POFUsers.com - Plenty of Fish Users Forum

A thought provoking post Mr Osmond.

It's obviously a complex issue. But, I believe that part of the answer can actually be found in rule 3 as really it's just about communication in my opinion.

Mod Zombie wrote:Rule 3)Trolling
No trouble making, people who persistently try to cause arguments by means of trolling will be contacted by a moderator.

One would assume that with the relatively low traffic currently on the site it wouldn't be difficult for perceived transgressors to be contacted privately. Not only would this allow for a better understanding of the intent behind posts by the people who ultimately decide whether they are acceptable it would also leave posters with no doubt in their minds as to what they may have done wrong.

Admonishing people publicly by locking threads only leads to anger and frustration and I really can't see a good reason for doing this at all as it also stops all other members from continuing to contribute to a thread that may just have been sidetracked by a couple of people.

restless_native wrote:A thought provoking post Mr Osmond.

It's obviously a complex issue.

Only because of ambiguity and inconsistency, ...that's my point entirely. Simplicity is the goal of a well defined process.

restless_native wrote:

Mod Zombie wrote:Rule 3)Trolling
No trouble making, people who persistently try to cause arguments by means of trolling will be contacted by a moderator.

One would assume that with the relatively low traffic currently on the site it wouldn't be difficult for perceived transgressors to be contacted privately. Not only would this allow for a better understanding of the intent behind posts by the people who ultimately decide whether they are acceptable it would also leave posters with no doubt in their minds as to what they may have done wrong.

The other problem with this is the use of the word "trolling" without regard as to what it actually means.

restless_native wrote:Admonishing people publicly by locking threads only leads to anger and frustration and I really can't see a good reason for doing this at all as it also stops all other members from continuing to contribute to a thread that may just have been sidetracked by a couple of people.

Again, the perils of a purely reactive process that has no defined boundaries. The few ruin things for the many (or, "everybody loses" See: "everybody wins" above)

So in a nutshell, the holy grail we are seeking simply seems to be consistency.

The question really then is how that could be achieved.

restless_native wrote:So in a nutshell, the holy grail we are seeking simply seems to be consistency.

The question really then is how that could be achieved.

Removing, where ever possible, ambiguity. This allows for true accountability from both the users and the site representatives.

"how" is addressed in my post. Explain what is desired to someone capable of putting it into unambiguous terms. I know of two users of this site with the specific skill-set (technical writing/SME experience) for submitting a draft to the admin.

Mod Zombie wrote:Thank you, for your replies.

Just to be clear (as this seems to be mentioned by so many), ...the idea of "lightly" or "heavily" moderating is perpetuating a misconception of what moderating is. However, considering the ambiguities inherent in the stated rules and enforcement process, it's understandable why this misconception exists.

There is no light or heavy rules really, there are only specific and vague ones, the intent of a forum can be "light" or "heavy", sure, ...but the rules are either easy to understand and reflect intent, or they don't.

As for moderation, ...again, no light/heavy, just consistent/inconsistent (that's the problem).

Having the intent of any forum (or thread for that matter, see above) stated unambiguously, ...removes any doubt for both the user and the site facilitators.

LadyGodiva wrote:Soon as I have discussed things with Admin and Mod Zombie I will place a new set of rules that hopefully will be more transparent.

And it sounds as if consultation with Humphrey might also be fruitful? Was he offering to word the rules unambiguously?

.

belinda wrote:

LadyGodiva wrote:Soon as I have discussed things with Admin and Mod Zombie I will place a new set of rules that hopefully will be more transparent.

And it sounds as if consultation with Humphrey might also be fruitful? Was he offering to word the rules unambiguously?

.

There is a simple matter of control to deal with first.

LadyGodiva wrote:At the moment Admin advised me to lightly moderate the debate forum. In other words make sure the topic was being debated and not the person.

That's actually an example of the lack of communication I was highlighting. It's something that forum members should have been made aware of if confusion was to be avoided.

Although I have to say that publicly admonishing people rather than speaking to them privately and locking threads isn't really my idea of "light modding".

Stress Free wrote:There is a simple matter of control to deal with first.

What I mean by the above is quite simple. This site is relatively new still if we are going to be slightly generous.
The owner is 30.An age where you like to think that your big enough for any challenges if you are of any confidence.
But Humper is a man of unquestionable integrity in this site.Anyone who has observed how the site kicked into life will know already the bad mistakes made,even if the numbers did zoom up due to the troll pit etc.
Bad publicity is hard to shake off if it comes when the site is born.
Even though the troll pit triggered a number to this site it also limited it to a very narrow type.
Long term aims are based on listening and implimenting good advice without impacting a stubborn sense of ego.
What I have read in Humpers post is a basic blueprint to base the growth of the site on.
That post was without bias at all and was simply based on helping this site to expand.
How that advice and its open suggestions are taken may be key to this sites future.
I enjoyed this site too but I am losing my enthusiasm for it.That is reflected in my recent posts.or lack off.
We are not blind or stupid.