Dealing with Flamers

Subject: Dealing with Flamers
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 03:48 PM

Pene and I have had a couple of very frustrating weeks, and I'm about ready to give up. Our friendly flamers and trolls have been very active, and we've had a terrible time trying to keep things under control. What's worse, it seems like dozens of regular Mudcatters are jumping in to cheer on the flamers, and that has made an awful mess of things.

The standard Mudcat policy on flamers is this:

Please Don't Respond to Flamers in any way!

If people could just follow this simple rule, Pene and I could tweak a few things quietly here and there, and things would be quite peaceful. That's not what happens, though. Flames generate hundreds of responses from Mudcatters, who seem eager to give flamers all the attention they crave. As a result, the flamers go into a feeding frenzy, and the flame wars last longer and longer. Is that what you want?

Let's take some examples:

• A few weeks ago, somebody registered with a user name that was very similar to that of a well-known Mudcatter, and the miscreant posted a number of messages intended to embarrass the Mudcatter. I noted the problem and took care of it quietly, and told the Mudcatter what I had done. That would have been the end of it, but the Mudcatter felt compelled to start a thread to tell the world what had happened. Within two minutes of the starting of the thread, the same person or a copycat created another false membership, and the cycle began all over again. Once the problem was broadcast in a thread, I couldn't handle the copycat problem. Luckily, Pene came up with a solution a while later.
• More recently, there was an "obit" thread about an R&B singer who was killed in a plane wreck. Somebody questioned why this was appropriate for a folk music forum, and a nasty argument ensued. Then, somebody decided to start "obit" threads for Alexander Graham Bell and Marilyn Monroe - obviously a response to the perceived triviality of the thread on the R&B singer. It looked like the Forum was going to be flooded with "obit" threads, so I combined the two threads and hoped that would be the end of it. That caused somebody to start yet another thread to question my combining things. Maybe my combining threads was a bad call - but, as I said in another thread, it's difficult to second-guess an asshole. Whatever the case, it would have been much easier to handle things if Mudcatters had stepped back and said nothing.
• Over the last couple of days, anonymous people started a couple of threads with some rather nasty anti-Semitic messages. Other anonymous people started threads in the regular forum and the Help Forum, demanding that the offensive messages be deleted - and Mudcatters added dozens of messages to these threads. Not only that, but they also started "answer" threads, like "What Kind of Racist Are You?" and "Mudcat a Tolerant Forum?" – and those threads generated dozens of replies.

  Some people demanded that we delete the offensive messages, and couldn't understand why we left those messages up and yet we deleted a thread that attacked an individual. The reason for that is simple – we edit as little as possible because we want to preserve free and open discussion, but we can't allow attacks or threats against individuals. We also can't allow people to take over the way we operate things, flood Mudcat with threads, or manipulate or deceive – that's why I dealt with the false memberships and combined the obit threads. We also can't handle things the same way every time - because our predictability would give flamers an advantage, and because we're human and sometimes don't always do things the best way.

I'd like to see people follow the basic rule: don't respond to flamers. That means that you should give them no public acknowledgement whatsoever – and you certainly shouldn't start threads in the Forum or Help Forum to call attention to them. If there's a problem, handle it by sending a personal message to Pene or me, or both of us – but don't talk about it publicly. If you can't do that, then I think Pene and I should stop trying to control things, and just let things happen as they will. Without your cooperation, we can do nothing, and we might as well let things run their course.

OK, so that's the situation. Things are a bit messy here. I hate to add another thread to the mess because each thread we create seems to encourage more – but what is it you would like us to do, and what are you willing to do to help us?

Pene and I are independent – we answer to nobody but Max. We'll do what we think is best, and I believe that's the way it should be. However, we're open to suggestions. We can discuss it openly here and now. Ordinarily, though, it's best to discuss these things with us by personal message. We monitor the Forum and adjust things when we can to prevent the worst of problems – but we ordinarily do our best to ignore general nastiness and bigotry. If it's a personal attack against an individual, we want to know about it right away (privately), so we can deal with it quickly. Generally, we're not going to delete or edit flames – that only provokes and encourages flamers. We ask your help in keeping things civil here at Mudcat - please do your best to ignore flamers completely.

OK, so what do you think?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:00 PM

what is it you would like us to do, and what are you willing to do to help us

Joe, this is timely.

