Considering full moderation

[Froderik]

:twofinger:  :notworthy: :rofl: :rocker:  :jamin:  :jamin:  :clown:  :tup:  :tup: :sue:  :roflmao:  :spam:  :blabla:  :jerry:  ::evil::  :lala:  ::unhappy::

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[psy]

How? I've been told (I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff) that it's pretty near impossible.

I'm guessing that the way the mods would choose to do this is by banning a particular IP address.  Yes, that will allow these reporobates to continue to post via proxy.  However, once they are detected, they are re-banned and all of their posts are removed.  This is a process, not an event.  But, think about it, if you had to go through all of the trouble to create a new username and post by proxy and each time you were detected all of your posts were removed, how long would you keep at it before you decided not to waste your time anymore?

Believe it or not, it can go on for months.  I agree with you that that's the proper procedure, however.

This could be easily done for the few persistent trolls we now have here and it should be done straight away.  Simply banning one troll who posts here continuously would rid the forum of some 50 or more aliases.  Let's enforce the current rules properly, re-evaluate and then decide if we actually need more rules.  My bet is that if current policy is doggedly enforced, the trolling problem will be diminished.

There are no current rules against multiple accounts or sockpuppetry.

[iamartsy]

Psy,
Are you deleting my posts? I don't understand why. iamartsy

[psy]

Psy,
Are you deleting my posts?

Nope.

[iamartsy]

Thank you. I am rusty at posting here and don't want to break the rules. I feel overall they are good, but of course you know, I hate bans. I am unclear when one would be banned. That part confused me. Please clarify. IAmArtsy

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Evil WWASP]

Hahahahahaha... oh fuck, babies and bathwater. You're shitting us, right, Psy? You've got to be shitting us. Please tell me you are shitting us.

No.  I'm not.  Ginger and I made the final decision last night.  I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight.  I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval.  Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again.  You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them?  You made us all look like lunatics.  It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it.  In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right.  You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program.  Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.  You weren't even in a program.  What do you care, other than for the drama you feed off of.  As far as I can tell you're pretty much the only person objecting to this.

I'm glad for moderation. Even its not perfect, it's an improvement.
But it would be a bad move to ban people for "outing" victims and predators. There are clearly some cases where peoples' names have been posted for no good reason, that shouldnt be allowed, but there are other times where people are merely recounting thier time in program and naming thier fellow prisoners, of starting "free so and so" style campains and movements. It's not fair to ask victims or anyone to "keep secrets."  
 
In the morgan case, regarding banning pile, you'd be banning him for what he did on other forums. Is that really you guys' place? Youre going to moderate and punish people for what they do in their private time? Not good.

Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.) And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum. That's hardly fair.
Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all general forums "opt in"

Really, there are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. Other moderation will just be iciing on the cake

[Froderik]

Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all posts other than troubled teen related forums "opt in"

There are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. That's pretty much the only moderation you need.

Two good ideas.

As far as the AA thing, maybe it could have a whole forum (instead of just one thread).

[psy]

3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.

Psy why wouldn't former/current staffers who are fornits members be afforded the same courtesy?

Because it would make telling a story about what went on in program very difficult or even impossible.  You couldn't tell a meaningful story or ask questions like "who was your seminar facilitator".  How would one survivor know whether he had the same facilitator as another.  People who choose to work in programs to some degree put themselves in the public eye.  They're in a position of authority and should be held accountable.  The kids are the victims, as are the parents in many cases.

Perhaps a decent compromise is this: no posting of *current* personal contact information or addresses for anybody without consent.  That's fair to everybody and still allows kids to provide staff names.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[psy]

I'm glad for moderation. Even its not perfect, it's an improvement.
But it would be a bad move to ban people for "outing" victims and predators. There are clearly some cases where peoples' names have been posted for no good reason, that shouldnt be allowed, but there are other times where people are merely recounting thier time in program and naming thier fellow prisoners, of starting "free so and so" style campains and movements. It's not fair to ask victims or anyone to "keep secrets."

I totally agree.  See my last post.

In the morgan case, regarding banning pile, you'd be banning him for what he did on other forums. Is that really you guys' place? Youre going to moderate and punish people for what they do in their private time? Not good.

Oh. He won't be punished retroactively for that or be banned.  If he does it again after the rules are put in place, that's a different story.  We're not going to punish people for what they post off the forum but if they link to personal identifying information from this forum i'll consider that the same as posting it on the forum itself.

[/quote]Speaking of "seeming sane," please don't put up a forum solely dedicated to AA. Reading your (you and Antigen's) thoughts on AA, it's clear you have some "far out" opinions on the matter..and if you put up a forum, that would move your thoughts on AA from your opinion realm to official fornits position-(one that the majority of cult victim/program survivors /fornits goers don;t appear to share.)[/quote]

I was considering a "drug treatment philosophies" forum instead of one naming AA specifically.  It could be a forum for AA, RR, SOS, SMART and discussion of the relative benefits and downsides.  It would also be opt-in.

And how do you think that will make the claims on this forum appear regarding brainwashing and cults? Its also insulting to victims to equate wwasp or CEDU with AA, which is what you'd be doing, kinda, if you set up its own forum.

Right, but even defenders of AA such as Danny argue that AA and the 12 step philosophy has influenced this industry.  It's going to be discussed no matter what and it would be great to have a dedicated place for it.

That's hardly fair.
Why not just ask the people who post non stop about AA to contain it to one thread? Maybe in an "opt in" way so that it doesn't appear on the new post list...maybe make all general forums "opt in"

Really, there are only two prolific trolls Suckit and Whooter, just ban them and get it over it. And when they reappear, ban them again. Other moderation will just be iciing on the cake

Only if they break the rules, and it's impossible to define trolling.  Neither will be banned if they stay within the rules.

[psy]

No addresses period without consent including phone numbers.  You damn well know why.

Unless it's a place of business.  It would be difficult to document the location of programs otherwise.  Sound like a good compromise?

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Froderik]

Neither will be banned if they stay within the rules.

Yeah I figured this would be the verdict. I'm not sure I'd want them banned anyway, it can be kinda fun to get 'em going sometimes..lol...sort of like pulling the string on a ventriloquist's dummy..