My Fellow Deletees and The Cyberbullied Sisters

BarbaraA

Darlene, I put the moron in oxymoron.

BarbaraA

Yes, E, I believe the salt is for slugs. Slugs, leeches, same ole same ole.

ADK

I have to say looking at the member list is very informative - that's how I knew about the third Lizard before she struck.  I saw some others on there that are pretty suspect within the first two pages.  Edited because I can't seem to type today.

1Athena1

Wrote a long post, then did something and it disappeared....grrr...

I would like to add my voice to many of the ideas already expressed by others. So, borrowing some ideas, stealing others and using some of my own, here is what I would suggest:

We keep the "report this post" button, but make it a privilege and not a right. Only people with fifty or more posts can use it.

You can report a post for the following reasons:

REASON NUMBER ONE: The post in question is spam/solicitation for services or an advertisement

If you check this box, your name appears as a reporter. Five reports and that post is gone. Two or three or more of such posts from the same person, and that account is automatically banned for life.

REASON NUMBER TWO: The post in question was abusive/harassing

If you check this box, the names of the people making the report appear. Five or more of these reports, and that post is removed. IF that poster is a newbie, a removal can lead to an automatic banning or posting restriction. If that poster is NOT a newbie, an alert is sent to the moderators and Melissa or someone else decides any further action to take, which could include a ban or a restriction.

REASON NUMBER THREE: The post in question violates the legal or privacy rights of others and may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

Not sure how to phrase is, but this would be more serious. A post worthy of being reported for this reason would have posted someone's picture or phone number, would have engaged in criminal solicitation, cyberstalking or would have contained statements that could be construed as libelous (meaning, it may not actually be libel - the reporter doesn't have to show that, but it may be actionable). We have had a few of these in the past few days.

Consequence: The reporters' names appear. Two or more reports bans the post and the person immediately. Melissa receives an alert can can overturn the ban but may not reinstate the post.

REASON NUMBER FOUR: I will call this the troll complaint, or the Brussels Sprouts defense. This person has not violated any rules but has just posted something showing a pattern of constantly annoying or being mean or cruel to others.

Consequence: The reporters do NOT have their names revealed. Melissa gets an alert only if five or more of this person's posts are reported. Melissa can then take a look at the posts, see who has reported than and decide whether the complaint is legitimate. She has several avenues, but they must be clearly spelled out in the rules section: She can decide to ignore it as unworthy of further follow-up, send the person a discreet 'cease and desist' e-mail, she can erase the post herself (which she already does) with no further comment, or she can even impose posting restrictions or bans if she feels the person deserves it. This probably happens already, but incorporating guidelines for this in the "report this post" function lets everyone know how this works.

Penalties for misusing a report this post button:

I am not sure exactly what to do here. I would only suggest a few general guidelines:

---Anyone caught repeatedly flagging reports for the wrong reason should be penalized. You can't just get together with your friends or fellow accounts and decide to report as spam the posts of someone you don't like so that you can get them banned, for example. In fact, malicious reporting and deliberately saying something is span could be subject to permanent banning. That is why, every time a post is reported, the reason for the report should be published in addition to the name (unless it is reason number four).

A final rule on "report this post": Names should only appear if enough people have reported a post to cause a deletion.

I also want to add my voice against any sort of "like" button or "thumbs up" function. I hope BCO still requires people to write proper English and communicate complex thoughts. Let Facebook be Facebook and BCO be BCO. More to the point, though, I am afraid it can lead to cliques, popularity contests and mob rule. If people have something to say, the default should be what appears in the dictionary.

Enjoyful

Oh my, Athena, so many posts are annoying to me, but then I'm an irritable person.  I might have my Report button taken away the first day!

1Athena1

E - I'm with you in a personal sense - believe me!!

Moderators

Thanks for the suggestions!

We're listening!

Medigal

Athena:  Your suggestions sound great but won't that mean Melissa will have to spend a lot of time checking and reading all the stuff.  My question is:  Will she?? 

