It would appear that some people like to trash up a thread with post that not only has nothing to do with the posted topic, but often has nothing to do with any topic. These post generally consist of flaming someone, acting like posting a no text post before thread lock is some kind of Olympic feat of daring, or just outright spamming a thread to get it locked. Since we do have moderators that are exerting what would appear to be sincere effort, not all is lost. I would like to suggest some methods moderators can use to help those of us that are trying to have a discussion despite these ongoing vandalisms.

It is generally considered in poor taste to modify someone else's post. Most moderators avoid this dilemma by adding an "edit by" marker, or outright deleting the post. While deleting off topic post can really help clean up a thread, especially a long one, the "edited by" tag can serve as a warning sign, not only to the edited poster, but also to be noted by others as to who is most likely to post trash. The moderator can even go so far as to post the reason for the edit. i.e. "deleted by mod: no personal attacks", etc...

And on a last note, I would like to thank the moderators for their patience and persistence in their often thankless task.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

In the past I have done just as you have described. I found that this was requiring a great deal of my time with poor results. The same people continued with their behavior, and there was a lot of posturing and arguing about my reasons.

Deleting individual posts and leaving behind a reason is generally what I do these days. My hope is that repeat offenders (who know better) will modify their behavior when they discover that they lose their voice in the thread. In the recent "Ban the IRC" thread I experimented with a general warning, followed by deletions without further explanation. This was largely because I've been super busy and a bit impatient - so I figured I'd avoid infusing my explanations with irritation. It was okay, but there's the risk that somebody who didn't see my warning will think there never was one.

At the moment, I would have to mute users within the game in order to flip the flag that prevents them from posting here. That's a bit extreme for most infractions. It's not a priority, but some day it would be nice to be able to suspend posting ability for repeat offenders.

TRS - It's odd that you're posting a thread like this, considering your recent, worthless, flaming participation in the "Ban the IRC" thread. Do you think we wouldn't notice?

*squints*

... is that...?

...

Yep, it damn sure is!

/me wipes that smelly brown stuff of TRS's nose with a rag

Thar ye go, all bettah.

Irritation....rising...

If you have nothing contstructive to say, then don't post. My answer would have been no different had anyone else asked.

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard?agree=y

[Rudeness deleted by Whistler]

And just so this isn't a totally wasted post, a question! What criteria exactly does a post have to fulfill in order to be relevant to the discussion at hand? Do you have to flame about entirely unrelated subject before your post is deleted? Is posting a "funny" image always off-topic? Are all posts with "genka" somewhere at the top automatically considered to be unworthy of survival?

Obviously, subjectivity plays an important role here, but it'd be nice to have at least a few examples of "good" and "bad" posts.

Edit: cool beans, thanks.
PS: lucidity is for lusers.

Yes, subjectivity is inherent.

In my opinion, the post has to add to the discussion in some way. Outright flames are never helpful. A funny but relevant image would qualify (the tape-on-monitor cockpit-view mockup is a famous example). Topics posted by genka (and a few others) are regarded with suspicion, but are not always subject to deletion. A lucid post from you somehow seems all the more stunning, like a brilliant diamond in a box of turds.

You can delete this as irrelevant if you wish Whistler.

But... awesome reply, the "diamond in the turds" is... brilliant.

[Rudeness deleted] you [rudeness deleted]!

It's a [Rudeness deleted], but everytime somebody [Rudeness deleted], [Rudeness deleted]!!!!!

It's all like that [Rudeness deleted] show. Bah.

it doesnt matter what i type in here, because tumble will automatically assume that it's an attack on him. but...

deletion of posts is ok to do, but i would leave the postmark there... i.e. note that the post was made with "#" or "random moderator's note" and revoke user editing abilities.

thus allowing others to see that this person has been out of line.

moderation is highly important, (yes, i know one of the last to be deleted was mine) but to discard the infraction is oversight.

my suggestion... keep the mod-edited infraction, & deny re-posting to said thread. denying full forum posting is a little too "Gestapo-ish".

I'm not going to be able to deny a specific user from posting to a thread or editting posts. That would require either a website update or a greater amount of maintenance than I am prepared to provide to be successful.

"...but to discard the infraction is oversight." I'm not sure what you mean there.

If that's the only part of doak's meaning on which you're unclear, you're waaaaay ahead of the game, high-pitched-noisemaker.