Poll: How is the special moderation on this forum working out?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Based upon Mobyseven's post in the Admin subforum:
This is mainly addressed to the mods and admin, but obviously anyone can reply if they want.

The stricter rules that are currently in place - how helpful and effective have they been? Do you think they have made a great deal of difference? Have they made the job that the mods have to do easier or harder?

From the point of view of a member who mainly frequents that particular subforum, I think they've had a largely positive effect. I find that I am thinking more before I post, checking over what I've said...all the things I should do anyway, I suppose. I know that I've certainly made an effort to conform to the stricter rules, even though I still do get caught out occasionally. Of course there will always be disagreements over the editing or moving of some posts, but overall it seems to be going quite well.

So, what is a moderator's opinion on this? Does it seem to be working from your perspective?

The poll is set up in two sections, please select one from the top and one from the bottom.

AND NO GRIPING IT'S NOT UP LET, LET ME FINISH TYPING IT! :p
'kay, it's up.

[Darat]

If Members would like to add further feedback, the Mod Team will read and consider it.

[JonnyFive]

Currently, it seems to be curbing the abusive posting fairly well. I don't think it's nearly soon enough to relax the increased moderation, but it does seem to be working well so far.

[MarkyX]

I must be really out of it. Didn't even know there was a special moderation!

Whatever you are doing, keep it up.

[Liszt]

I have had 4 posts edited/deleted today. There was nothing really bad with any of them - light hearted banter.

Too strict!

[Mobyseven]

Currently, it seems to be curbing the abusive posting fairly well. I don't think it's nearly soon enough to relax the increased moderation, but it does seem to be working well so far.

Agreed. It seems to be working, but I'm not yet confident that the change would be permanent should the moderation be relaxed just yet.

[JonnyFive]

Agreed. It seems to be working, but I'm not yet confident that the change would be permanent should the moderation be relaxed just yet.

Definitely. It's only been, what, a month since the new rules were implemented? I think if they're removed now, it'll probably just slide back to the way it was.

This is one of the sub-forums that seems to attract a lot of heated posting, along with Politics/CE. I don't spend much time in Politics, so I don't really know how CT compares to it. Basically, I'm not a mod and I've been here less than a year, so my opinion on the matter isn't exactly fully informed.

[JimBenArm]

It seems to have curtailed the abuse. Don't know if it will last once stricker moderation is removed, but it's having an effect now. But for sure, it's too soon to remove it. After another 2 weeks, maybe back off and see how it goes.
FWIW.

[Liszt]

If the rules are too tight, it becomes too subjective.

for example, I find terms like "911 deniers", "woo woo", "twoofer" and God forbid "da jooos" cheapen the skiptic movement. It is playground language, and should stay there. It is a bad attempt at an insult, and ranks negative on the humour scale. Why not ban these terms? (joking of course)

I´m not even a 911 CTist, and it gets on my nerves.

[Horatius]

My biggest concern is, I'm not always sure why some posts get moved, so I'm not sure if I should be changing my behaviours or not. Take this example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2579967#post2579967

My post was moved to AAH. I think it was because I quoted the original post which was also moved, and my post wouldn't make any sense if it was just edited, but it's also possible that the mods thought my comment was inappropriate as well.

So, maybe a bit more explanation is in order, like, "Moved all referencing posts, because the initial post was abusive, and so subsequent discussion is unneeded/unwanted/pointless", or some such thing. It doesn't have to be personalized to each poster, but I think it would help a bit in figuring things out.

ETA: And when did they start adding those little pop-ups to terms like mods? If I wanted to educate people, I'd go to a forum with "Education" in its name!

Oh, right. Carry on! ;)

[mortimer]

I think it's working well. I just worry that we are overworking our fabulous mods. It also seems that the regular debunkers tend to get away with more than do the deniers. I don't have any examples or data to back that up; it's just a general feeling I have.

[mortimer]

Also, are mods actively reading threads here, are they responding only to "reported posts", or a combination? It seems like if we did a better job of self-moderation, the mods would only need to respond to "reported posts", which might cut down on their workload. That would require that we treat each post based on it's content and not it's author when considering whether to report a post.

[jmercer]

Can we see our own files?

Well... you get a copy of any infractions incurred in your PM box, assuming you have it enabled. (Right now there's a bug just reported, so we have to manually forward the reports to you; normally it's automatically sent to you.)

And of course, you can see any moderation action (such as a mod box) in your posts, and should receive a PM that your post has been edited, or moved, etc.