I had been thinking that there is one thing that would help everyone. If a Permathread could be made that you and Pene edit strongly, and if its opening post could be from Max, titled "FORUM NOTICE." It would say something like:

"There's an upset going on now, please remember that Mudcat policy is....."

and "...remember there has been a consensus expressed many times that the best approach is....."

and

"... so let's get back to discussing music, have fun."

With a link to the FAQ flames and editing policies and a means of contacting Mudcat leadership OFFTHREAD to raise concerns about those policies-- that would help. I think.

The threads become a complaint depratment because people want to make trouble AND because they and others are not of one mind how to give feedback anywhere else.

So a link in the FAQ labeled COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT, that would go to your e-mail or Jeff's, would make a path clearer and would make the trouble-making more discernable when it's NOT used.

Would you be willing to do that-- have your e-mail address linked by you and us as COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT?

Cuz I can say honestly that you have dealt with MY crabby attempts to communicate pretty proferssionally, Joe, and if you can work things out with me-- you oughtta be able to handle anyone who is trying to contribute positively at all, with one hand tied behind your back.

love and growls,

~Susan

PS-- Aan alternative approach-- Ship of Fools moves bad threads to a page there called HELL, and posts the rules for Hell on that page so there will be no question that anyone posting is responsible for whatever hurt feelings they get by participating. No edits, as far as I recall-- just moved over.

---

There's a problem with a "notice" PermaThread, Susan - especially if it's refreshed whenever there's a flamer around. The only proven cure for flamers is to ignore them and starve them of the attention they crave. Refreshing a thread in their honor is just what they want.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: radriano
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:03 PM

There isn't a simpler way to put it, Joe.

Please, everyone, just ignore offensive threads. Don't post to them.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:06 PM

I agree Joe - The best way to resond to flamers is to ignore them. But human egos being what they are I find it hard to believe that will happen. That will be my course of action however. It's what they deserve - no response.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:13 PM

... and with my suggestion, it would not be a teal thread-- it would be something anyone could refresh when it seemed like a good idea, and maybe a link that could be pasted in promptly when a flamethread starts.

What would happen? OK, say I refreshed the NOTICE thread. Others would see it and post their agreement. When it all died down you'd knock all those posts back out.

People TRIED to do it with a thread called Mudcat Vow but it needs Max as El Jefe to say it, I think.

Also a linkable disclaimer in fine print at the bottom of the main page and the forum page, "Opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the persons posting them and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Mudcat Cafe's owners, operators, or members."

~Susan

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:16 PM

I think that I get the message (finally)! I will restrain myself from public response to flamers in the future, and will restrict myself to sending Private Messages instead.

Please don't give up on us.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:19 PM

You can ask people to ignore all you want, but it probably wont help, really... You know the kind of people who frequent this place... hell... some have to be contrary just fot it's own sake...

People are not likley to shut up, even when asked nicely... Best to just let 'em blow steam up each other and ignore the whole mess...

It's the people who find such stuff offencive that have to learn to step off and do the mature thing and walk away from a given thread ot topic... Don't go sucking and blubbering to Mom that so-and-so said a bad word... When I was growing up it was worse to be a whining snitch than to have potty mouth...

So ya... I guess I am agreeing with Joe here, but I think what I'm also trying to say is dont' be surprised when these threads don't go away...

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:28 PM

Joe,
Well said and right on.

Russ (Still a guest after all these years).

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:33 PM

Joe,
By the way. I really like the Mudcat format. It makes it very easy to find the current topics that interest me and very easy to ignore flamethreads.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:43 PM

I don't know how big a problem it is, but surely one factor is that newbies are apt to rise up in arms when they see some Mudcatter get attacked. Worse yet, they feel, is that no one has jumped in to defend the 'Catter, so that they feel compelled to do it themselves. And there goes the thread merrily on.