E:  When did you become an irritable person?  Is it because I want the guy in your photo.?  I'll give him back to you as long as you send me his grandfather.  Now don't be irritable!  Be happy and cheer yourself up by playing "This Little Piggie Went to Market" on your toes like I do.  Such fun!  If you don't remember the words for all five toes, just ask any of the elderly people in the group.  Not me!  I am only 35 in spirit!

BarbaraA

Thanks, Mods. E, if you object to a post and state why (because it should be required), then who cares if you are irritable? You would only report a post if it violated the rules so no problem.

Athena, I am with you on the like, nolike stuff. Bad idea.

IHOP

I have a concern with rule #4.  I feel this can be a subjective thing.  To be fair the rules should be as 'objective' as possible.  Either it violates a rule or it doesn't.  The 'troll' rule could be open to interpretation on any given day depending on whether:

a) Your car didn't start, the dog got out of the yard ensuing a 30 minute chase through the neighborhood, when the car finally did start, you got a flat on the way to work where you are already 30 minutes late for a meeting because of the silly dog and your day just goes to heck in a handbasket from there and the final straw is an insensitive but completely legal post from someone you really don't like in the first place.

b) You feel, rightly or wrongly, that someone is following you on the board posting contradictory posts to everything you say but maybe in reality you both just have the same interest although different viewpoints.  I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate stalkers.

I think the stalking issues should be outside the bounds of the spam tool.  Either a post violates the BCO rules or it doesn't. 

And another thing, remember that any new criteria can just as easily be manipulated by the trolls just like the spam tool is now.  So, while you and your thread friends may report the troll for trollish behavior, they (the trolls) can still use that tool agains the rest of us just like they do the spam tool now. 

As far as I can see, this is just a new tool in the arsenal to assault one another and be abused.

I hope I'm not offending anyone.  I just think you have to realize any new rule/tool will be available to the trolls.  Even those considered legitimate member trolls. 

What happens when two friends get into a spat (it happens) and decide that each other is now a troll?  See, this is a 'subjective' rule based on how you feel or perceive the situation.  Removing a post based on specific rules violations takes that subjectiveness away

1Athena1

Darlene,

You describe the perennial problem of any kind of "law" enforcement. There will always be ways around the rules. Always. The objective shouldn't be to eliminate the problem but to reduce it.

But remember: reason number four is quiet but there for a reason. Some posters here do have a habit of constantly berating or annoying others. However, by raising the bar considerably for what constitutes a true offense, we can ensure that there is fairness. In my rule number four, for example, Melissa would only be alerted if five different accounts reported five different posts. That could be 25 people or more. Remember that newbies couldn't report, so a malicious person couldn't just create bogus accounts in a few minutes and report away.

Also, these automatic features are hardly the full answer to moderating a place of this size. More personnel is needed, and that is why we should have a fund for this. There should be a human being on call 24/7, especially in a forum that attracts people from all over the world.

Additionally, from reading Melissa's posts, I gather that she sometimes has to wrestle with the system. She sometimes has difficulty banning/unbanning or generally overriding the automatic features because she appears to run into technical problems. They is why we need more techies/better programming language, etc...

A final suggestions, for when we are rolling in cash: in addition to 24/7 moderation, the technology should give moderators "on" and "of" switch options in general. I compare the "report this post" function to a car engine that is always on. If an adult gets in and drives it, that is fine. But if that engine is left running on Friday night and 11:30 pm with no moderators present, four-year-olds tend to get in, drive, and cause mega-crashes.

River_Rat

I agree with DarleneD that the rules should be as objective and clearly stated as possible.

pip57

I agree with Darlene and Riverrat.  We should ignore obvious baiting.  And often one may interpret a post as baiting when it is not intended to be.   

Wabbit

I have to agree that #4 would likely just open another can of worms.  I think we can handle those by direct response or the Ignore option.  There is always the option to contact Melissa by PM if somebody is showing a pattern of stalking and/or harassing.

Much as I would sometimes like to have a 'like' button when I agree with ... or get a good laugh out of  ... a post there is a whole nother can of worms waiting to erupt from that too.  A thumbs down strikes me as parallel to flinging a lit match into a can of gasoline.

And Darlene is right - anything subjective can be abused and we will end up right back where we started.   

pip57

I can just imagine the thumbs down being applied quite 'liberally'. 

