Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,443 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I've lost track of how many times we've warned about this. Apparently, not enough.

Just because someone posts something incredibly naive or just plain stupid, that person is not automatically a troll. He/she may just be incredibly naive or stupid and in need of some real information.

Accusing said poster of being a troll is not just rude - it's a violation of forum rules. Verbal warnings have not been effective so, on a single recent thread, five experienced members (who should know better) received short-term bans for playing the troll card.

One of you actually had the nerve to sign the insulting post "Dog Forums." None of you as individuals speaks for Dog Forums, though your actions (for better or worse) represent Dog Forums.

You five will probably be indignant. Others will be indignant on their behalf. Instead, you should be ashamed.

One person reported the post as being the work of a possible troll. That is the only appropriate response. The thread was reviewed and it was decided that it might be legit - however shocking.

The word "troll" had better not appear in another post anywhere on dogforums.

After this one, of course.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,443 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The rule refers to backseat moderating.

It's a kind of vigilantism that the actual moderators will not allow or tolerate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Is "t....l" mentioned in Forum rules? I wasnt sure what that was....
Will read rules later HAVE to walk dog b4 she implodes!
From the DF rules, here are the rules that apply to calling people trolls.

8. Insulting someone, no matter what the reason, will result in punitive action ranging from warnings via the infraction system up to and including a permanent ban at the discretion of the Moderators/Administration.

11. Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members note any violation of the rules and Terms of Service they are to use the report function available on the board. If no action is taken in 6 hours they are welcome to bring it to the attention of a member of the Moderator Team via PM, only do this if a moderator team member has not replied within 6 hours. Members who consistently "act" as moderators may be warned, issued infractions or banned.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,443 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hmmmm . . .

So if a moderator doesn't respond to a reported post in six hours (and a report sends an email notice to all moderators) the reporter should send pm to a moderator,which will, in turn, send an email to one moderator?

That's just silly. Who makes up these rules?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
If within 6 hours a moderator doesn't respond to a reported post then the Dog Forums Paw Signal should be activated to alert the need for help. No need to check emails, just look for the paw print in the sky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Honestly the only way it's gonna go 6 hours without a look is overnight, but since I'm often on until 2:00 AM Paific time even that is a stretch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
To be honest – at the risk of possibly looking stupid – I wouldn’t have known from reading the forum rules that speculating about someone being a t---l was against the rules. (Though I don’t know what happened, so maybe I’ve got it wrong.)

Is backseat moderating like if, instead of saying that you disagreed with a post, you said that the post was inappropriate or facetious? Or is it like if you were to say that someone shouldn’t have made a certain post at all? Or is it like when someone speculates about someone’s motives in posting being other than what they appeared? I just want to get a better understanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
Is backseat moderating like if, instead of saying that you disagreed with a post, you said that the post was inappropriate or facetious? Or is it like if you were to say that someone shouldn’t have made a certain post at all? Or is it like when someone speculates about someone’s motives in posting being other than what they appeared? I just want to get a better understanding.
Not so much about how you respond to an individual post, but more if you dictate how a member should use this forum, or what their place is in this forum.

Ex: "I love pizza more than Pit Bulls!"

An opinion: "But Pit Bulls are more lovable than pizza."

BSM: "Don't visit a dog forum if you love pizza more, you troll!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
Not so much about how you respond to an individual post, but more if you dictate how a member should use this forum, or what their place is in this forum.

Ex: "I love pizza more than Pit Bulls!"

An opinion: "But Pit Bulls are more lovable than pizza."

BSM: "Don't visit a dog forum if you love pizza more, you troll!"
Ohhhh. So it's like asserting that your ideas about forum use are the actual rules. Or how you said it, which was clearer.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,443 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I know a recent banning left me very disappointed.
It seems likely that the ban in question was a 7-day shot-across-the-bow ban.

The permanent bans wouldn't disappoint anyone except possibly the banee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
The term troll is so often over used ad nauseam. It's the new "in word" meant only to insult the intended and it's found in every forum on the net as another way to cyber bully and I'm glad to see its use curtailed here. But it seems okay for Ron to call someone that may pose a question as being "just plain stupid". Saying such is just as bad as calling someone a troll. But unfortunately it's a moderator, from what I can gather, that's saying this which makes it even worse. Even if you were thinking that why would you actually type it. I would like to think a moderator would have more finesse when speaking on behalf of a website.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top