Suspending people who don't play nice with others

Can we have some type of infraction feature added whereby people who refuse to play nice with others, can be temporarily suspended? It's sad that such a thing is needed, but there are those in life who don't seem to understand how to conduct an argument without name calling. 

If it's isolated here and there then no biggie, but it's not with one person who comes to mind. 

Wondering what you think, stryder?

Won't happen Wegsy. Flamethrower threads do occur, most don't start off that way but deteriorate eventually. It's casual discussion as advertised, no moderation. Yep, there are former perma-banned and parolees from other forums on the membership roll. I even feel a sense of camaraderie between the combatants and it's tough to differentiate between what's serious and just harmless one-upmanship. Sure, one hates to see a thread derailed by what seems to be an ongoing, never-ending dispute between opposing sides. Usually that's the signal to bow out and let them continue, and the thread becomes officially dead. Maybe those involved think people like to read their continuing verbal jousting but if you're like me, not worth the time.

There is an option, like go to another forum, no one forcing us to stick around. I go back and forth.

You are right. It's strange behavior to me. Like is this person unable to voice his opinions in his offline life, so an online forum takes on the form of a verbal punching bag?

I'm suddenly feeling empathy for the soul.

(Oct 30, 2018 10:09 PM)Leigha Wrote:  Like is this person unable to voice his opinions in his offline life, so an online forum takes on the form of a verbal punching bag:

No way of knowing. Not.worth fretting over.

Why on earth don't people simply use the forum's ignore function?
Not doing so would seem to belie that people don't want to hear from certain members.

Only weak people require some authority to do their bidding (censoring) when they don't like something. Strong people just take responsibility for their own actions and move along.
Zin is a good example of the latter. He just moves on instead of whining incessantly. BTW, I'm a member in good standing on every forum I've ever joined.

(Oct 30, 2018 09:03 PM)Leigha Wrote: Can we have some type of infraction feature added whereby people who refuse to play nice with others, can be temporarily suspended?

Yep, SciVillage itself could probably be a candidate for Zin's "Catch 22" topic. A non-moderated or barely moderated board attracts those who don't like the excessive policing of conventional forums. But drives off those who desire enforcement of netiquette. In terms of member disappearances, maybe no getting around that there would indeed be a few more regulars or infrequents here if it wasn't for the supposed Wild West atmosphere. (Though there are refereed places with far more saloon gunfire and poking at sensibilities going on in a "flying under the mod radar" context -- so go figure.)

Both newcomers and vets baffled by this place should take to heart that they really do not have to respond to a reply or comment at all, especially if the ensuing sequence of results has become timeworn predictable and thereby uninteresting / boring or unconstructive. There's no online rep to uphold here or a community-status "saving of face" to worry about on a forum that has fewer than ten regulars (i.e., not enough members for a hierarchy of castes or cliques to arise). Even if there was, the capacity to completely ignore "road-rage provocateurs" or "swerve by traffic wrecks" and just keep on cruising down Legacy Route-66 would probably earn more Thick-Skin and "Bad-Ass Nonchalance" points than repeatedly nibbling on the bait.

~

While what you're saying has merit, if you're simply having a dialogue with a person in a forum, your first intention is to continue the dialogue. One assumes that the dialogue will be a healthy exchange, not an endless barrage of attacks, that seem to have no meaning in the context of the thread. If someone quotes my post, I answer it and think that a ''normal'' exchange will ensue, even if there is disagreement, that's the point of a discussion forum. Dissenting ideas aren't bad things, in and of themselves. It's just odd that there are people who in the midst of an everyday conversation, start spewing ad homs. The ad homs mean nothing to me, I just don't think it's as simple as ignoring someone, because you don't know at first, that the conversation is going to veer off into insults and blathering. But, I do now.

Live and learn, eh?

One assumes a person interested in dialogue will actually engage with what you're saying, in a "normal" exchange, instead of ignoring anything that doesn't fit their opinions. That adults are capable of overcoming their emotional assumptions to at least look at and discuss facts. That adults can at least cite source for quotes they cite.

The problem is that Suspensions or Bans don't necessarily work.  In fact they tend to make the situation far worse.  

