Trolls

[Yowe]

On chat forums it is possible to "ignore" posters. On Skype one is able to 'Block" contacts. Would it be possible to add such facilities to these pages so that we can be our own censors?

I think that sounds like a good idea Claudius. More fair that way. Also, is it not common sense to simply ignore someone who you feel is trying to bait you rather than keep on answering their posts and fuelling the fire?

[McFly]

Also, is it not common sense to simply ignore someone who you feel is trying to bait you rather than keep on answering their posts and fuelling the fire?

 

Yes it is Yowe.

 

There's no point adding fuel to the fire.

[peeriesooky]

by its very definition is forum no a place or medium for public discussion? so is du no likely to git a conflict o views? jist a thought. seems a bit harsh to ban folk jist for no agreeing wi de. hooever, if du bans wan fir sumthing, du surely hae t ban ithers guilty o da sam thing

[McFly]

While Shetlink values the contribution of all our members, the posts from segatrix are almost always confrontational and antagonistic. Through investigation it has also become clear that hbgb, segatrix and spankybear are highly likely to be the same person. The actions of a troll.

 

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonise the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.

 

We can't be sure that this user intended their actions to have this effect, but this is the effect they are having nonetheless. This is a great shame, as any valid points the user may have had are lost in the resulting uproar.

 

The Shetlink team cannot allow this to happen on what is fast becoming a vital communication tool for the Shetland community at home and abroad.

 

It is with great regret that we announce that Shetlink has exercised its right and this user has now been blocked from using the forum board. This decision is final.

 

Nobody has been banned for their views.

 

And nobody else on Shetlink is guilty of the abuses noted above, so there's no need (and hopefully never will be ) to ban anyone else.

[Twerto]

with a name liek hbgb he/she is probably a chinese farmer too

[peeriesooky]

at da risk o receiving the admin wrath i actually ken dat dey were diffrnt folk jist hae da sam pc deyre me cussins tho i hope dat i get viewed on me own merits

[McFly]

You're not at any risk of receiving moderator wrath, Peeriesookie, because you're not being aggressive or insulting.

 

Carry on, you're doing just fine

[peeriesooky]

YAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!

[jz]

Oh my god segatrix .. I am so tired of this sprootle.

(Emphasis added)

 

Who was being "aggressive or insulting"?

[JustMe]

There has to be some grounds for having a 2nd identity on Shetlink. To use J.A. Stewart as an example he posts on this forum as himself and as another example I have said things that could easily let someone determined to discover my real identity.

 

That said there could come a time when we might want want to say something so controversial.....deport Sakachi would be the sort of thing....and wanted to post under another name.

 

(BTW I do not want to see Sakachi deported......perhaps the home office deported instead.)

[peeriesooky]

sega is wan o me cussins so i ken him weel so may b accused o bias but hearin whit he said and lookin at da thread me sel i do think he received a lot mair as he gave oot. he shudna hae got aa het up wi his first few posts but calmed doon and apologised efter dat and i dinna see an affy lot wrang wi wit he said efter that until he got p' d aff wi still be subjected to abuse simply coz o wha he wis rather as whit he wis saying. if he wis banned others shurley shouda bin as weel or else its no a fair judgment as ithers havna bin made to follow da sam rules that so harshly and finally punished sega. i ken whit his intention were and his intentions and how folk were determined to tak it were twa totally diffrent things but folk were gonna accuse him o trying to derail da campaign etc just coz dey'd got dat inta deyr heids rather as it being whit he wanted. i agree we a lot o whit he said, not whit you think he said, whit he actually said, but hope dat dis winna be used against me and if i do post onything on da thread it will be read and understood rather as judged on whit folk think i'm saying. if folk have a problem wi whit folk are posting wud it no mak mair sense ta ask them whit they mean and mak sure u've taken it rite rather as attacking dem?

i do think me cussin wis mad a scapegoat but hey ho a decision has bin made tho i think a wrong wan

[Ally]

sega is wan o me cussins so i ken him weel so may b accused o bias but hearin whit he said and lookin at da thread me sel i do think he received a lot ....dem?

i do think me cussin wis mad a scapegoat but hey ho a decision has bin made tho i think a wrong wan

 

I can't see how your cousin was made a scapegoat - I also can't see why you're getting so het up about your cous being banned from an internet forum.

 

On other sites there has been a polling option before someone is banned, where all those with more than 50 posts can decide on the fate of the person who'se been warned several times. Mind you, as banning folk is not something I think the administrators take lightly, then I doubt this would be necessary.

