Because...

1) I'm used to open discussion on my sites, so I tend to forget that not everyone shares my same views on communication.

2) If it wasn't discussed in public then I had no idea it was discussed and shouldn't be at fault if I shouldn't be posting the topic here.


And, if anyone could shine a little light on where there is information on BAITING and what action may be taken against you if you defend yourself from bigoted members who throw the first punch.  I like to be informed in case I feel I need to defend myself.

[Akyhne]

We are all here because we are admins of forums, ain't we? So if someone is starting arguing in a topic, at some point we tell them to step down and stop the arguments or take them to a private place.
So if they aren't listening you eventually have to ban them, right.

That's really all there is to the incidense you are referring to. Nothing more, nothing less... EOD.

[C4G-TK]

I guess I have a different view on incidents in general.  I look at it as two parties; the instigator and the person being attacked.

I have always felt that the instigator is the problem because he/she is the CAUSE and takes on the responsibility of the CAUSE and the EFFECT.

Yes, the person being attacked might be at fault, but there would have never have been an incident in the first place had the aggressor not made the first move and initiated the reply.

I choose to run my forum under rule of physical law.  Arguments are welcome by my members.  Disagreement is welcome by my members.  Attacks are not and the person who makes the attack is at fault and not the victim of the attack.

[青山 素子]

First, we did not temporarily ban Nao over the license of his modification or his enforcement of the license.

Now that this is out of the way, some explanation of the situation.

It is true that weightman did quite a bit of baiting of Nao. For this, he was banned. However, even after a warning from a team member and a warning from two different project managers via PM to ignore it, Nao continued to take the bait that was being posted and start up yet another argument.

At one point, the AVEA topic was locked while one of our team members worked to split the argument from the support posts and move it to a new topic (posted in the Chit Chat board). Unfortunately, after that topic was locked for continued fighting and name-calling by both parties, weightman started making passive-aggressive posts back in the AVEA support topic. Rather than taking the suggestions to ignore the posts and maybe even report them, yet another argument flared up. At this point, both were banned. Although we do not normally disclose ban information, I will say that weightman was banned permanently (this was his third "strike") and Nao was banned for one week to allow him to cool down and also to show we were serious in our warnings. We already arranged for someone to monitor the AVEA topic and provide support until he can return, something we let Nao know.



So, what should you do if someone is baiting you? Well, you can ignore it publicly and report the post. Our team will gladly send a warning if the bait is severe enough. Another option is to reply back and start a fight. Be warned that this option will usually lead to warnings for all parties involved and eventual bans if the arguing continues.

As for being more lenient on our big contributors, I think we are and we certainly were in this case. He not only got multiple warnings on this incident, he also was given advice that, if followed, would have led to the ban of the instigator and him being able to continue in an uninterrupted capacity here. He knew the consequences and chose to go the route that was most likely to get disciplinary action against him.

If you have any specific questions, please do ask and we'll do our best to answer. We cannot give out confidential information, nor can we disclose the contents of internal discussions.

[C4G-TK]

Like I said, I wasn't trying to name names for specific people, but was trying to have it remain generic in nature.

[JBlaze]

Like I said, I wasn't trying to name names for specific people, but was trying to have it remain generic in nature.

That was my fault

[Amacythe]

Our general rule is No Flaming! Strike one gets you a warning; Strike two a post ban; Strike three permanent ban.

If I say something negative about JBlaze, and he retaliates saying something negative about me, we're both guilty regardless of who started it and we would both be warned.  If JBlaze then at a later time says something negative about Motoko-chan but Motoko-chan merely reports the post and does not reply, JBlaze gets a second warning.  If he doesn't learn and does it a third time, he gets banned from our community.

We have even had a few Team Members get warned for flaming, so you see, it is the same rule for all.  Fortunately, our Team Members are mature enough to learn after the first warning and don't repeat the abuse.  There is no favoritism for Team Members or for Mod Authors.