However, regarding the actual reports made by people via the "Report this post" button - no. Those are archived and strictly kept within the moderators sooper sekret area to protect confidentiality. Nobody can see them but the moderators and administrators.

[Horatius]

I think it's working well. I just worry that we are overworking our fabulous mods. It also seems that the regular debunkers tend to get away with more than do the deniers. I don't have any examples or data to back that up; it's just a general feeling I have.



That may be a function of how often things get reported. There's been more than one case of a twoofer whining about mod decisions, when they themselves have never bothered to report any of the posts they claim violate the rules.

If they're not prepared to use the systems that are in place to govern this forum, that's their problem.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If the rules are too tight, it becomes too subjective.

for example, I find terms like "911 deniers", "woo woo", "twoofer" and God forbid "da jooos" cheapen the skiptic movement. It is playground language, and should stay there. It is a bad attempt at an insult, and ranks negative on the humour scale. Why not ban these terms? (joking of course)

I´m not even a 911 CTist, and it gets on my nerves.
It's quite simple, if it is directed at an individual, or group of members of the forums it is not allowed. There are a number of threads in the Forum Moderation subforum that discuss generalized things, the common example give by Lisa is
"Women are stupid", while offensive, is allowed. Whereas, "Lisa is stupid because she is a woman," is not.

[jmercer]

I have had 4 posts edited/deleted today. There was nothing really bad with any of them - light hearted banter.

Too strict!

Normally, things aren't as strict as they are in the CT sub-forum at the moment; did you read the sticky at the top?

[Mobyseven]

My biggest concern is, I'm not always sure why some posts get moved, so I'm not sure if I should be changing my behaviours or not. Take this example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2579967#post2579967

My post was moved to AAH. I think it was because I quoted the original post which was also moved, and my post wouldn't make any sense if it was just edited, but it's also possible that the mods thought my comment was inappropriate as well.

So, maybe a bit more explanation is in order, like, "Moved all referencing posts, because the initial post was abusive, and so subsequent discussion is unneeded/unwanted/pointless", or some such thing. It doesn't have to be personalized to each poster, but I think it would help a bit in figuring things out.

I get things like this occasionally:

Reason: References a civility violation, original post deleted

Which I assume means what you are talking about.

I don't always get a reason though. Most of the time it's pretty self-explanatory anyway, I guess.

I think it's working well. I just worry that we are overworking our fabulous mods. It also seems that the regular debunkers tend to get away with more than do the deniers. I don't have any examples or data to back that up; it's just a general feeling I have.

Have a read of Lisa's comment in the Forum Management thread. She seems pretty positive, and mentions that while reports are still high, they are lower than they were. She does it metaphorically though - it's a thing of beauty you should see for yourself.

[Liszt]

Normally, things aren't as strict as they are in the CT sub-forum at the moment; did you read the sticky at the top?

I did, and thanks for clearing some things up. You people do a really good job here, and I´m greatful.

I just think free discussion needs a little bit more flexiblity.

btw, some nutter voted for "stricter rules"!!

[Horatius]

I get things like this occasionally:



Which I assume means what you are talking about.

I don't always get a reason though. Most of the time it's pretty self-explanatory anyway, I guess.




HaRumph! Well, now I'll have to get all in a snit over me not getting the same personal attention that the deleted posts of the "preferred posters" get!

I'm off to start a whiny thread in Forum Management!


It's all a Conspiracy, I tells ya!!



:)

[delphi_ote]

Things got so nasty here, I essentially gave up posting or even lurking in this section. The cleaning has made worlds of difference, and it's nice to come over here and see the difference.

[William Rea]

I voted that the stricter moderation should be maintained.

I don't know if the levels of abusive posting have dropped but I'm glad that something is being done about making civil posting the norm rather than the exception. It is all too easy to get dragged down to trading insults otherwise.

[sackett]

What's cruft? Never heard the word before.

Maybe I should wiki it?

I voted for less moderation. Moderation in the defense of sanity is no virtue.

[gumboot]

I honestly haven't noticed much of a difference in the subforum...I was a bit mystified when the Mods put in tougher rules because I couldn't really understand a reason behind it.

Having said that, everything seems to be running fine with the new regulations, so no need to change it.

At least here you can discuss topics with people without every single point you make being turned into a strawman (which seems to be the norm in the Politics SubForum).