The reason I know all this is that was my reaction. A newbie does not necessarily know where to go to learn the accepted policy. Might a PermaBanner above the threads list be a good idea?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:44 PM

Agreed, Joe, I will continue to make no responses to flame threads.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:49 PM

I appreciate everything that you have done, both Joe and Pene, and figure it is probably more work than a paying job--and with considerably more animosity directed at you than most workplaces would allow, it certainly is more aggravation than most jobs--

The internet is strewn with the wreckage of USENET groups, Mail lists, and discussion forums, ruined by the sort of stuff that you are fighting--Let no one be deceived, the only way for a forum like Mudcat to survive is to stay on top of it--even if a few mistakes or wrong judgements are made--

It occurs to me that, at least from past and present experience, there is no point in telling people to ignore flamers--even when nearly everyone does, there is always one person who looses control when they reach the submit button--responding is a part of human nature, and the reason that trolls and flames exist at all is because there is always someone who will bite--

I have never understood why Max won't set up the program so that you can't submit unless there is something pasted in the "From" box--it doesn't hurt anyone if a minimum posting requirement is that a "handle" be included--

And it wouldn't restrict anyone's free speech if they had to enter an e-mail address in order to post(The National Forum on People's Differences requires this, and posters may opt not to have the address shown, if they want)--

I am of the opinion that measures like these are like bright lights for walkways and parking lots--they make it harder for the attacker, and reduce the risk for the ordinary person--

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,Katspawlaughing666
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:21 PM

One of the reasons that trolling at Mudcat is so much fun is the predictability of the outraged responses from Spaw and his self-righteous buddies in the Mudcat inner clique.

People have been saying for years that if you ignore the trolls, they'll just go away. Thing is though, Mudcatters like Spaw and Mousie and McGrath and Kat and WYSIWYG are so in love with the sight of their names that they just need to respond to everything under the sun. They just can't resist rising to the troll bait. That's why the trolls are here to stay.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:38 PM

Ok, Joe...one more vote to REALLY ignore and not acknowlege flamers, trolls and anonymous cranks. Heated discussions among friends and acquaintences can make a lively, interesting forum, but baiting and personal attacks are not productive. If someone has a specific complaint, let them get a name, a cookie, and respond directly bu private message.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:39 PM

Well posted Joe...How about we keep this one up top for a few days until we all get a chance to see it.....Everyone around the joint is guilty and even the humor end of it has lately gone wrong.....Changing the subject doesn't do it as Sorch found out and as always known, the only thing that does is not responding.

So me and the "Inner Clique" will take the pledge and not post to the SOS threads (kat's "Same Old Shit")......We oughta' have a "Cussin' Can" thing, every post to a troll or flamer costs a buck to the 'Cat..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:46 PM

Yeah, Spaw, the SOS messages in flame threads really puzzled me - they just served to bring the flame thread to the top again. What's the logic in that?

By the way, we know full well that our most prolific flamers are regular Mudcatters who like to cause a little trouble when they feel they haven't been getting enough attention. Sick, isn't it?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Kernow John
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:58 PM

Joe & Pene
Thanks
KJ

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:03 PM

I agree, M. Ted, with your posting suggestions. Maybe someday we'll see that change.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:08 PM

Bill D makes what I see as a very useful distinction - Heated discussions among friends and acquaintences can make a lively, interesting forum, but baiting and personal attacks are not productive.

The tricky thing is avoiding having the one turn into the other, and there are some people out there who do their best to try and get that to happen.

We don't want to find ourselves in situation where, just by a bit of judicious flaming, someone who wants to is able to in effect close off a topic where a useful discussion might otherwise happen.

Anyway, Joe and Pene are doing a great job in trying to contain and clean up this sort of thing, and I promise to try and avoid doing anything that makes it harder.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:31 PM

As I recently mentioned in a PM to those concerned, "There is a downside to inclusivity...". The big tent with the open door can make for an interesting party, but don't be surprised if some unwelcome and unsavory "guests" show up to try and pillage, plunder, and generally spoil the fun for everyone else. "Human nature", I suppose. Shucks, even the lofty ideal of "Freedom" I've been known to spout off about on occasion has it's dark side, don't we know. But I digress...

I heartily concur with WYSIWYG re. a "disclaimer". A question of potential civil liability to both the Mudcat and one of us was raised - and quite rationally so - after another organization mentioned was promtly - and warantlessly - savaged by a flamethrowing "guest" who went so far as to threaten to lodge bogus "complaints" against the organization. A representative of this organization who was invited to participate in the forum, needless to say, was not favorably impressed and much appology, explanation and damage control was required to assure them that this ogre was not, in fact, representative of the average Mudcatter. No doubt some of these lurking deviants are quite skilled at making life miserable for others in order to gratify some perverted pathological "need", and it might behoove us to install some reasonable level of self-protection. As it is, we are pretty vunerable, and that alone is sufficient to attract flocks of sociopaths. Lovely world we live in... but it's the best we've got, eh?