Beesie

I am of the belief that what people say in their posts says more about them than what anyone else could say.  That's the reason behind my second suggestion, "Not allowing the posts of legitimate members of the board (let's say someone with 50 posts or more) to be deleted."  (If it's 100 posts rather than 50, that's fine too.)

My rationale is that if a legitimate member here is stalking or harassing someone else, let's let everyone see that and know that.  If a legitimate member here posts something that is abusive or insulting or offensive, let's let everyone see that and know that.  The best way to "out" those who misbehave is not by erasing their words, but by not erasing their words. If someone continues to stalk or harass or insult or offend, let the evidence stand and bring it to the attention of the Moderators.  Let Melissa decide how to handle the situation.  There is only one reason that I can see why a legitimate member's post should be deleted and that is if they post personal or identifying information about someone else.  That could happen - and I believe it has happened in the past - but let's be honest here, that's not what the recent problems have been about.  And usually if someone does post something that violates the privacy of another individual, it only takes a few people telling them so to get them to change the post.  I've seen that happen even in the middle of the worst of the battles.  So to me, that's not a major concern.  And that's why I think it would be great if the board simply did not allow the deletion of any posts from legitimate members.  I don't see any reason why posts - except from spammers - should be deleted.

This would solve the problem of all the mass deletions, and it would make it clear to everyone who the trouble-makers are.  

Wabbit

Lead us not into temptation ...

ADK

Just want to make sure I interpreted this right - under rule 4, the post does not get automatically removed - correct?  An alert is sent to the mods to ask them to look at it and determine what to do about it - right?  If that's the case, basically what you are suggesting is that instead of having to weed through all the posts after the fact, they would be given a heads up at the time of the posting.  Would this work for the Mods? This is a question for the Mods - considering all the stuff that went down over the last couple of days - would it actually help the Mods do their job more efficiently? 

ananda8

I have been a volunteer Moderator on an international forum with about 90,000 members.  We had 15 moderators who were assigned to watch specific topics but could handle problems where ever they saw them.  They read the Report Posts and deleted the ones that violated the rules.  Members could only report posts; it took a moderator to delete one.  Only the senior Moderators, there were 4, could put a member on probation or ban. 

Since the moderators were all in different time zones, there were always at least two or three watching the board at all times.  All these extra moderators were volunteers so there was no extra costs.  The volunteers were selected by the senior Moderators.  Most of us served for a year and spent our time scrubbing spambots off the board and handling minor scuffles between members.

Once everyone knows there are timely consequences for bad behavior, the amount of such behavior drops off dramatically.

Wabbit

Beesie ... I understand what you are saying. 

But some people are not that thick skinned and being insulted can literally drive them away from the board in tears.  And those are exactly the people that bullies tend to go after. 

In this group we all know each other so letting it sit there may be fine.

But other places - and especially with new people - it can be extremely hurtful to be attacked and then have it sit there for everybody to see.  I think we need to be held to a standard of behavior that does not allow that.  We are adults and this is a 'support' board. 

1Athena1

I agree that we should ignore obvious baiting. Some of these rules or options should be arcane or rarely used.

For that matter, the ignore feature is a wonderful mood preserver, and I would love it if there was even an "Ignore thread" option.

And nothing replaces common sense or basic decency, or acceptable behavior, etc.... This means also ignoring baiting behavior.

That is why I only suggest that it be added with very strict rules - imagine having 25 people report your posts, all being people who have posted at least 50 times? You really and truly have to be a pain in the rear to annoy that many people. 

Maybe we can add another limitation to number four: Those five posts or more reported for option number four would have to have been posted within the same 24 hour period. We don't want people ensnared who have posted on BCO for a long time being singled out for posts that were a year apart, for example.

There are very, very few people who are that trollish and annoying to so many people, believe me. But we need to have the option, because these types are also extremely cunning and intelligent and know how to stay just within certain other bounds.

In fact, I can think of only one poster that I think would easily get reported under option four, and that person has caused havoc in some corners of this BCO earth. Only one, and I do explore different BCO threads with some frequency.