-Gumboot

[mortimer]

That may be a function of how often things get reported. There's been more than one case of a twoofer whining about mod decisions, when they themselves have never bothered to report any of the posts they claim violate the rules.

If they're not prepared to use the systems that are in place to govern this forum, that's their problem.

Thing is, it shouldn't be a case of deniers reporting debunkers, or debunkers reporting deniers. We all have a responsibility to report posts that violate forum rules, no matter who the violator is.

[jsfisher]

The tighter guidelines are working. I'm more likely to consider my posts before hitting the "Submit" button. The pessimist in me says, however, at some point the novelty of it all will wear off, and we may all fall back into chaos.

[Horatius]

Thing is, it shouldn't be a case of deniers reporting debunkers, or debunkers reporting deniers. We all have a responsibility to report posts that violate forum rules, no matter who the violator is.



That may true of blatant attacks, but far too often, the twoofers are whining about "attacks" and "flames" that are nothing of the sort. If they feel something is wrong ("woo woo is an insulting term!"), it's up to them to report it - and then live with the results.

[Totovader]

I don't know if I've been around long enough- but I believe a bit more in metaphysical justice: if conspiracists or "debunkers" really spend all their time causing disruptions and trying to harass people, they will just end up hurting their position and making themselves look bad.

That being said- I think it cuts to the chase to remove sockpuppets, flamers, and trolls- but I'm a little bothered by the idea that posts which are considered offensive or disruptive by some people get moved while others seem to stay.

In the end- however- this is the moderators responsibility, and it's their call. I think considering the daunting task at hand, they've been doing a fine job.

[rwguinn]

IT seems to be working reasonably well, although I sometimes feel the new bloods tend to get a break--but then, we treat 3-year-olds a bit differently than 8-year-olds when it comes to proper table behavior.
It is rather disheartening when they go crying to the mods because they can't tell the difference between "That's is a really stupid idea" and "You are really stupid"--and its dificult to know the rules when "whut?" repeated 3 times is considered a personal attack...

[T.A.M.]

Overall I think the new rules are working. Things are for the most part much more civil, with less escilation to ridiculous, pointless, inflammatory banter.

A couple of things I dislike:

1. The yellow warning stickers/tags. I think if infractions occur they should be dealt with through the PM system. I can imagine it is a form of using peer pressure to make one curb ones habits, but I am just not a fan of the scarlet letter (albeit yellow)...just the way I see it.

2. Splits...I can see its usefulness in some cases, when things have really taken a wild derailment, but recently it seems as though everytime someone makes a comment off the topic, it ends up in a split...ok, I exaggerate, but you get my meaning...hopefully when the rules slacken again, so will the splits.

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

That may true of blatant attacks, but far too often, the twoofers are whining about "attacks" and "flames" that are nothing of the sort. If they feel something is wrong ("woo woo is an insulting term!"), it's up to them to report it - and then live with the results.
This brings up the only nit I have to pick with this whole thing. It's small, but it's there. I tend to have a thicker skin than most with the personal attack thing. So, things that I would tend to ignore will get reported by others, especially the "twoofers" who seem to have skin made of tissue paper. So, sometimes I shake my head in amazement at what people get bent out of shape over, and consider a personal attack that needs to be reported. I've been called worse things to my face, and this is just the internet. But that's not anything major, and I recognize that's something I have to deal with, and no one else.

[Horatius]

... So, things that I would tend to ignore will get reported by others, especially the "twoofers" who seem to have skin made of tissue paper. So, sometimes I shake my head in amazement at what people get bent out of shape over, and consider a personal attack that needs to be reported.



This is another factor that bothers me. I suspect a lot of the twoofers are just pretending to be so thin skinned, as a tatic to use against us. Initially, they'll act all affronted, and report a post, in hopes that the mods will chastise their opposition. If the mods don't agree, they then turn around and start accusing the JREF of treating twoofers differently.

So either way, they have a stick to use against us, rather than addressing the real issues.


This is seen most blatantly in the "an attack on my argument is an attack on me" posters.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since the question was asked:
Cruft may also refer to useless junk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk) or excess materials (including obsolete computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer) hardware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware)) that build up over time and have no value, including things collected from rubbish bins, so "dumpster diving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving)" is also called "crufting", and things collected from rubbish bins are called crufted. cruft

[gumboot]

Has anyone noticed that since these rules came in certain new-arriving CTers have been intentionally trying to bait us?

Am I just paranoid?

-Gumboot

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Has anyone noticed that since these rules came in certain new-arriving CTers have been intentionally trying to bait us?

