Another 'Gem' from Greg - just released.

[Snautzer01]

Which problem though? Trolling or difference of opinion? Trolling is easy to spot and should be moderated. The well structured discussion of facts and answering questions are good things, completely different to trolling.

Eng

Eng if planesandships is a troll he isnt a very good one. There were here before that were much better at it. Beside that i like to read the fact filled replies of the members.
So no worries. If he steps over bounderies or just get plain boring i have no doubt he will get sent to troll jail.

 

[Engineman]

Differentiating between a person who is really trolling vs. a person who comes here with already developed opinions that are not super-aligned with what other forum members say is in many cases a subjective matter. It is not beyond the established members of this forum to make snarky comments, either.

Being trigger-happy might be the modus operandi at Greg's channel, and hopefully not here.

I don't agree. I propose that Trolling is bad for the Forum and should be, at the very least, recognised and controlled where needed, you don't seem to support that. As for now implying twice that I advocate a "triggerhappy" censorship of postings.. where did that come from?
In case of confusion, I am suggesting that moderation of trolling should be the job of "Moderators".

Eng

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Come on Mods! This is at least the third Troll that has spoiled this forum in the last year. You need a better perception of how these muckspreading posters operate. I suggest that trolling is obvious in the style and Moderators should act more decisively. IMO, Moderating is an active task, or it should otherwise be called Observing.

Eng

What? Really? You want debate, but only debate that agrees with your view point? Like watching your news channel of choice thats only telling you what you want to hear?

At no point were forum rules broken that warrant a banning.

The point of a discussion forum is the active exchange and discussion of view points. Both in agreement and disagreement, as long as it remains civil.

 

[Peter Gunn]

This is what I and Bill and others are trying to get at with Greg.

Yeah, see my post #45. I won't give that creep any views for his YT crap.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not going to ban him or delete his post just because his opinion is different to others.

Well said.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes, but it's not a matter of different opinions. Your comment here seems to fly in the face of all the reasoned and factual contributions from other knowledgeable members when trolling behaviour occurs. The problem with trolls is that they may present Pseudo-arguments, often with passive-aggressive responses to discussion, lack of factual information and sometimes whacky statements, all designed to undermine the site. Another troll tactic is to totally ignore a reasoned reply that someone has presented correctly and then flit-off onto other aspects with opinions but few facts or constructive discussion.
I am disappointed that this Forum seems unable to control trolling behaviour, unchecked trolling is a very negative force. Yet again, this site seems unable to control it.

Eng

Would you like to do better? I'll stand down and hand my job over to you, since we are doing such a terrible job here…

 

[Peter Gunn]

Would you like to do better? I'll stand down and hand my job over to you, since we are doing such a terrible job here…

You do suck at it...









You know I'm kidding right?

 

[rochie]

i'd add, that if we just ban anybody who doesn't agree with our narrative, then wont be just like this Greg bloke ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't agree. I propose that Trolling is bad for the Forum and should be, at the very least, recognised and controlled where needed, you don't seem to support that. As for now implying twice that I advocate a "triggerhappy" censorship of postings.. where did that come from?
In case of confusion, I am suggesting that moderation of trolling should be the job of "Moderators".

Eng

You are advocating just that. That we remove him because of his "trolling."

His posts are spurning interesting discussion and replies.

If his posts start breaking forum rules, he will be dealt with. I'm sorry that it does not make your stamp of approval.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

i'd add, that if we just ban anybody who doesn't agree with our narrative, then wont be just like this Greg bloke ?

Ding, ding, ding…

 

[Engineman]

So, some sort of bandwagon rolling here about "Banning". Who mentioned that? Who mentioned not allowing differences of opinion?

Eng

 

[rochie]

So, some sort of bandwagon rolling here about "Banning". Who mentioned that? Who mentioned not allowing differences of opinion?

Eng

if he is a troll as you suggest, then why would we not ban him ?

what would you have us do with planesandships and his posts ?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, some sort of bandwagon rolling here about "Banning". Who mentioned that? Who mentioned not allowing differences of opinion?