Beesie

WhiteRabbit,

I understand what you are saying especially with regard to newbies, but what I've found is that if a newbie is attacked, people jump in quickly to call out the person who did the attacking.  So the newbie at least doesn't feel all alone and is supported if she feels that she was unfairly attacked. Usually enough people (including the newbie) see the posts before they get deleted that starts a long back and forth discussion (the annabanana case being the most recent example). I think that deleting the offending posts just causes confusion and possibly makes the discussions and debates go on longer.

I've been attacked more than a few times and quite often, others come in to defend me before I even have a chance to see the post. That's means a lot to me - I appreciate so much having that support (I would have left the board long ago without it). However when I'm attacked I do want to see the post - and sometimes it's been deleted before I can. I want the words to stand. The more people who see the words of an attacker, the less support that individual will have over time.

I've also been criticized for being too harsh in some of my posts (I do tend to be blunt at times and I occasionally voice my frustrations at people and attitudes). I honestly want to know if I say something that is out of line or goes to far.  So I want my words to stand too, even when I'm being criticized for them. The reaction I get tells me a lot. More often than not I get as many or more people defending & supporting what I said (either publicly or in PMs) than criticizing me. When that happens, I know that I said something that maybe needed to be said. But if the criticism is strong and the support is small, then I humbly apologize and gladly edit my words. It's a learning experience for me and every experience I have like that helps me as I continue to post on this board.

As for the nastiness that takes place in the "social" discussion threads, I figure that anyone who enters those discussions enters at their own risk. If someone's skin is too thin to take the heat, they shouldn't be playing so near the fire. Maybe that should be posted at the top of those forums.  "ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK"   or "WARNING - FIRE DANGER!" 

1Athena1

Beesie, I agree with you only in a rational world. The idea of showing someone up by letting their words stand only makes sense if you assume that everyone has the same values and the same sense of shame. Obviously, people do not. The Lizard, and others who will remain unnamed never cared. Also, most humans, IMO, are not rational, and BC patients on chemo and hormone therapy are arguably on the bottom rung of rational. While we cannot police values or common sense, we cannot assume that everybody can tell black from white through words.

We are also people of different backgrounds and different ways of understanding things, so what someone may take as so ridiculous that it need not be taken seriously another could take at face value and act on.

I also believe one has a certain responsibility to protect possible future victims. Let's say that a burglar enters your house. You wake up and catch him in the act and chase him away with a stick, scaring the living daylights out of him, as in the cartoons. No one is hurt, and nothing is stolen. Do you go to the police? I believe you should, because that robber that you so easily intimidated may well return and cause your more subdued neighbor much more harm.

We also, as the rabbit says, have to protect the vulnerable and the easily hurt. Additionally, libelous information or threats create an intimidating atmosphere. They have hurt one of our dear members, and she is no wimp.

Notself's description sounds like something we should have here. There should be multiple, 24/7 moderators.

Medigal

Notself:  Are you stating you expect to get certain member volunteers to stay up all night to monitor this thread?  That would take several people staying on here all day and night.  Who stays up after midnight to be on the computer?    I noticed a lot of our members state they are signing off around midnight so who stays up after then to monitor??  I can't see any of the paid mods doing this after midnight much less volunteer members.  Do our members even post after midnight???  One never knows tho.  Just curious.

Wabbit

I just went and read the Rules of Conduct that have always been on this site.  There are 10 rules and I think they are very well written.  If somebody reports a post they could be required to check a box showing which rule was violated. 

I really do think requiring that - showing the reporter's board names - and restricting access to the Report button to established members will solve almost all of the problems we have been having.

Medigal

WhiteRabbit:  Since we already have those rules why didn't Melissa follow them? Maybe she has but by the way some of us in the past were deleted or banned, it would seem the Rules of Conduct we already have were not being adhered to.  I think your suggestions about showing the reporter's board names and restricting access to the Report button to established members will most certainly help solve most of the problems we have been having.  It does no good to have Rules if they are not used in the way they are written.  We can come up with pages of ways to help but if the ones selected are not followed by the Mods, we will be back in the same sinking boat.

crazy4carrots

Let's be realistic:  the only way to make things work is to apply the simplest solutions -- otherwise we (or those behind us) will be having the same discussion 3, 6, 9  months from now.