Any 'Catters out there of the Legal proffession? some input might be timely, here.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:44 PM

Well, after this week, I'll promise not to respond to anonymous flamers anymore. Not that this week has been worse than some others I can remember, but it's just getting old. Avoiding these threads might also keep me from acting like a complete bastard. (No, it won't) :)

One thing bothers me, though: Like Joe said, these people are usually members dropping their cookies to act like dicks.

Joe, couldn't you guys just 'out' the members who are doing this?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:55 PM

I agree with Lepus Rex, I think if members are messing about surely they dont deserve to be members.Just my opinion.john

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,Hille
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:05 PM

I must apologise - replied to the Gay racist Morris thread without thinking, well, was actually thinking back to the almighty fun we had with "Eminen Rules" thread.

So, I apologise in this instance (and of, course I do ignore the offensive stuff - really depriving them of "the oxygen of publicity" is the only thing that works.)

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:13 PM

What we refer to as trolling and flaming represent distress patterns that are not possible to evaluate, treat, or even respond to accurately in an online medium.

What we realize AFTER the fact has been an unhelpful reaction FEELS, when you are engaged in it, quite logical. There's the rub--

The distress pattern depends on pushing someone's button. The definition of whether a button has been successfully pushed is, did it overwhelm our sense and provoke response? Once that has occurred, what we have is hindsight, to help us try to do better next time the effort has made. I am an example-- it's lots harder to push my buttons now, and I write almost exclsuively now in music threads. But I not only decided it, I had to work through it and work on it.

Anyway, once we have responded, we are within whatever distress pattern WE have, that makes response seem like SENSE. But this is human nature.

When it was suggested at one point that I do a prayer website, I cruised the Net far and wide looking at forum designs (and sent Max samples of the competition), looking for a spot that might serve. So I saw some neat features. One thing many places do, that we don't, is move threads. Another is, they LOCK threads. They lock them sometimes and leave them viewable, but not postable, so people can see that no censorship of what was said had occurred. But the locked thread makes it clear that it has been decided that additional response, for that thread, is simply beyond the limits of the host's willingness to give space to the event.

And it is entirely within a host's purview to choose what they will host-- to what they will allocate bandwidth.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Gareth
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:14 PM

As one who can be controversial. Though I hope not to the same extent as a napalm pwered flamer, and as one who has difficulty not treading on a trailed coat I have had difficulty followinhg Joes instructions in the last few days.

But joe's right ingnore the buggers and they will disappear.

Gareth - chewing his fingernails in frustration.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:47 PM

But there's still the problem that a stay-away-from-the-garbage policy, if consistently applied, would mean that a couple of well placed anonymous posts could close down a thread.

And that could as easily happen in music threads, which can also turn quite sour sometimes.

We should avoid being provoked into posting by these people.But at the same time we need to avoid being silenced by them. It's a difficult balance, and I know I haven't got it right myself a lot of times.

It seems to come in spats, which are unpleasant, but they pass. Putting up with it is a price for having the Mudcat. Going too far in the direction of active preventive measures would be too high a price for tackling this irritation. And there are always ways for those so minded to sneak round any set of defences anyway.

Good point, Kevin-
I'd say that if a legitimate thread is going and a flamer butts in, the best response is to keep the thread going, but act as if the flamer were invisible. Don't acknowledge a flamer in any way. Catspaw might suggest that you imagine the miscreant let out a very noticeable fart, and act accordingly (I wouldn't say that, but Spaw would...)
Threads started by flamers are another matter. Don't post to them, even if others have posted. Don't try to turn the thread with humor - it rarely works, and it gives the troll/flamer lots of the attention he/she craves. It's easy to identify flame/troll threads. They almost always started by a Guest, and they almost always start out with a nasty tone.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:49 PM

Apologies for responding to some crap on another thread earlier tonight. I'll try to just ignore the bastards!
Geoff!

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:59 PM

Ah, it is so gratifying to see the absolute worst, most duplicitous Mudcat flamers posting here saying they'll never do it again...

