Selective Ignoring or Banning

[BoyBrumby]

It's occurred to me that some otherwise perfectly decent posters do talk absolute pigswill about certain topics ad nauseam. This is probably completely impractical, but is there any way that when they could be banned from further comment on the subject or maybe have the post checked by a mod before they post about it? I won't name names, but if any poster's hobbyhorses spring to mind then you're probably thinking along the same lines as me.

Is there a way of maybe having certain words or phrases trigger a warning email to mods or invoking the ignore function?

 

[weeman27bob]

Standardised averages.

 

[Fusion]

IMHO, it would be impractical to do this. First, I think it will be pretty easy to get around certain words that may trigger a mod review. Second, I would be very uneasy with the censorship aspect of it. If a member is not breaking the forum rules, then I wouldn't want to prevent them from discussing a topic. If they are trolling by discussing said topic, then someone will report them and they'll be infracted.

Sadly I think the best recourse people have in this situation is to put the member on ignore, or skip the posts that you find "annoying".

 

[BoyBrumby]

IMHO, it would be impractical to do this. First, I think it will be pretty easy to get around certain words that may trigger a mod review. Second, I would be very uneasy with the censorship aspect of it. If a member is not breaking the forum rules, then I wouldn't want to prevent them from discussing a topic. If they are trolling by discussing said topic, then someone will report them and they'll be infracted.

Sadly I think the best recourse people have in this situation is to put the member on ignore, or skip the posts that you find "annoying".

Guessed it was a no go. Thanks for answering, anyway.

The thing is some posters are really good when they're kept away from their bete noires so I'm loath to have them on a blanket ignore as I have with others.

 

[sledger]

What about blocking people from certain threads after a spate of irksome behaviour? Pretty sure that's feasible, technically at least.

 

[GIMH]

Happens on cricsim anyway. Doesn't really fit the CW culture I'd have thought.

For the record, ever since I took on the mammoth task of reading the Ashes 05 thread about six years ago, I've thought it would be useful to have a thread ignore option. As Brumby himself would say, no names no pack drill etc etc

 

[Prince EWS]

What about blocking people from certain threads after a spate of irksome behaviour? Pretty sure that's feasible, technically at least.

We'd have to install a plugin to do that and as has been pointed out before, James doesn't want to install any more plugins until he upgrades the forum to vB4. They make it a lot harder to complete upgrades in general.

I'm also not convinced it'd work very well here anyway, especially considering how our moderation decisions are actually made. We discuss all decisions as a moderation group before taking action, and if it took two days to remove someone from a thread it'd be a bit pointless. It works better on forums where the moderators have individual autonomy and the members don't demand the respect and fairness that they do here. It's an "unruly child" type punishment really, and I think it'd cause more harm than it'd be worth here.

 

[sledger]

I imagine the existence of such a feature would probably result in me being debarred from CC as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

I imagine the existence of such a feature would probably result in me being debarred from CC as well.

Well we could do that even without that feature. Access mask editing can see you booted from a subforum.

Food for thought.

 

[sledger]

A DDoS attack can see everyone booted from the entire forum.

Food for thought.

 

[GIMH]

We'd have to install a plugin to do that and as has been pointed out before, James doesn't want to install any more plugins until he upgrades the forum to vB4. They make it a lot harder to complete upgrades in general.

I'm also not convinced it'd work very well here anyway, especially considering how our moderation decisions are actually made. We discuss all decisions as a moderation group before taking action, and if it took two days to remove someone from a thread it'd be a bit pointless. It works better on forums where the moderators have individual autonomy and the members don't demand the respect and fairness that they do here. It's an "unruly child" type punishment really, and I think it'd cause more harm than it'd be worth here.

Unruly child? But but you gave that punishment to me!!

 

[Prince EWS]

Unruly child? But but you gave that punishment to me!!

In a thread that asked for forum suggestions and, in the first post, pointed out that joke replies would be given infractions, you made the following suggestions:

- Remove the option to post in green text
- Add a wanking gif as a smiley option
- Make Heef king of the forum

Unruly child just about summed that up.

 

[Howe_zat]

 

[sledger]

Haha, that's fantastic.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

- Make Heef king of the forum

Unruly child just about summed that up.

What's childish about that simple request, pray tell?

 

[morgieb]

In a thread that asked for forum suggestions and, in the first post, pointed out that joke replies would be given infractions, you made the following suggestions:

- Remove the option to post in green text
- Add a wanking gif as a smiley option
- Make Heef king of the forum

Unruly child just about summed that up.

 

[Jono]

GIMH wag

 

[duffer]

This is the type of thing that would've gotten aussie banned from say the football thread and no others. Would suit the mass of that thread but be completely unfair imo. Best advice would be don't rise to the bollocks being posted.

 

[sledger]

How would it be unfair on him though? There was pretty much uniform consensus that he was a blight on that thread, and despite repeated warnings and opportunities to improve his posting he repeatedly dragged it to new depths.

 

[Adamc]

Haha, aussie probably not the best example there. He made a thread advocating killing gay people and somehow escaped a permanent ban at the time, which is astonishing considering the trivial offences that regularly attract the attention of the mods.