[barmar]

I can't speak for the other mods, but the reason I tolerate the thread is simply because I don't read it. Like WC threads about religion and politics, I expect it to be full of flaming and partisan ideology, not much intelligent conversation. The posters in threads like these know what they're getting into, I don't see the need to protect them.

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2015-December-21, 10:33, said:

I can't speak for the other mods, but the reason I tolerate the thread is simply because I don't read it. Like WC threads about religion and politics, I expect it to be full of flaming and partisan ideology, not much intelligent conversation. The posters in threads like these know what they're getting into, I don't see the need to protect them.

Then why police what hrothgar is allowed to say there?

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't "moderation" applied with the intent to moderate (eliminate extremes in comportment) rather than censor? If a thread treats a subject of interest to even 2 posters, its existence is valid and valuable (a FORUM where views and commentary can be exchanged by members of the community) and it only need be protected from violations of the terms of use (which include personal attack etc.).
Contribute or abstain depending on your interest but respect (even for views that you might consider extreme or unpleasant to you personally) everyone that contributes in a social and collegial manner.
This is Civics101 and based on bridge players experience with bad behavior at the table, I would have thought that this particular example would be easy to accept or at least tolerate.

I hope that the thread will be unlocked, as it has a subject that bears discussion and not discord, veracity and not vituperation, acceptance and not aggression. It may be the single most important issue of our age and the current political stance of many flies in the face of an awful lot of science that disputes that very stance. (On both sides of the issue!) An open society (or community) reflects its values in its actions.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2015-December-21, 15:54, said:

Then why police what hrothgar is allowed to say there?

Some things cross the line from ordinary flaming to personal attacks.

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2015-December-22, 09:23, said:

Some things cross the line from ordinary flaming to personal attacks.

Is it really possible to make a personal attack against a troll? If I were to make up an account on some random webforum, just in order to make idiotic posts and stir up controversy, then I sure as hell wouldn't take it personal if someone called this account a piece of *****.

You (the moderators) put yourselves in the position of constantly having to side with these trolls against posters who also make useful contributions outside this thread, or outside the watercooler.

If you are happy with that role, then, oh well.

[barmar]

It's a fine line we have to draw.

One of the problems with trying to moderate when you don't actively read the threads in question is that it's hard to know that the target of the attack is just a troll. We tend to err on the side of keeping things more moderate. And we generally only deal with the posts that someone complains about -- these tend to be the attacks on the trolls, not the original trolling.

Furthermore, certain posters are frequent targets of complaint reports. It's possible to have heated arguments without resorting to derogatory language, but these people repeatedly fail at this. And they've been on the net long enough to know that one of the best policies is DNFTT.

Mention has been made of people who don't participate anywhere other than the Water Cooler. Without spending significant time researching the posting history of the parties in a flame war, it's hard to know who these are.

Moderating the forums is no one's full time job, it's an occasional background task.

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2015-December-22, 09:47, said:

Moderating the forums is no one's full time job, it's an occasional background task.

That's a silly argument in favour of letting the global warming thread run. Shutting it down would be less work in the long run.

[StevenG]

barmar, on 2015-December-22, 09:47, said:

Mention has been made of people who don't participate anywhere other than the Water Cooler. Without spending significant time researching the posting history of the parties in a flame war, it's hard to know who these are.

It's not actually that difficult to look at their profile. The "Most Active In" field gives a strong clue.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2015-December-22, 09:47, said:

Mention has been made of people who don't participate anywhere other than the Water Cooler. Without spending significant time researching the posting history of the parties in a flame war, it's hard to know who these are.

Perhaps moderators need to learn to use the forum software a bit better?

It took me all of one minute to learn that

Daniel1960 has made 380 posts on the forums, all of which have been in The Watercooler
Al_U_Card has made 5,034 posts, 3174 of which have been in the Watercooler (and almost all of the bridge content was years in the past)
Hrothgar has made 12,051 posts, but only 3251 of which have been in the Watercooler.

[aguahombre]

Do political forums (fora) have Water Coolers where we can bash each other's Bridge game?

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2015-December-22, 09:47, said:

Furthermore, certain posters are frequent targets of complaint reports. It's possible to have heated arguments without resorting to derogatory language, but these people repeatedly fail at this. And they've been on the net long enough to know that one of the best policies is DNFTT.

Can you show me one internet forum that works well where moderators just let the trolls troll, and everybody ignores them? Or, on the larger point of your post above, any internet forum that works well where the moderators just say "Yup I have no idea what is going on in the forum I am supposedly moderating"?

[Al_U_Card]

In the real world, protective tariffs have their place but like subsidies, tend to make the receivers complacent, coddled, inefficient and the practice tends to be detrimental to the welfare of the general public.

Daniel1960 came here at a poster's request (?). My bridge is sufficiently poor (never better than 1st in an open event at a regional...) that my contributions in that vein remain just that. I did find that certain topics in here were informative and interesting as long as flaming and threats were excluded. It is truly unfortunate that certain individuals cannot bear the presence of people who are; different, wrong, right, special, awkward, well-informed, mis-informed etc. etc. It is they that should not participate rather than telling others what is allowable and acceptable for them to do, see and consider.

All motherhood issues whether some did not have enough mothering or others are just mothers...