And you'll ignore the flamers when pigs fly.

I do get a chuckle out of the lot of you. It really is like shooting fish in a barrel around here.

Hey Joe, since you can't even follow your own good advice, what the hell makes you think you're going to get people to stop behaving badly?

Maybe they will when you will.

---

Maybe you're right, my friend, but maybe not. There are times when I have to take action, and I usually find it's best to give some explanation. I try to do that without attempting to argue with flamers and trolls, but sometimes I give in to temptation. Still, I think that the flamers and trolls are only part of the problem - the bigger problem is caused by those who respond to them.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:06 PM

Kevin, we all have a bad habit of responding to an obvious troll in an otherwise fine thread.....often they have one legit point and we might respond to that. Don't do it. when you want to carry on with the thread, simply carry on without referencing the flame/troll even if they have a great question in the middle of the bullshit.....skip it. That's tough I know, but it's the way to do it....sad but true.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:19 PM

I suppose the thing to do might be to take the good point, without giving any acknowledgement to where it came from, and use it in a post - "Now it could be suggested that...But..."

I can imagine that might really irritate the attention seeking creeps.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:48 PM

It seems to me that flamers and the people who respond to them have a lot in common.

Just because you know a person's name doesn't mean he isn't a flamer.

Just because a person only posts to threads, but doesn't start them, doesn't mean he isn't a flamer.

Just because a person defends Mudcat, or defends another Mudcatter, doesn't mean he isn't a flamer.

Just because a person stands up for "politically correct" principles doesn't mean he isn't a flamer.

A flame-thrower is still a flame-thrower no matter which direction it is pointed.

What makes a flamer a flamer is the amount of anger that comes out in his messages. It doesn't matter who provokes it, or how it is provoked.

Oddly, SOME trolls/flamers seem to have more self-awareness than the people who respond to them. SOME trolls/flamers admit that they get some satisfaction out of what they're doing. People who respond to flamers seem unaware that they're getting any satisfaction. But what else could explain the fact that they do the same thing over and over? Isn't there something gratifying about getting angry at someone who *really* deserves it?

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:56 PM

All good there Jim, but i've admitted repeatedly that I know they may be getting their jollies, but so am I!! The "anger" is never there whereas what I really enjoy and most people dislike is sarcasm and sarcastic humor. I like playing the dozens ya' know? But this thing truly has gotten past the point of doing anything but simply ignoring the whole thing.

I said once that if they were enjoying it, we should too.........mistake. The only thing to do is to ignore them........but I still like the vile, smartassed, sarcasm.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: AliUK
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 09:15 PM

Jim. I don't know how to take your post but... I suppose I must apologise at my conduct in a couple of the threads. I do not in any way consider myself a flamer, just a gbloke who has been around the Mudcat off and on for a few years and who doesn't like to see people that he likes ridiculed. I try to resist, but soemtimes can't stop the response. From now on I will ignore those types of threads. Sorry Joe.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 09:28 PM

It would be impossible to thank Joe and Pene and the various Joe Clones enough for the work they do around here--and Max, et al, for making the whole thing possible.

I don't think it's really possible to get rid of flamers and troublemakers entirely, because they can post to just about any thread -- in fact someone tried it on a couple of threads where serious discussions were going on -- and thereby hangs an object lesson. The participants in the threads were so intent on what they were discussing that the would-be troublemaker was just ignored. Getting no response, he/she/it just went away.

I get steamed and respond to flamers too damned much, even when I know better. But from here on, I take the pledge. No more response to trolls and flamers!

For those who have trouble doing this, maybe there's a 12-step program?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:11 PM

I am more disgusted by those that respond to these miscreants than I am by the miscreants themselves. Maybe I am getting cranky in my old age, but when I see responses to this shit, I think less of the fools that just have to respond. As if the flamer gives a shit that you are pissed. In fact, they are tickled to death that you are pissed. I have pointed out several times now, that these smart asses just love watching you all dance. The GUEST above just confirmed it when s/he said it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Wise up, Mudcatters.

The other day the GUEST, made a pathetic attempt to draw me back in the other day. It made me laugh. They are so simple.