 

There's really no need to feel victimised. It's not like many people actually know who segatrix is. they just judged him on his posts and it was decided, by the vast majority of folk, that he/she was a bit of a troll.

[peeriesooky]

While Shetlink values the contribution of all our members, the posts from segatrix are almost always confrontational and antagonistic. Through investigation it has also become clear that hbgb, segatrix and spankybear are highly likely to be the same person. The actions of a troll.

 

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonise the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.

 

We can't be sure that this user intended their actions to have this effect, but this is the effect they are having nonetheless. This is a great shame, as any valid points the user may have had are lost in the resulting uproar.

 

The Shetlink team cannot allow this to happen on what is fast becoming a vital communication tool for the Shetland community at home and abroad.

 

It is with great regret that we announce that Shetlink has exercised its right and this user has now been blocked from using the forum board. This decision is final.

 

tae be fair dis dus come across as stating dat da multiple users and views wis da reason fir da ban and if dat wisna da reason fir it den its never bin axplained as tae why he wis likewise der wis mair as enuff abuse such as derogatory remarks and accusations aimed at him so da fact dat naebodyelse wis banned it does come accross as sega being singles oot against ithers guilty o exactly da same thing but getting awy wi it. i understand dat it is haird being a mod but dat still disnae make it fair punishing wan fir da "crimes" o mony

as fir getting het up as you put it, family's family. i jist wanna know why he wis banned over ithers doing da same thing

[Ghostrider]

...... i ken whit his intention were and his intentions and how folk were determined to tak it were twa totally diffrent things but folk were gonna accuse him o trying to derail da campaign etc just coz dey'd got dat inta deyr heids rather as it being whit he wanted. i agree we a lot o whit he said, not whit you think he said, whit he actually said,......

 

Purely personal observation, and purely personal opinion....

 

Segatrix/Spankybear/hbgb whoever he/she/they/it were, whatever their intentions, and whatever they thought they were saying, came across IMHO, in an inflammatory, confrontational and belligerent manner, and seemed to be displaying a very angry persona.

 

Much of what they said were actually very valid and worthwhile points, however, it seemed, much if not all of the points they were trying to make were lost in the manner and attitude of their delivery.

 

As a piece of purely constructive criticism, and based on my own impressions and opinions only. Perhaps, as it seems a number of people were, according to this poster, misunderstanding them and their intentions, the poster would have fared better had they examined their choice of wording and manner of delivery, and attempted to re-state their opinions with alternative terminology and phrasology. Rather than approach it, as they seemed to do, with a mixture of strong defense of their own stance, and of equal attack of the stance taken by responding posters, which, inevitably led to a heated and escalating moomin for tat.

 

Bottom line, IMHO, readers were finding it easy to read things in to the posts that the poster claimed they did not say, and having difficulty finding the things they claimed they did say. Such facts can only lead to a conclusion that the posts did not say what the poster thought they were making them say, and actually were saying things that they did not intend them to say. On a discussion forum the onus by default lies with the poster to make themselves be understood, not with whoever happens to read it having psychic powers to "know" what the poster intended to say, but failed to do so.

[peeriebryan]

We have no intention of adding more fuel to the fire by publishing all our evidence and justifying the banning decision in the public domain. The decision was made by the moderation team after careful consideration of all evidence available to us, gathered over a number of months, much of which is not obvious to other forum users. That is our job. We way up evidence, come to a decision and take action. We exhausted every avenue available whilst trying to resolve the situation with the user in question. However, it is impossible to please all the forum users in a situation such as this.

 

It is often claimed that we don't take action on other similair cases. This is not true. We consider each case on an individual basis and take appropriate action. We do not make public what action we have taken. Users are contacted privately to avoid exactly this type of situation.

 

Usually, when a user is contacted by a moderator regarding a message they have posted, they reply in a corteous manner, and a compromise is reached. Unfortunately, the user in question chose to consider our correspondance as threats and had a go at moderators using the Private Message system and published parts of our messages on the forums. Our attempts to reason with the user proved futile, often resulting in angry over-reactions and lengthy messages justifying why they should be able to do whatever they want on the forums.

 

I'm sorry that 'sega' doesn't understand why he/she was banned, but moderators had warned them before the ban came into place. I really don't know what more could have been done to explain to them. Again, we have no intention of publicising the messages we sent, as they were private.

 

Please, let's move on....