Eng

What would you suggest to control this trolling problem if not banning? Be specific.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So, some sort of bandwagon rolling here about "Banning". Who mentioned that? Who mentioned not allowing differences of opinion?

Eng

You did. You are telling us to moderate him. How do you propose we go about moderating someone's different opinion/views that are contrary to yours, when they have not broken any of the forum rules as of yet?

Banning or censoring is literally the only options.

I'm sorry that we disappoint you so much.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There are literally four things that will get a post deleted or a poster banned per the forum rules…

1. Rude, uncivil posts including those with blatant insults
2. Politics (and you know what kind)
3. Offtopic trolling that has zilch to do with the discussion, especially when it includes number one above.
4. Spamming

 

[WARSPITER]

Consistency is the key here. There are other threads with bomber mafia and P47 drop tanks / range problems / memos
re drop tanks. The replies have always been consistent with actual information presented.

What a poster who contends or believes someone else's conspiracy theories or whatever makes of the replies is up to
them.

As the saying goes, facts don't care about our feelings. I see facts presented in each case and if someone puts their
feelings in front of that there is nothing members or moderators can do about that.

 

[Engineman]

You did. You are telling us to moderate him. How do you propose we go about moderating someone's different opinion/views that are contrary to yours, when they have not broken any of the forum rules as of yet?

I'm sorry that we disappoint you so much.

Moderation of trolling type posts does not have to mean banning anyone straight-off, that would be the unusual extreme action for outright abuse of anyone or the Forum rules.
Trolling usually starts with far less extreme and even gentle posts that develop. It is possible to recognise the development and give on-thread comment and/or PM as appropriate.
Depending on the posts, it may well be appropriate to edit parts of posts and notify the poster as required whilst leaving the majority of the post. This work is obviously labour intensive but, it is only required where bad intention is recognised, and it can stop unpleasant or low standard posting. Certainly, on another forum, this method of moderation produces a high standard of postings and unpleasant confrontations are rapidly resolved, often with continuation of a satisfactory exchange on the thread.
So, my point is that moderation should start as soon as the unpleasant aspects of possible trolling are seen, with notice to the appropriate poster. In my experience, early correction has positive results.

Eng

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Moderation of trolling type posts does not have to mean banning anyone straight-off, that would be the unusual extreme action for outright abuse of anyone or the Forum rules.
Trolling usually starts with far less extreme and even gentle posts that develop. It is possible to recognise the development and give on-thread comment and/or PM as appropriate.
Depending on the posts, it may well be appropriate to edit parts of posts and notify the poster as required whilst leaving the majority of the post. This work is obviously labour intensive but, it is only required where bad intention is recognised, and it can stop unpleasant or low standard posting. Certainly, on another forum, this method of moderation produces a high standard of postings and unpleasant confrontations are rapidly resolved, often with continuation of a satisfactory exchange on the thread.
So, my point is that moderation should start as soon as the unpleasant aspects of possible trolling are seen, with notice to the appropriate poster. In my experience, early correction has positive results.

Eng

Sorry, I disagree. Just because you disagree with his views or posts does not mean he is actively trolling. When and if, we feel it becomes that, we will take the appropriate action.

I'm sorry that we disappoint you so much.

 

[GrauGeist]

If a poster is a troll by being persistent with their point of view in a thread, even though facts are being presented to the contrary, then the Mods are being trolled about moderating!

 

[Engineman]

Again, I emphasise that it is not the moderation of someones opinions, thoughts or convictions that need moderating as such, it is the way that they reply or respond to other well-behaved forum members that is the crux. When a member has presented a detailed fact-based and reasonable response to a thread, they should receive a similar response. I can see how some posters, especially the knowledgeable members, can have their good posts ignored or misrepresented by aggressive posters. TBH, I feel that some are not strongly supported here, and the proof is that I see little evidence of moderation, despite the work that the mods do.

Eng