Mick

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:26 PM

A few suggestions, for what it's worth;

* A link to submit "concerns" to Admins about a certain thread or posting which seem to meet the criterion for a "flame". When a predetermined number of gripes are registered, said offending posting could be replaced with "Removed by Membership Request" or to a locked limited-access "crypt". Downside: pain in our good Admin's glutes to keep up with, I would suspect, and you guys deserve better. No doubt a hue and cry of "censorship" of be raised.. one person's "censorship" is anothers' hygene and security, and as even the lowest level of Politician knows; ya can't keep 'em all happy!

* Limit access to Member's personal pages, addresses, photos etc.to cookie-holding accountable Members in good standing. A lot of havoc can arise from having that out beyond the perimeter, Mates!

* Probationary period for "Newbies"? Peer evaluation? Ja, I know... can-O-worms potential there, but I'm brainstorming.

* Also concur with the suggestion for selective "locked" or "by invitation only" threads, similar to PalTalk's "Rooms". Participants could PM those invited with password. Paltalk found it neccessary to keep the skunks out and keep things civil, and apparantly many if not most other public forums have had to resort to similar systems just to maintain a semblance of common decency. Is decency still "Common"? God, I hope so...

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:36 PM

What a time to lose your cookie! Honest! I'm not a flamer. I shall immediately go back and retrieve it. *G*

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Justa Picker
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:47 PM

Very likely no one here is going to publicly agree with me on this, but for this "time capsule" called Mudcat, I will go on record and state the oh so painfully obvious, at least to me.

Two words. Moderators and Censorship.

Joe and Pene have proven themselves practical, rational and persons we can trust, who are endowed with an abundance of common sense, and an unflinching dedication of their own time and resources to this forum.

People are NOT going to stop posting to the threads in question no matter how many times you ask, tell, or chastise them from doing it. Perhaps these are idealistic child-like qualities, but something should be done to protect "children" from themselves for the greater good and well being of this place.

Oh...what's this now?
Free speech threatened?
The right to express my opinion?...yatta yatta yatta
Sorry.
Anyone who verbally vandalizes this place with flagrant and obvious racist and/or anti-semitic dogma, or publicly attempts to belittle or shame another member, i.m.o. forfeits these so-called rights.

I am sick to death about perpetrators "rights" whether in a cyber community or criminals or vandals in real life. You cross the line, you relinquish those rights.
So fucking simple it's sickening.
As for the whiners who complain about the deletions and censorship - fuck them. Delete their posts too.

Any clear minded, rational and reasonable person knows which threads and posts I refer to. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
You're damn right I think it's time Big Brother did more than just watch this place. It's going to hell in a hand basket, and there's no Captain at the helm steering the ship. This place is no longer capable of policing itself and is a rudderless boat drifting in the water.

Aren't you glad I'm not Max? :-)


[Rant off.]

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:50 PM

Ok, we're all on the same page. Now let's see how long this lasts!

I've seen threads going awry and screamed at the computer screen "Why are you people buying into this shit!?!?" And then I do the same thing on another thread, because I think I have the perfect answer (even though, in times of clear thought, we all know the perfect answer is silence)
Let's try to cooperate this time around. Thanks, Joe


Rich

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Allan C.
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:10 PM

Every time one of those threads appears, the posts that follow remind me of a group of little kids. One says, "The next one who talks is a rotten egg!" "But YOU just talked, that means that YOU'RE a rotten egg!" says another. "Hah! Another voice says YOU are a rotten egg because YOU just talked too! Yet another says "You are ALL rotten eggs!!" And so it goes.

All but the very newest of us know that simply not posting is the thing to do and yet there are always some who continue to post and to bring these embarrasments to the Mudcat to the top of the pile where they are the first thing a visitor will see. Hell! It is just like trashing your front walkway while swearing to all that the house is just wonderful inside.

I don't know why folks can't understand that there are no clever words, there are no clever comebacks, there is NOTHING you can say that will get rid of the nastiness faster than ignoring the offending thread and thus damn it to oblivion as it drifts off the thread list.

I am sick of having to wade through the trash to get to the good stuff that I know is still here.

Hey, if "Killing the Thread" can finally drift off the main page, surely some of this crap can as well - IF WE LET IT!!!!!

Joe, Jeff, thank you for your many efforts toward making this a better place. I hope we can find ways to make your tasks easier.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:13 PM

I totally agree with you JP.

