Lazy8 wrote: 
I wasn't criticizing the idea; just trying to figure out how it works or might work.

I'm just wondering if this is not episodic.  It seems to me that, in my time here, there have always been "trolls" and flame wars. People did leave over them, but not in the kinds of numbers we have been experieincing in the last couple years or so.  Is some of this due to the availability of Facebook as an alternative?  I'm guessing probably. 

It appears we have hit critical mass on this issue, so maybe something has to be done beyond what has happened in the past.         

 

 winter wrote: 
I've never seen it, but I have knitting and crocheting friends who I've heard talk about it.  I figured the site was for networking and discussions of knitting things, but I guess it has other topics like the forum here does.

 Zep wrote: 
I thought that was what the Ignore button did? If you find someone consistently objectionable, you put them on the ignore list and their posts (and presumably replies to their posts) are no longer visible to you.

Or does it not work like that? I'm as unfamilar with this as Steeler. 

...it is hard to ignore the idiots but not impossible and for me it felt/feels sort of e-liberating...and as far as an 'ignore' button goes I think that is a very good idea but I also think that involves using different 'forum' software...so it goes...there are still WAY more 'good' people than 'bad' and as far as the ones who have 'left' they can go fack themeselves as that is essentially what I feel they told our little e-community here to do...so it goes...

 Proclivities wrote: 
I assume so. SFW said something about it.

 steeler wrote: 
Hey! So we gotta catch some Nats before that other sport takes over town. 

/threadJack

Winter mentioned something about posts disappearing from view, like a kill-file? Maybe that would work - no hornet's nests to tempt you.
 

 winter wrote: 
The knitting site?

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
I thought about the idea of being able to have some control over a forum you create after watching my Son play his games on the PlayStation network. He can go on the network and set up his own private game for a certain map and then invite the community, or just his selected friends to join in. The other users select his game and when he's got the players he wants in  ... the game starts.

He may set up specific rules for the game ... and if any of the players are violating the rules of the game ... he has the ability to kick them out of the game !!! It works really well ... everyone who agrees to the rules plays the game and has fun ... those who don't are kicked ... simple as that  !*! (remember ... these are 12 year olds ...controlling how the other kids are behaving) He also has a headset and microphone and can talk with the other players who have them as well (can you imagine if RP had a live talk function ...)

I'm not proposing Bill and Rebecca monitor the forums ... just give the forum creator the ability to gavel down those who aren't cooperating ... just like in any other public meeting ...  

  

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
How does ravelry.com do it?

 Zep wrote: 

That is what I was thinking. There is the train-wreck thing going on.

 meower wrote: 

 

 Zep wrote: 
Right, but if you found that Jerkface, JackA$$, and Baron von Jagoff were always being jerks, and you put them all (and the responses to them) on the ignore list, you wouldn't see them to be bothered.

Or am I missing something? 

 DaveInVA wrote: 
Trolls will be trolls. I'm more thinking of all the WTF posts people make and then are all "what did I say?" that sort of make everyone groan. And the poster never learns because no one can really give any feedback without encouraging more of the same. I honestly don't think it's the true trolls who make this place unbearable for some. Of course you're right that some would think they're victims of a coordinated vote-down movement. I guess it wouldn't be as effective. The same people who rate songs a 1 even if it hasn't been played but just because they don't like that band... would probably go thru all of my forum posts and vote them down no matter what.

There has to be a system that works and is easy to implement. Just have to figure out what it is. I know zipper's mentioned the ravelry.com site before... half a million users and very few battles like we have here.

 steeler wrote: 
No, because it is more than one person, and they don't ignore each other, and so their spooge ends up all over the boards, and it's a big train wreck you can't help but look at, and then poke a bit, because ultimately it's fun to poke hornet's nests to see what flies out, and then it spooges out all over again. 

Ain't worth it. Let's talk baseball with Earl Weaver and Manager's Corner. At least we know what his agenda was. 

 meower wrote: 
Friends is good.

 Zep wrote: 

 Beaker wrote: 

Yea, I know. I was being silly....... just wanting my friends back is all.

 steeler wrote: 
 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
(I like that phrase - must remember that more often myself.)

I think the ignore function makes sense: you get tired of so-and-so's relentless jerkishness, you don't have to see it. So-and-so stops getting responses because fewer and fewer people can see them.

But I'm curious: doesn't this in effect create a kind of "shadow community"? It makes RP into a kind of 3D Venn diagram: some of us share some of the same space, whereas now we all share all of the same space. How has this played out in other online venues?

 DaveInVA wrote: 
  just like walking over a pile o poop. Do you give it a second thought after you do?