Well I can only see about half the conversation except for the random quotes, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the new moderation doesn't include your basic general jackassery.  Given that, it's already a failure.

Keep pushing upstream folks, and good luck.

Ace:

Start a Band

Some general comments, for everyone:

If you don't have anything good to day, don't say anything at all.

Also, sometimes it's in the details. It's not always only the actual name-calling that comes across as rude, it can be snide side comments or overly sarcastic remarks.

If you make a post and later have to explain "it was only a joke", then maybe not making such posts in the first place is the better choice.

While reading the various threads in the last week or so, I have thought about saying something a few times only to change my mind.  I've finally decided to say something.

I've been using the program for several years now, though I didn't upgrade until 2 or 3 years ago.  At that time, I started coming by the forum.  I have been reading a lot but barely posting.  That is because of the overall negative and sometimes downright nasty attitude of the forum in general.  This place does not give off a welcoming feeling to new members - at least it didn't to me.  It still doesn't to me most of the time, which is why I mainly just read things and move on without saying anything.  I have noticed that members have stopped posting and there don't seem to be a lot of new members sticking around that long.  That's too bad because this could be a really great forum.

As to moderation, the board definitely needs it.  I think all boards need to have some basic rules - no name calling, slurs, etc - and there need to be moderators to make sure the rules are followed.  Who ever runs or owns the board gets to decide on the rules, and it is the job of the members to follow the rules.  It isn't about trying to make everyone think the same or act the same, it is about having a friendly environment for everyone to post in.  If there rules but they aren't enforced, then it is pointless to have rules.  Even for forums that have a good core group of members who are nice and remain civil when there are disagreements - and there will be disagreements..that's just human nature - there still need to be moderators and guidelines set up.  Most forums can get new members at any time, and one of those new members could be a rude, nasty person who just wants to spew vile in every post.  There need to be moderators to deal with situations like that. 

Self moderation is fine and good, and it may work all the time for some people.  But for it to work, people have to be willing to make the effort to stop and think before posting in touchy threads.  Even if all the regular contributors to a forum actually do that, there still needs to be moderators and guidelines because there is still the chance that someone will over react, or, like I mentioned previously, a new member will jump in and attack everyone in sight.  Having  moderators and guidelines for moderation doesn't mean that posts will be moderated on a whim.  It just means that the tools are there for when it is needed.  Even with moderation guidelines set up, people can still self moderate..which will keep the moderators from having to moderate posts.

With some of the other boards I have posted at over the years, it has worked better when the moderators were members of the boards who actively participate and read.  They get a better feel for the different situations when things are handled that way.  I think that gives some accountability for the moderators so they don't abuse their power to moderate or ban.  I also think it is better when the members in general have some idea that something has been done when a member breaks the rules.  Most of the boards I've been a member of will have some kind of designation if a person is banned or suspended.  That isn't about wanting blood or a pound of flesh or anything like that.  It just shows that the moderators are doing their job and enforcing the rules.  There have to be consequences for breaking the rules.  If people think the rules aren't being enforced when someone does break one, then things will quickly spiral out of control and get twenty times worse.

I am not out to attack anyone and I don't have a hidden agenda.  I would just like to see this board be a friendly, welcoming, fun place to post.

Quoting Forum Moderator:

Quote:
We've been going by the guideline that name calling is an attack, whereas denigration of motive is not.

So, "You're an idiot" has been editable, whereas "You're always causing trouble" has not.

This is a subjective line is going to move as needed. Be polite and you're in no danger of an edit due to personal attack.  Be impolite and risk an edit, even if in the past we've been more allowing.

That kind of sounds like splitting hairs.  The same thing can be said in different ways without technically calling someone a name.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
I think, personally, that what Gerri is getting at is this:

Bad language (eg. name calling) is unacceptable behaviour and will not be tolerated.

However, if you say the same thing without name-calling then we're all adult enough to stick up for ourselves.