Am I just paranoid?

-Gumboot
Though I can't speak as to your paranoia, I would say that you are not the only person to have come to this conclusion. :cool:

[rwguinn]

Has anyone noticed that since these rules came in certain new-arriving CTers have been intentionally trying to bait us?

Am I just paranoid?

-Gumboot
It's not paranoia when everybody actually is out to get you!

[Darat]

I'm reading these comments as you post them, don't intend to enter into too much of a discussion about them as this is great feedback but one slight misconception that I think has been repeated a few times I should clear up.

The Mod Team do not judge whether a post (for example) is a personal attack based on the person making the report's judgement or feelings, our judgement is based on the Mod Team's view of it. And also you may find it quite surprising but most of the time the Mods have no idea who is on what "side" of an argument because this is such a busy section of the Forum - we just deal with the post in front of us.

Anyway back to your feedback.

Just pretend I'm not here noting down everything you say and if some Members just seem to have suddenly stopped posting - well that always happens on forums....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm reading these comments as you post them, don't intend to enter into too much of a discussion about them as this is great feedback but one slight misconception that I think has been repeated a few times I should clear up.

The Mod Team do not judge whether a post (for example) is a personal attack based on the person making the report's judgement or feelings, our judgement is based on the Mod Team's view of it. And also you may find it quite surprising but most of the time the Mods have no idea who is on what "side" of an argument because this is such a busy section of the Forum - we just deal with the post in front of us.

Anyway back to your feedback.

Just pretend I'm not here noting down everything you say and if some Members just seem to have suddenly stopped posting - well that always happens on forums....


Oh pu-lease, we know that just an urban lege....<signal lost>

[Horatius]

The Mod Team do not judge whether a post (for example) is a personal attack based on the person making the report's judgement or feelings, our judgement is based on the Mod Team's view of it. And also you may find it quite surprising but most of the time the Mods have no idea who is on what "side" of an argument because this is such a busy section of the Forum - we just deal with the post in front of us.





I didn't mean to suggest you were. I was simply pointing out that, in cases where you decide against the whiners, they just change to whining about unfair mods. How many Forum Management threads have there been this month that have done just that?

It's a result of their perception of the JREF forum as having some agenda, which the mods support, rather than being a collection of individuals, who annoy the mods equally. They are convinced that we're all conspiring together to suppress them.

Which I suppose we should have expected :)

[gumboot]

The funny thing is, when the "Truthers" come here, as far as the JREF Forum is concerned they're as much a part of the forum as us "JREFers", no more, no less.

-Gumboot

[jmercer]

I didn't mean to suggest you were. I was simply pointing out that, in cases where you decide against the whiners, they just change to whining about unfair mods. How many Forum Management threads have there been this month that have done just that?

It's a result of their perception of the JREF forum as having some agenda, which the mods support, rather than being a collection of individuals, who annoy the mods equally. They are convinced that we're all conspiring together to suppress them.

Which I suppose we should have expected :)

I agree; it's unfortunate, but some people take moderation intervention as fair only when it's in their favor. The moment they are moderated, it's evil.

When I get a complaint, though, I revisit the situation and usually ask for a second and third opinion... unless the violation is so obvious that I don't think it's worthy of troubling someone else over.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's no big deal to me. I just deal with it and determine if I'm in error or not. If I am, I apologize and fix it; if not, I explain myself and leave it at that. :)

[Brainster]

I'm in favor of the stricter moderation being maintained even though the one post of mine that was deleted did not seem excessive.

[jhunter1163]

I've always tried to keep things light, so I don't really have any complaints with the moderation. I must say, though, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have occasionally given it to the temptation to chime in when things get heated. I have a few posts in AAH... *sigh*

[T.A.M.]

I have several posts that were moved to AAH.

To my credit, though (let my own horn be tooted) almost all of them were moved there for being a REPLY or RESPONSE to an infraction/insult/flame, not itself one.

TAM:)

[Mobyseven]

Things got so nasty here, I essentially gave up posting or even lurking in this section. The cleaning has made worlds of difference, and it's nice to come over here and see the difference.

Bu...YOU STARTED IT!

No, he really did.

[jmercer]

*bump* - because I'm interested in seeing if there's any more feedback. :)

[rwguinn]

*bump* - because I'm interested in seeing if there's any more feedback. :)
See--There you go again, expecting us to,do your work for you. Get out there and Moderate!