[JBlaze]

Our general rule is No Flaming! Strike one gets you a warning; Strike two a post ban; Strike three permanent ban.

If I say something negative about JBlaze, and he retaliates saying something negative about me, we're both guilty regardless of who started it and we would both be warned.  If JBlaze then at a later time says something negative about Motoko-chan but Motoko-chan merely reports the post and does not reply, JBlaze gets a second warning.  If he doesn't learn and does it a third time, he gets banned from our community.

We have even had a few Team Members get warned for flaming, so you see, it is the same rule for all.  Fortunately, our Team Members are mature enough to learn after the first warning and don't repeat the abuse.  There is no favoritism for Team Members or for Mod Authors.

Ahh, yes. I knew that would come back to haunt me...

[C4G-TK]

We have even had a few Team Members get warned for flaming, so you see, it is the same rule for all.  Fortunately, our Team Members are mature enough to learn after the first warning and don't repeat the abuse.  There is no favoritism for Team Members or for Mod Authors.

As for being more lenient on our big contributors, I think we are and we certainly were in this case. He not only got multiple warnings on this incident, he also was given advice that, if followed, would have led to the ban of the instigator and him being able to continue in an uninterrupted capacity here. He knew the consequences and chose to go the route that was most likely to get disciplinary action against him.

This is why I brought up the subject. 

One of you says that there is no special treatment for anyone and that it is the same rule for everyone.  Then, the other person says that you are more lenient towards contributors and that you were in this case.

This is why I was asking if there was a post/thread somewhere that would dispel any interpretations by the general membership other than what appears to be a subjective interpretation.

we have rules that we expect all including us to abide by, they are absolutely not up for debate.

Contrary to belief by someone in this thread that has PMd me.  I'm not arguing whether or not Party 1 or Party 2 were banned.  I'm trying to figure out the above quote from a nameless Project Manager.  It states that there are "rules" and they aren't up for debate.  But, no one is pointing me to the rules that would let members know what to expect.  In addition, the rules may not be up for debate, but it appears that they are up for interpretation on how you handle them which is not only confusing, but undermines your rules.

[Amacythe]

Our Core Values state:

Respect and Fairness

We will treat others with consideration, high regard, courtesy and dignity; in a just, equitable and unbiased manner. We will demonstrate good manners, pay attention and treat others as we would like to be treated. We will be consistent, listen and be open to feedback, be careful making judgments about others, and treat people equally and equitably.

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=1828.0
A topic from October 2, 2003

In other words... it's common sense.  Be polite or risk the consequences.

Each of our Team Members has a different level of tolerance... I have little to zero tolerance.  Motoko-chan is far more tolerant than I am.

When I became aware of this issue, I sent a pm to Nao.  (The second of the two mentioned earlier by Motoko-chan.)  In my eyes, that was his first warning.  Mind you, this was the first I was made aware of the issue.  (I don't have time to read every single post made at this community.)  When he disregarded the advice sent to him via pm and continued with his abusive manner, the ban that resulted was his second warning.

[C4G-TK]

In other words... it's common sense.  Be polite or risk the consequences.

Each of our Team Members has a different level of tolerance... I have little to zero tolerance.  Motoko-chan is far more tolerant than I am.

Firstly, can you please get rid of the conversation about Nao and/or anyone else when replying.  I'm trying to get an answer that applies to the community here as a whole.

Secondly, I understand the common sense of being polite or risk the consequences.  What I don't understand is how you follow up this remark.  Is it fair for each of your Team Members to have a different level of tolerance and therefore have rules that are subjective in nature?  You are thereby saying that if Team Member A reads something and attributes it as being inflammatory by their interpretation than someone may suffer the consequences that another Team Member B would see it as.  In order for your rule to be implemented fairly, it should have a certain amount of criteria to be met.




I apologize for starting this thread. 

I have really enjoyed the community here as a whole and appreciate your product and outlet to discuss the finer points.  But, over the past two to three weeks, I have read remarks of some of your representatives as being just as harsh or in a baiting manner or act of duress towards the general membership of which I haven't seen previously in the past year.  I'm not sure if this is because you guys (gals) are stressed with working on the release candidate and are spread thinner than normal or if some of the people who assist are working on their own projects instead. 