If the main flamers are members as has been said, they ought to get their privileges yanked. They are destroying this site.

kat

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:15 PM

A few people have raised the question, If Joe responds to flamers, why shouldn't I? I guess it's a legitimate question. My answer is that I do it very sparingly and I try to do it dispassionately - and I also do it as an addendum to a previous message, so my message does not bring the thread to the top of the menu again. There are times when a brief remark might be an effective way to respond to a flamer - but that's something for Pene and me to decide on. With all these Mudcatters jumping in to try to save the day, Pene and I feel like paramedics who have to fight off the onlookers before we can get to the scene of the accident. If people were silent in response to flames, there's very little "fixing" we'd have to do. It's the Mudcatters who respond who are most of the problem, not the flamers.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Áine
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:30 PM

I'm with Justa Picker, too. Seems to me that we have encountered the ignoble impasse of 'too many (silly) little indians, and not enough chiefs' -- that is to say, when the kiddies (of whatever age, but of the same immature emotional state) can (1) target, and (2) take over, a site like the Mudcat, it's time for someone to act like an adult and send the children to their rooms with no supper.

The toll of valued and respected 'Catters who have left this community as a result of trolls, flamers, etc., has become too high to tolerate any longer. Freedom has now become chaos . . . We don't need a 'Big Brother' or a 'benevolent dictator'; we need someone to enact some level-headedness around here.

When the Mudcat was smaller, the 'no rules is good rules' philosophy worked; however, now we're just exposing our weak flank to the cretinous lambastings of congenital sociopathic wannabes and pimply-faced 'net vandals'. Let's rein these ponies in before the barn burns down while we're not looking.

-- Áine

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:06 AM

As you know, Joe, I took the "no response to flamers, except in very rare, extreme cases" pledge in a PM to you. I'll just repeat that pledge here. An extreme case could be a slanderous statement aimed at a specific member, or some other nasty comment that might need a short, tempered response. I would emphasize rare, though, and will follow the general principle of no response.

I used to advocate turning the subject around in a flame thread, but don't anymore. It just prolongs the thread title and initial flame, keeping it high on the column.

-chanteyranger

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:26 AM

JOE - MAX

Take TIGHT control....return to the roots.

If it ain't MUSIC...it ain't M.C....and it certainly isn't DT....

I can sincerely say that the vast majority of my personal "Trolling" has come from a sincere attempt to "scare/humiliate/belittle/squelch" (a.k.a be a Gargoyle) those (cats, wiccans, and critters) who strayed from my view of Dick and Susan's original vision. (To hell with Max...he was a Johnny come lately.)

Your only other alternative, is to let ALL chaos break loose. It should be stated UP FRONT...that this is a "Moderated Discussion Board" the option to edit and delete threads and postings is maintained by the managment.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 05:46 AM

Maybe if there was some kind of mechanism by which it was possible for the rest of us to have the option of posting to a thread without refreshing it that might help. It would stop the process by which the threads that have gone wrong get repeatedly refreshed by people saying "stop posting to this thread" and so forth.

Whether that's possible I don't know.

I suppose this process of achieving the opposite of what you are doing is similar to the way in which you can get people demanding that there should only be music threades, and doing this by posting repeatedly to non-music threads. Or trying to defend the Mudcat in ways that damage it and drive good people away.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 07:58 AM

Refresh in light of a couple of new threads and older ones still being stirred.....

Please try to avoid them folks!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:11 AM

Dear Joe,

surely it's difficult to keep out flamers in such an open electronic medium; I often was annoyed finding mails in the threads which had nothing to do with the themes about music and singing. The best way, as so many have proposed, is: IGNORE!

The stronger form, and this is a contribution to the litotes-debate, is found in the German expression: Garnet ignorieren = never ignore, in which case the double negation means a stronger negation, composed of "never mind" and "ignore". This expression is well known in my county.

Don't give up, Joe, and continue your work I appreciate so much!

Wilfried

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:41 AM

Oops. I just posted a joke to the veggie/prat thread which, after thinking about it for a bit, I realize is probably a troll thread. Sorry. Won't do it again.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:51 AM

Yeah Carol....Good catch. I saw that one and that was when I refreshed this, but perhaps a bit late. "Whippet" has started an couple of at least "bigoted and controversial" threads, if not outright trolls. Glad you picked up on it, better late than never.

Spaw