TheVat:
Had I fleshed my suggestion out, it would have been more like, "Move posts with personal slander to a Septic Tank thread (or whatever). This would allow all to see what was removed, give member a chance to retrieve/salvage the non-attack parts and repost them, and of course prevent any Stalinesque disappearing of content. I've seen this done elsewhere and it seemed to work. This would prevent the sort of runaway thread derailment seen recently."
We already have a a subforum called "The Cesspool". It is a dumping ground for truly worthless threads.
The problem with separating personal attack bullshit from actual content in people's posts is that, where it desirable, it requires somebody to do the work. I, for one, am not willing to spend my time sifting through a person's posts to extract the one useful thing they said from a morass of personal slights and the like. If they think their useful thing is important, then they ought to post it without acting like a troll or including a bunch of extraneous personal attacks in it, in the first place.
Having said that,
most posts remain in the place they are posted - even the ones that attract warnings. The main reason for that is that the context in which things are said is often important to have, if you're a reader who is trying to decide who's in the right and who's in the wrong, or whether a person was fairly moderated etc. Also, removing individual posts from their context causes a disjunction in the conversation for people reading it later on. There can be later replies that refer to the removed post, for instance (which, BTW, also need to be edited or moved if the offensive post is to be extracted or deleted by a moderator).
I personally don't like scorekeeping approaches to personal conflicts or disruptions on a forum, and the sort of Moderation by Threat that can lead to: "You're up to 48, GregorSamsa23, so be good or be gone."
I don't do threats. How our warning points system works is clearly published for all to see. When I issue a warning, I will tell the person receiving the warning how many warning points come with the warning (default is 10 points, except in the case of repeat offenders who have been warned about exactly the same behaviour previously - usually on more than one prior occasion). I also tell them how many active warning points they have. In the case of members who rack up lots of points in a short space of time and who are new to the forum, I also often point them towards our published policy, just so they are aware (or to remind them) of when the temporary bans will start, if they continue to post in the same manner that got them warned.
Scorekeeping gives the superficial sheen of objectivity without the actual substance of it. It makes moderation sound magnanimous, e.g. "we put up with this 48 times, but 50 will be a bridge too far," when the mod may really be using badboy Gregor's record as a bludgeon.
The points system we have is essentially a courtesy to members. It is a way for
you all to keep a personal tab on whether you're in line with the posting guidelines or not, and to make adjustments to how you choose to post, if necessary.
We could, of course, dispense with this system, if that's what the majority would prefer. We could jump from zero to temporary bans, with no warning points. We could issue sort of half-arsed semi-official warnings or "advice" messages to the effect of "if you keep this up, you're likely to be surprised by a temporary ban at some future date".
As for using historical warnings as a bludgeon, that doesn't happen. It's why we have a policy that makes warning points
expire, by default 6 months from the date of issue of the warning.
I think we have a fair system. But we have an
Open Government subforum. If people are in the mood for replacing the current system by something else, we can discuss it and - if there's enough enthusiasm for change - formulate and vote in a new system. Or just leave it to moderator discretion completely and dispense with warnings - just jump immediately to temporary bans if and when a moderator feels things have gone far enough to justify that.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with all this, but would rather people not pretend that mods are "emotionally neutral" or don't take personal dislikes to members.
Speaking for myself, I do personally dislike a small number of members, though I suspect it is a much smaller number than some people may think. I dislike people who develop a record of dishonesty in their postings, for instance. I dislike people who make unfair personal attacks on me, personally.
But I try not to let any personal dislikes I have influence my moderating. We have posting guidelines not just so that members know where the boundaries are. We also have them so that moderators know where the boundaries are. Punishing somebody merely because of a personal dislike is an abuse of power.
Now, astute members will have noticed that among our posting guidelines there are rules that say "Don't insult other people. Attack the argument, not the person." and "Don't tell deliberate lies." These rules, not uncoincidentally, align with some reasons I can come to dislike a person.
These rules, too,
could be changed. We could abolish the rule against
ad hominem attacks, if that's what people really want. We could abolish the rule about telling calculated, deliberate lies.
I personally don't think that abolishing those rules would result in a better experience for well-intentioned, honest members of sciforums. Abolishing them
would improve the environment for trolls, I'm sure.