Living in a vacuum ensures that you suffocate eventually.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-December-22, 12:13, said:

In the real world, protective tariffs have their place but like subsidies, tend to make the receivers complacent, coddled, inefficient and the practice tends to be detrimental to the welfare of the general public.

No offense Al, but when I want to exercise my mind I go to class at Harvard Law and discuss topics with folks over at MIT.

You contribute nothing to these forums but lies and conspiracy theories with the occasion detour into anti semitism.When people repeated point out that you quote badly flawed studies, you never respond in a constructive manner. You simply spin and post some equally asinine new claim.

Maybe we're supposed to adopt a "live and let live attitude", but I was always taught that one has an obligation to confront evil.
Sadly, by this point in time, you don't deserve anything better than invective and mockery.

Case in point: You're equating the being an troll with membership in a protected class. Do you understand just how offensive it is to equate your voluntary actions with being differently abled?

[Al_U_Card]

I guess some people don't know how NOT to offend.

I suppose having lived with a Jew for a number of years hardly qualifies me as a potential anti-semite, but that smear is just more of the incessant and intolerable invective that typifies low-quality contributions.

Finding someone to direct ire towards only ensures that they will not respond to childish and churlish rants.

Kind of sad, really.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2015-December-22, 11:32, said:

Can you show me one internet forum that works well where moderators just let the trolls troll, and everybody ignores them? Or, on the larger point of your post above, any internet forum that works well where the moderators just say "Yup I have no idea what is going on in the forum I am supposedly moderating"?

The difference is that we don't consider the forum to be the major part of our business/service. Most Internet forums are a central part of that service. We're not Reddit or Bridge Winners.

And I think you're blowing the impact of our trolls way out of proportion. The forum runs pretty well, despite our lax moderation. Once in a while there are blowups, and we deal with them.

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2015-December-23, 11:13, said:

The difference is that we don't consider the forum to be the major part of our business/service. Most Internet forums are a central part of that service. We're not Reddit or Bridge Winners.

And I think you're blowing the impact of our trolls way out of proportion. The forum runs pretty well, despite our lax moderation. Once in a while there are blowups, and we deal with them.

Or you could just take a vote and eliminate those who receive the most down-votes. That way, everything would be hunky-dory and all would be well with the world....wouldn't it? Can't have the unpopular folk expressing themselves now can we?

I have found the moderation here to be acceptable, in fact much more acceptable than the behavior of those that declare themselves to be the light and the order. Either way, it is just an internet forum and the expression of inconsequentialities. Hardly a matter of life or death now, (despite how some react) is it?

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2015-December-22, 11:32, said:

Can you show me one internet forum that works well where moderators just let the trolls troll, and everybody ignores them? Or, on the larger point of your post above, any internet forum that works well where the moderators just say "Yup I have no idea what is going on in the forum I am supposedly moderating"?

We have a right to be wrong.
But we should try to keep an open mind, in case of that eventuality.
For example, there would be agreement that trolls pollute most water-cooler controversies but no clear consensus as to which side of each debate they support.

[cherdano]

nige1, on 2015-December-24, 17:46, said:

We have a right to be wrong.
But we should try to keep an open mind, in case of that eventuality.
For example, there would be agreement that trolls pollute most water-cooler controversies but no clear consensus as to which side of each debate they support.

And that is...supposed to be an argument in favour of keeping the thread going?

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2015-December-22, 09:30, said:

Is it really possible to make a personal attack against a troll?

IMO, It's often just a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

cherdano, on 2015-December-22, 09:30, said:

If I were to make up an account on some random webforum, just in order to make idiotic posts and stir up controversy, then I sure as hell wouldn't take it personal if someone called this account a piece of *****.

You might take offence if you don't recognize your posts to be idiotic.

hrothgar, on 2015-December-22, 12:59, said:

No offense Al, but when I want to exercise my mind I go to class at Harvard Law and discuss topics with folks over at MIT.

You contribute nothing to these forums but lies and conspiracy theories with the occasion detour into anti semitism.When people repeated point out that you quote badly flawed studies, you never respond in a constructive manner. You simply spin and post some equally asinine new claim.

Maybe we're supposed to adopt a "live and let live attitude", but I was always taught that one has an obligation to confront evil.
Sadly, by this point in time, you don't deserve anything better than invective and mockery.

Case in point: You're equating the being an troll with membership in a protected class. Do you understand just how offensive it is to equate your voluntary actions with being differently abled?

nige1, on 2015-December-24, 17:46, said:

We have a right to be wrong.
But we should try to keep an open mind, in case of that eventuality.
For example, there would be agreement that trolls pollute most water-cooler debates but no clear consensus as to which side of each controversy they support.

cherdano, on 2015-December-24, 18:27, said:

And that is...supposed to be an argument in favour of keeping the thread going?

Why should a few stop the enjoyment of the many who may be less gifted and who may move in less refined circles but who still want to discuss or to learn more about a topic? There's no compulsion on the former to read or participate.

[PhantomSac]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-22, 11:14, said:

Al_U_Card has made 5,034 posts, 3174 of which have been in the Watercooler (and almost all of the bridge content was years in the past)

No kidding, had no idea Al_U_Card was still posting here. Feel like he posted about bridge when like chamaco, inquiry, the hog, luis etc were regs. Remember when inquiry had like more posts than everyone else combined?

Edit: looked up "top posters", forgot pbleighton, whereagles, luke warm also lol. And winston.