This is the reason I decided to jump into the "Rate That Topic" thread and try to help people that needed help with their 1.1.8 forum (and I don't even have a 1.1.8 forum.)  This is why even with my very limited experience with ANY type of coding, I spent a few days trying to get something to work in the "Child Boards As Dropdown" thread that I wanted done because I wanted it to work and then posted a way for my idea to work with two conflicting mods.

Regardless, the point is moot in discussing any longer.  I'll leave you with "Have A Good Day" and thank you for the conversation.

[metallica48423]

Is it fair for each of your Team Members to have a different level of tolerance and therefore have rules that are subjective in nature?

That would be true, except that we act as a whole and not individually, and specifically for that exact reason (to remove the subjectivity).  Each moderation concern is posted by a team member and discussed amongst the team for action to be taken.  This allows for each person's views to be taken into consideration.  It is not uncommon for us to contact the offending member as well and discuss it with them, and factor in their side of it as well (which was also done in the sample case you brought up).

This is one of the reasons why it may take longer for moderation actions to happen, because -- with the exception of spammers (who go bye-bye immediately) -- we take the time and discuss the best course of action amongst each other.

[Tiribulus]

Why do I have a feeling I'm gonna be sorry for this post?

If this does not add anything substantive or valuable to this situation in the eyes of the honchos here I do sincerely apologize.

In my view, expecting to enforce a usage license for free software between private individuals over the world wide web is predisposing yourself to disappointment at best and what we're seeing here at worst. This mod has tens of thousands of users. I refuse to believe that this is the only instance of someone using it in a "bigoted" way, whatever that exactly means. One man's bigot is another man's patriot in many cases and on all sides. Expecting to restrict it's use in this way is unrealistic.

If I were NAO, I would phrase the TOS more precisely and include a disclaimer exonerating myself from responsibility for how it's used. When a situation like this arises where it came to my attention that that was being violated I'd privately and professionally demand that such use cease immediately. Failing that I might even register an account at the site in question and start a topic with a single post stating that the use of my work there was in violation of the TOS and deny that user any form of support. Anything beyond that is counterproductive for me never mind the army of users who have come to love this mod.

NAO, if you read this, I've always liked you and was able to see the light hearted and generous side of your nature through that sometimes cantankerous demeanor, but this smacks of a pouting childish temper tantrum more than thoughtfulness or conviction

As for Weightman, I suspect my politics are much closer to his than NAO's, but this guy is some piece of work. I'm convinced that he is continuing to use AVEA right in NAO's face simply to spite him more than actually needing it for anything. Not to mention the idiotic threats of international legal action because "he talked bad about me ".  Ya gotta be kiddin. Some people really need something to worry about.

All in all the situation is like a coupla little kids fighting over a toy. Believe you me I have no problem taking sides, but here I see merit and fault both ways and thin skin winning the day all around with the many faithful users of AVEA being the ones who will ultimately pay.

He may hate me for this (if he even remembers who I am), but I don't know how else the team was supposed to handle it. NAO is, as he himself says, a prominent figure here and like it or not has come to represent this community maybe to a larger degree than he now wishes. That being the case an even higher standard than the forum plebes is not unreasonable.

I am holding out hope that in time this can be resolved in a better way than at present.

[C4G-TK]

Is there a reason that I no longer have a way to look at my profile or can send/receive messages?  As you can see, I am signed in.  Please let me know if I have violated some type of rule because I was not notified by anyone saying that I did anything wrong NOR was I warned for anything.

Thank you.


And I hit ctrl F5 and have cleared my cookies...

[Fustrate]

Other people have been getting that too, it's not just you. Unfortunately, I know nothing about why.

[metallica48423]

That is strange.  I have had that happening on and off too.

C4G-TK -- you have no moderation against you whatsoever.