[Slayhamlet]

I learned a nifty new word from this poll. Thanks mods!

[Architect]

For what it's worth, I think that some of us (me included) can shoot from the hip when confronted by some of the gross stupidity exhibited by the woowoos (ahem), and that this does indeed cheapen the site in contrast to (say) BAUT forum - all praise JayUtah, king of the measured and informative reply. From my own personal perspective, I tthus think that the additional moderation/scrutiny is a useful tool.

I mean, we'd never get away talking back to our superiors and colleagues in the NWO the way we do here...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I learned a nifty new word from this poll. Thanks mods!
HEY! I'm the one that chose to use "cruft" in the poll! j/k :D

[Stellafane]

I get the impression the stronger moderation in this forum has helped somewhat. I do think that some of the decision making has been a little perplexing at times. (I still can't figure out why my thread about Avery on "Am I Annoying" got moved because it "wasn't about conspiracies," as if Avery has any significance whatsoever in any other sphere.) But overall I don't have a significant problem with it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Though I completely respect the anonymity of the voters, I am quite curious as to the reasoning for the one person that voted "There is more cruft/abuse than before."

[Architect]

Do America know what "Crufts" actually is? ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do America know what "Crufts" actually is? ;)
Dog show isn't it?

[Miragememories]

Well I've had at least a dozen of my posts axed.

In some cases I could see the cause and in others I was totally baffled as to what line I crossed.

I think the stronger moderation is overall a good thing though it would be nice to know the reason why a particular post gets removed.

It's good to hear that based on all this feedback, the mods aren't picking on just the Truth Seekers while siding with the old guard.

Someone in this thread was complaining about what they felt was increased 'baiting' by new comers as a result of the stronger moderation.

I do know that terms like "troofer" are clearly intended to mock and insult the targeted members.

As I see it, this whole need for extra moderation came about as a result of the majority of members attending this forum ceasing to be a group of thoughtful individuals and instead evolving into a gang of individuals who treated the Conspiracy Forum as if they 'owned' it.

The 'gang mentality' provided a chummy comfort zone for those who shared the gang's point of view, but new arrivals who didn't think in alliance with the gang's beliefs were subjected to school yard like abuse.

As a result, some new comers left in disgust, some 'caved in' and joined the gang and others, the remaining small minority, 'stood their ground', regretfully, often behaving in similar fashion to that of the gang.

I'm a member of many forums and I've witnessed quite a variety of behavioral 'styles'. One thing I've noticed is that it's not necessary to defend your point of view through accusations of lying, arrogance, smugness, name calling, bullying and smearing of those you are in disagreement with.

There is no acceptable excuse to verbally 'slap' another member in this manner unless it's responding in self defense and the moderators are not responding to abuses.

Getting back to removed posts. It would be nice if the poster was given the opportunity to edit unacceptable posts and then re-submit for moderator approval. It's very discouraging to put a lot of effort into what appears to be a 'clean' posting, only to have it axed because of some bad phrasing or an off topic remark.

Hope my feedback is useful.

I know being a moderator can be a thankless job.

MM

[Foolmewunz]

I'm taking the minority position.

Pro-rata, I think there's as much abuse/cruft as before, but things are a little quiet in Troofer-Town right now.

I also think the standards of moderation should be relaxed. Said it before and I'll say it again.... the exchanges here are no more or less personal or abusive than what goes on in half the threads in Politics & Current Events.

I'm not asking for a moderation-free zone... I think we need to be told to shut up and chill out, occasionally. But some of the moderation is a little heavy-handed from time to time (intentionall, I'll admit).

[jmercer]

Thanks, everyone, for your feedback. I know that we (the Mod team) are reading this, and are considering everything said.

Also - since I failed to do so before - thank you, Arkan, for doing the poll. :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks, everyone, for your feedback. I know that we (the Mod team) are reading this, and are considering everything said.

Also - since I failed to do so before - thank you, Arkan, for doing the poll. :)
Thanks, but don't thank me; Mobyseven was on top of things enough to think to ask the question, I just did some legwork for 'em. :)

[Pipirr]

My unscientific perception on the state of the forum as a result of the increased moderation:

There are more dissenters (truthers, truthseekers, whatever you prefer) from the majority view;
there is more debate going on;
there are more new members coming in and sticking around.

All to the good. Makes for a more lively, interesting and I think educational forum.

[gumboot]

My unscientific perception on the state of the forum as a result of the increased moderation:

There are more dissenters (truthers, truthseekers, whatever you prefer) from the majority view;
there is more debate going on;
there are more new members coming in and sticking around.