I'll object if someone calls me a name; but not necessarily if they say the same thing without name-calling, eg. "You're a cretin who knows nothing" as apposed to "I don't think you know what you're talking about".
The use of cretin is totally unnecessary to the point you're trying to make.

At least, that's how I interpret Gerri's statement.

Hmm, yeah, I can see the difference but I still think that both can be equally hurtfull and contribute equally to a negative atmosphere:
"You're an idiot"
"You're not even able to comprehend things a 5 year-old can"

Moreover, if we stand up for ourselves, as you put it, the danger is that threads devolve into user vs user arguments where each participant is careful not to resort to namecalling but is still refering to the other in a denigrating way.

It's perfectly possible to denigrate another user without resorting to namecalling.

Anyway, if that's where Invelos whishes to draw their line, it's their choice of course.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting Taro:

Quote:
"You're an idiot"
"You're not even able to comprehend things a 5 year can"

Good examples...because I would find both of these to be offensive.

"You're an idiot" it blatantly offensive.

""You're not even able to comprehend things a 5 year can" is, IMO, a facetious insult.

Whereas "I'm not sure you full understand the situation" is not offensve.

The moment "things a 5 year can" is added the statement takes on an entirely different tone. It becomes snide and belligerent.

Unfortunately, around here, your non offensive statement will light off a war.  While I agree, it seems like a very innocuous  statement, for some reason people here will take it personally.

That is the problem at Invelos.  With apparently all the bad feelings and animosity between certain users, it has gotten to the point that it doesn't matter what is said. 

I could say to a particular user "you know, you are all right!", and the battle would begin.

If the behavior does not change, the only moderation that will work will be the strictest form of moderation, then you will not be able to hold a debate.

Charlie

Self-moderation in a forum works pretty much the same way as self-regulation does in the coal mining industry: eventually there's a disaster.

Skip somehow always seems to be at the center of these storms, and I do think a lot of it is matters of style.  Sometimes Skip is right and sometimes (I think) Skip is wrong.  He can be helpful and contribute in terriific ways.  He can also make the forum radioactive in places.  The former is good and positive, the latter not so much.  Whether from habit or renewed irritation, a number of others give to Skip as good as they get.  It's annoying and depressing and not particularly of assistance to the users or to Ken and Gerri.

Reading (painfully) through this thread, it seems to me that a lot of that comes from attributing motives to people that aren't necessarily stated in the post.  Just dealing with the original Ace post and Skip's reaction to it, Ace didn't say anything offensive, but Skip apparently felt that it was some kind of backhanded slap and continuation of another argument somewhere else (which I have thankfully missed).  Backing off the tempers on both sides would be well recommended; not assuming the worst intentions of other posters (by Skip and by others) would be even better.  Here's a thought: Respond to every post as if it were a clean slate.  If it states positive things, then go with that flow, and don't drag other things into it.  I hate the constant bickering here that always ends up in someone or other making the ridiculous statement that the other side is trying to wreck the database or has some hidden agenda.  Other than some well known actual vandals who weren't regular posters, I think everyone posting in the forum actually cares about where the database ends up; we just see that as different places.  But hurling insults and invective is never going to change anyone's mind about where it should end up. 

Some guidelines for everyone (not just Skip) to consider:

When you post something, remember the Golden Rule: Think, "If someone posted this about ME, would I be offended? 

Don't attribute ill motives to others. Assume they are trying to get the database in good working order too, because they almost certainly are.

If you disagree with someone, explain why you think they are wrong and why you think you are right.  (a) "You are a poopyhead" is not an explanation.  (b) Unless more explanation or clarification is requested, then DROP IT.

If you're posting more often in a thread than once an hour, you're posting in it too much.  Take a break.  Think more before you post.

Don't apologize and then immediately follow it with another insult; it's just smarmy and insincere and makes the apologizer look like a toad.

I could do better with these myself.  And if I've offended anyone, I sincerely apologize.  That was not my intent.