One of the problems on other forums was that some members were constantly temporarily banned and they would end up falling into a pattern of getting banned because they might feel they were right and who they opposed was wrong, so when a moderator steps in to arbitrate they'd end up getting flak from the temporarily banned member as there now also a badguy (conspiring to ban that one guy/girl that takes it a little too far)

This basically meant that over time a community would become more toxic as those that griped would moved to get permanent bans and then pop back up under a guise of a myriad of sockpuppet accounts to prove that banning had little or no power.  (In essence they weren't learning that their behaviour was unacceptable, but actually becoming more self-escalative.)

The truth of the matter is that in the real world, we might meet people we like and people we don't like.  we might actively avoid others while they too might well actively avoid us (usually when they owe money)  The real world can actually be far more sinister, as the darkest things that get placed as news headlines tends to make us question just how our fellow man(and woman) could be capable of such acts.  Again the problem is that those dark acts are a minority but they tarnish us from being able to potentially get along out of fear induced by our own imaginations.  (on a side note, There is no wonder as to why Stephen King writes horror.)

The reality is that it's in our nature to create a perception of who we interact with and what we do or don't hold dear about them and that can then cause us to project what we think is true.  (Fake News was more likely people voicing concerns and it being misrepresented as facts.)

As for the subject of an oligarchy method of "policing" behaviour, I considered it initially and did put some work into a system that I considered could work but the problem is that such systems can be open to abuse.

A couple of statement/quotes touch upon that:
"The unwashed masses, selling their votes."
"The failings of the bureaucracy, is the bureaucracy."
"The concept of a Utopia is as mythical as a Unicorn."

Granting users the right to a popularity contest, the skulduggery to get people to agree with a particular voting direction or the manipulate of the system to replicate votes to bolster a minority view is the exact reason why an oligarchy system for suspension won't work in the long run

(Oct 31, 2018 02:04 AM)stryder Wrote: The problem is that Suspensions or Bans don't necessarily work.  In fact they tend to make the situation far worse.  

One of the problems on other forums was that some members were constantly temporarily banned and they would end up falling into a pattern of getting banned because they might feel they were right and who they opposed was wrong, so when a moderator steps in to arbitrate they'd end up getting flak from the temporarily banned member as there now also a badguy (conspiring to ban that one guy/girl that takes it a little too far)

This basically meant that over time a community would become more toxic as those that griped would moved to get permanent bans and then pop back up under a guise of a myriad of sockpuppet accounts to prove that banning had little or no power.  (In essence they weren't learning that their behaviour was unacceptable, but actually becoming more self-escalative.)

The truth of the matter is that in the real world, we might meet people we like and people we don't like.  we might actively avoid others while they too might well actively avoid us (usually when they owe money)  The real world can actually be far more sinister, as the darkest things that get placed as news headlines tends to make us question just how our fellow man(and woman) could be capable of such acts.  Again the problem is that those dark acts are a minority but they tarnish us from being able to potentially get along out of fear induced by our own imaginations.  (on a side note, There is no wonder as to why Stephen King writes horror.)

The reality is that it's in our nature to create a perception of who we interact with and what we do or don't hold dear about them and that can then cause us to project what we think is true.  (Fake News was more likely people voicing concerns and it being misrepresented as facts.)

As for the subject of an oligarchy method of "policing" behaviour, I considered it initially and did put some work into a system that I considered could work but the problem is that such systems can be open to abuse.

A couple of statement/quotes touch upon that:
"The unwashed masses, selling their votes."
"The failings of the bureaucracy, is the bureaucracy."
"The concept of a Utopia is as mythical as a Unicorn."

Granting users the right to a popularity contest, the skulduggery to get people to agree with a particular voting direction or the manipulate of the system to replicate votes to bolster a minority view is the exact reason why an oligarchy system for suspension won't work in the long run  

Thank you. This is as much as anyone could ask for, and you didn't need to even go into such depth within your answer, but thank you. Very true, there are people we just won't click with, and that's okay. And people who spend a lot of time for whatever their reasons, behaving in ways that aren't their best selves. Can't say I'm not guilty of it, but I try to at least be respectful of persons, even if i don't respects their views. I actually forgot about this site for a while, have been busy, and returning has been more pleasant than not. 

I like what you've done with the place.