All to the good. Makes for a more lively, interesting and I think educational forum.



I'm not sure that's entirely related...

There was quite a long period with very few people coming here to argue the conspiracy theory side of any topics (with the exception of P'Doh and his socks...).

As a result, when there was suddenly an influx of eager beavers, I think some of the "old hands" here got over zealous... like a cocaine addict with severe withdrawal who has just landed in Colombia.

I think it was actually an increase in "dissenters" that actually resulted in the moderation being toughened.

-Gumboot

[CptColumbo]

While I've preceived increases in the number of suspensions, I've also noticed a drop in the number of bans (if we exclude pdoh and his socks).

At first my worry was that this would increase the incidents of "death by mod," but the opposite seems to be occuring. Sometimes those who are suspended are coming back willing to discuss the issues. They still may not get it, but at least it's more civil.

That's my $.02.

[jmercer]

I'm not sure that's entirely related...

There was quite a long period with very few people coming here to argue the conspiracy theory side of any topics (with the exception of P'Doh and his socks...).

As a result, when there was suddenly an influx of eager beavers, I think some of the "old hands" here got over zealous... like a cocaine addict with severe withdrawal who has just landed in Colombia.

I think it was actually an increase in "dissenters" that actually resulted in the moderation being toughened.

-Gumboot
The following is me NOT speaking as a moderator. :)

Interesting perspective; I was never a frequent flyer in the CT sub-forum (in fact, I'm not sure I've ever really participated in a thread in here.) So you may very well be right.

What I do know is that this sub-forum was - and is - the most actively posted area in the JREF forum; I can also say that the number of reported violations from this area was stunning at times, and (IMO) out of proportion with the growth and number of participants here. Seems like the topic inspires passion and strong emotions among all groups who pursue it. I have no idea what categories the violators fell into - subjectively speaking, it seemed to me like it was fairly "across the board" in terms of what group the violators fell into.

Anyway, it was the volume and increasingly aggressive nature of the violations that led to the crackdown.


At first my worry was that this would increase the incidents of "death by mod," but the opposite seems to be occuring. Sometimes those who are suspended are coming back willing to discuss the issues.

Again - not as a moderator - I have to agree. Some are still insisting on violating the rules... but there are always a few like that in every sub-forum.

[gumboot]

What I do know is that this sub-forum was - and is - the most actively posted area in the JREF forum; I can also say that the number of reported violations from this area was stunning at times, and (IMO) out of proportion with the growth and number of participants here. Seems like the topic inspires passion and strong emotions among all groups who pursue it. I have no idea what categories the violators fell into - subjectively speaking, it seemed to me like it was fairly "across the board" in terms of what group the violators fell into.




I can well imagine.

Despite being a generic Conspiracy Theory subforum, the vast majority of posts here are relating to 9/11, and its a topic that does get very very emotionally charged (and often too).

Well all need to take a step back every now and then and that's exactly what the new moderating is encouraging us to do. :)

I don't necessarily think that the forum was rampant with personal attacks and outrageous behaviour, but certainly the quality of discussion was plummeting. It seems to have improved, which can only be a good thing.

I've noticed more posters are expressing frustrations etc. with humour now, instead of biting off-topic remarks and attacks on people outside the forums. That's good because it also adds entertainment value to the subforum :D.

-Gumboot

[Darth Rotor]

As I mentioned in my PM to you and chillzero, I think the policy sucks harder than a black hole.

My two cents.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Well... you get a copy of any infractions incurred in your PM box, assuming you have it enabled.
Nope.

You may wish to confer with Darat on this matter, based on the discussion he and I had recently via PM.

DR

[Darat]

DR - that problem has been fixed.

(ETA) Well OK not fixed but there is a workaround so as far as the Members are concerned it's been fixed.

[chipmunk stew]

I've noticed more posters are expressing frustrations etc. with humour now, instead of biting off-topic remarks and attacks on people outside the forums. That's good because it also adds entertainment value to the subforum :D.

-Gumboot
The Stundies threads and the comic strip thread have been great pressure release valves.

For myself, I'm much more likely anymore to send a quote to the Stundie nominations or lampoon an idea with a comic strip than to respond directly to an exasperating forum member.

[Mobyseven]

As I mentioned in my PM to you and chillzero, I think the policy sucks harder than a black hole.

...because?

Oh, and black holes don't suck.