A rare question from me.....

[ChuckFickens]

please comment on the thread I've just removed... the people involved will know which one I mean.

I do want to know, did I overstep a line in removing it, or should I have let it go on? as far as I was concerned it had turned into a slagging match against one (possibly previously banned) user.

I guess what I'm asking, is what level of moderation do "you" want to see on this site? it's obvious to me a post shouldn't be removed just because it's not popular or widely agreed with.. but when the entire thread turns into a slagging one user thread (no matter how unpopular they are) what should the mods do?.... three of us did try and defuse the situation!

[NOX]

I'm personally pretty outraged to be honest, I've been here for over 8 years and there is now no longer any point in posting on anything because so many threads end up deleted, and I believe that the thread you pulled should have definitely stayed. We don't all have to agree all of the time, we don't even have all to be nice all of the time because sometimes things are called for exceptionally- this in my opinion was one thread- and I don't think the mods 'tried to diffuse it' I think if anything users felt told off and belittled. I'm feeling very disillusioned with the site as a whole not just this ( and yes I know I'm welcome to sling my hook, and might indeed do exactly that).

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I thought you did exactly the right thing Chuck.
I don't want to see calls for people's heads. That is entirely up to the moderation team and not the users of this site. If we don't like it, we can report it.
Bringing it to every thread just looks awful.

[starone]

I didn't see the thread chuck but I think sibton has posted a thread about it and I understand from this that it was very specifically sexual. As sex is quite a normal subject on this site I can only assume that it was extremely offensive and so I would like to give you and other moderators my full support in whatever you did to stop it.

[MarkRae]

I agree. In my view, asking for a user to be suspended or banned should result in the suspension or banning of the user who did the asking.

[EcclesCake]

I think all the while the OP was contributing and batting away comments it was OK. It did seem to become a little tawdry and personal in his absence.

I am more concerned about other threads that were removed this afternoon......... I accept that the threads about removed threads were in breach of the rules but I and others are at a loss to understand why a user who clearly has issues should be suspended and have an innocuous thread removed.

The work of a moderator is generallay viewed as a black art and when you are unable to query a decision and can see no transgression of the rules it is mystifying and does not aid learning.

[joggerjayne]

He's a witch ... Burn Him !!

[ludwig]

I think you did the right thing. It was boring. There's nothing wrong with a good argument, but the argument wasn't about the topic being discussed, it had just veered off into personal bollux.

[starone]

Sorry, it wasn't sibton, it was DTCrosswordfan. Sorry sibton for taking your name in vain.

[ChuckFickens]

I'd rather not see you "sling your hock" nox.... in fact I'd recommend you be made a mod.

I pulled the thread because it was no longer about the original question but I do realise that there were other points under discussion that are relevant, Mainly about how users who make posts that are unpopular should be treated, which is why I started this thread.

[sherrardk]

Seems a bit odd that just as one thread is zapped, the person in question posts a new thread? Coincidence?

[sir.prize]

As we have 'qualified' moderators, I would have expected any 'inflamatory' comments to be identified much earlier within the thread; particularly when the OP had an expletive starred out. After all, the thread did run for 36 hours.

Also, the person you refer to as 'one user' had six threads running simultaneously (three I might add duplicating the re Ian Tomlinson/PC Harwood story). In each of those threads he was baiting users and yes they were clearly hitting back; perhaps bending Site Rules - perhaps not.

That has been the criteria of AnswerBank from day one. But on this occasion it seems some users felt they were being let down by the Mods standing back and allowing it to degenerate into a 'slagging match''.

Best it was eventually removed. But it doesn't bode well for the remaining threads by that individual - especially if he returns to comment in the same vein. Also, let's see what the Editor decides. He is the one who matters.

Thanks Chuck.

[hc4361]

I didn't see the thread, but as a whole I ignore threads I don't like but I do enjoy a healthy debate where I can put my opinions across and read the views of others.

I hate bullying, especially if the subject has no way of responding because they are suspended or off line.
If a particular user is chasing another among different threads to be abusive, that user should be suspended/banned. This is no place for personal vendettas.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I saw 4 threads where the user in question only responded to direct attack, at which point he was descended upon.
It was like a lynch mob and it wasn't pretty. I stand by what I said. It was the right decision and as long as the moderation is left to the moderators I'm happy with the status quo.

[sunny-dave]

I was in the pub - so have no idea about the specific issue under discussion.

But ... I do have a long standing grouse that all moderators should be identified (as I am on other sites where I am a mod) and that all OPs should be informed as to exactly who pulled a thread and why.

< I'm aware that the two 'visible' mods (chuck & B00) tend to do this - and I think they are more effective than the hidden mods for this reason >

[ChuckFickens]

"qualified' moderators"

LOL.... just in case you didn't know, we got picked as mods and have had no instructions or guidelines at all, we basically make it up ourselves... I don't consider myself qualified at all, but I do hope I'm generally level headed enough to make a reasonable job of it.

[DTCwordfan]

to be a pedant, starbuck, it was sir-prize who saw this and raised it in my parallel test thread to this one.

Unless Chuck confirms otherwise, it strikes me that only Ed sees the reports and, if that is the case, the Mods are operating in the black and can not see our objections, any intervention becomes "sporadic" (not the right term but hey ho) - therein lies a potential solution to the situation here....

A number of us have admitted to reporting the offending OP (and MR - not asking for suspension - I read that as a bit of fuel throwing on your part). If the action time is so delayed until Ed is on, why is the report button even there?

[NOX]

Thanks chuck,I mod on a political forum elsewhere so I know how difficult modding can be and I do get your point regarding slanging matches but several people appear to have reported things which haven't been acted upon or if they have because of the way the site is run they are unaware ( no-one is ever fed back to- such as 'Looked into your report and found nothing actionable' or whatever- that'd do but people are left feeling as though they are either being ignored or maybe no-one got their report because of a glitch.

[THECORBYLOON]

I don't think it was about an unpopular person, it was the fact that he had denied being Paraffin. Had he not done so, I'd have let it go. I presented some evidence and then some of us are called bullies. A mod says she thinks Kerosene is someone else yet had it not been for us, she would not have known. A case of shooting the messenger it seems.

[ChuckFickens]

To make it clear...

Us mods do not see reports, only the ED see's them and he can't be on duty 24/7... so reporting a question or answer won't prompt any action on it until the Ed looks at his mailbox and sees it..... as a mod all we can act on is posts we happen to stumble upon during our normal use of the site.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

If you see another user that you suspect is a banned user...report it. Don't rant about it in a public thread. How hard can this be?