As Rabbit suggests -- show the Report this Post button pusher's name automatically (as in: This post has been reported by ______, _______, ______, ______, and ______), and restrict access to members who have been on the Board for either 100 posts or 6 months.  After all, if new members are restricted to 5 posts per day, why should they be allowed to report posts?

As for "oldies" reporting posts out of malice, that's a situation that should be investigated by the moderator, with input from the deleters and the deletee.

And I do agree with Beesie -- let the reported posts stand -- at least until the Moderator has an opportunity to deal with them.

ananda8

Medigal,

If no member has the ability to delete a thread then the only mischief that trouble makers can get into is breaking the rules.  This will be picked up the following morning if it is not picked up in real time.  Like many on this board, I have trouble sleeping and I can tell you there is not much activity on this board after 12:00pm East Coast time.

It just won't be a problem.

Bren-2007

I really like Linda's suggestion.   Think it could really work and I hope Melissa was able to read it.

Bren

1Athena1

3 hours ago
ADK wrote:
Just want to make sure I interpreted this right - under rule 4, the post does not get automatically removed - correct? An alert is sent to the mods to ask them to look at it and determine what to do about it - right? If that's the case, basically what you are suggesting is that instead of having to weed through all the posts after the fact, they would be given a heads up at the time of the posting. Would this work for the Mods?

ADK: I'm sorry, I didn't see your post before. Sorry for not answering.

YES - rule number 4 is intended for egregious cases. Melissa - and even if she had an army of moderators behind her -- can't be expected to weed through every single post, so ONE solution is to create an alert system for her that only flags extreme cases. I suggested rule number four of the "report this post" function because I believe that in a very few cases it is handly. In practice, the vast majority of the time you will have posts reported for rule number 4 reasons ("The Brussels Sprouts Defense" ) and Melissa won't even be the wiser, nor should she.

Let's say, ADK, that you annoyed the pants off of me (which you don't, BTW - not at all - lol!) and that I was a little cheerleader with an infantile grudge and got together with two fellow idiots and reported every single one of your posts "just 'cause" - claiming that they were annoying and disruptive. The system would never waste its time alerting Melissa. Nothing would happen.

It would be necessary for a person to really make her mark in order for others to decide that she was causing havoc intentionally.

BUT rule number four should not be overemphasized because it isn't what has been going on these past few days. Rule number three is, as is the abuse of interpreting rule number 2, and that has been plaguing Blue's thread for weeks, as well as the threads that preceded it.

Lindasa: I think letting reported posts stand might work well for some cases, but not others. We do want to get rid of spam, and letting spam stand would be annoying and it would invite shoppers and other spammers. Rule numbers three posts - potentially actionable ones, should never be allowed to stand, and the Lizard posts were deleted not a second too soon, IMO. Rule number two posts.....it may be an option.

If you read my suggestions a few pages back, I agree that the reporters should appear in three out of four cases that I outline.  

Whatever system replaces the currrent one must have a salient quality: It must respond not merely to a crisis but be flexible and durable to deal with many situations. I am not familiar with how the "report this post" button came to be. From accounts by some of you "oldies" I gather that it was because the site was being flooded with spam and also because there was a very hurtful post accusing someone of not being a BC patient that was left hanging there all weekend. Thus, the "report this post" feature was born. Like all ideas conceived of in crises, it has worked marvellously to combat what it was intended to erase: spam and out-of-this-world inapporpriate posts. But it has created almost as many problems as it intended to solve.

And so whatever mechanism we come up with must be measured and not merely in knee-jerk response to "crisis."

Hopefully, this fundraising thread (yes, it's in the fundraising section - don't forget -lol!) willl help to deliver the monies to set up a system for all seasons.  The "report this post" tool is only one of many options.  

Another superb moderating tool that may cost lots of money (I don't know - this lies way outside of my knowledge base) is the ability to spot ISPs. I, for one, want BCO's masthead to begin to take us posters/constituents more seriously. Our big mouths and active minds bring people to this site, and we want to feel as safe as we can.