Ask A Mod Thread ~ FAQ in OP

[Ogre Shrek]

Always wondered: When a thread is being derailed (e.g.by an off-topic conversation), why lock the thread? This merely penalizes the OP and the other users who may wish to continue with the original discussion. Wouldn't it be better instead to deal with the de-railers? E.g. a warning can be issued within the thread, and if it is not heeded, the off-topic posts can be deleted and those who engineered the derailment can be temporarily suspended from posting in that thread. Or would that be too impractical?

[Ogre Shrek]

 

Always wondered: When a thread is being derailed (e.g.by an off-topic conversation), why lock the thread? This merely penalizes the OP and the other users who may wish to continue with the original discussion. Wouldn't it be better instead to deal with the de-railers? E.g. a warning can be issued within the thread, and if it is not heeded, the off-topic posts can be deleted and those who engineered the derailment can be temporarily suspended from posting in that thread. Or would that be too impractical?

Not at all, and that is what I try to do instead of locking the thread up. Things seem to run smoother that way. On the other hand, deleting a bunch of posts can take a lot of time, so I can see why locking the thread up would be an option. I agree with you though.

 

 

This is the rant about other users thread, and not a rant about idols.

Please stay on topic, or I will have to lock it. Thanks.

Has the mods decided that locking a derailed thread is preferable after all?

[Ogre Shrek]

Generally we hope the threat is enough to get users to stay on topic. 

More than likely, I would warn users/hide comments first. If it gets to be too much, then yes the topic will be closed.

 

Why is locking the thread preferable to temporarily suspending the users who derailed the thread?

 

 

Edit: Sometimes (although not in this particular instance) the whole objective of the derailers is to get the thread locked.  Wouldn't locking the thread be playing into their hands? 

[Ogre Shrek]

Suspending a user is more severe,  and locking the topic seems to work well, and doesn't hold the the severity of suspending users.

As I said, the threat usually is enough to get everyone back on track.

 

Again, if the threat does not work, we will give out warning points/suspensions first, and last case scenario would be to lock the topic. 

 

Thank you! 

[Ogre Shrek]

Can this thread be merged with this thread please?
 

Edit:

v Thank you 

[Ogre Shrek]

Should the following thread be allowed?

 

http://onehallyu.com/index.php?/topic/5547-which-idol-groups-do-you-think-givesgave-sexual-favors/

 

While I'm not so naive as to deny the likelihood of casting couches in kpop, in the absence of any concrete proof, speculating about it, with names named, amounts to libel. Where I come from, it would also amount to criminal defamation. And the publishing medium (i.e. Oh!) would be exposed as well.

 

Even if the prospect of civil recourse or criminal prosecution being pursued is slim to non-existent, it is still wrong to publish such scurrilous speculative filth.

 

Edit:

This is a disgusting thread, basically making assumptions about peoples' integrity

^ THIS.

[Ogre Shrek]

We're looking into getting the marketplace up and stabilized first. After that, the staff will look and see how much they can re-implement from before.

 

 

Thread has been locked~

 

 

Unfortunately the only way to hide items is to have a full set of other items for which to cover it. So if you buy a lightstick now, I don't think there's anyway to hide it.

Gah! I didn't spot the "bashing thread" angle. Thanks, Marvin <3

[Ogre Shrek]

Right now, when a user edits his post, he has the option to decide whether or not to include the "Edit by" line to reflect that his original post has been edited.

 

Is it possible that the option be removed, so that the "Edit by" line will automatically be inserted into every post that has been edited?

 

 

For the sake of transparency (some users have been editing their posts to include content plagiarized from other users who post subsequently in the same thread).

 

[Ogre Shrek]

Sorry to be quoting myself, but I don't think my query has been answered, so:

 

Right now, when a user edits his post, he has the option to decide whether or not to include the "Edit by" line to reflect that his original post has been edited.
 
Is it possible that the option be removed, so that the "Edit by" line will automatically be inserted into every post that has been edited?
 

For the sake of transparency (some users have been editing their posts to include content plagiarized from other users who post subsequently in the same thread).

 

 

There has been more than one instance where a user who, after starting a thread and receiving responses, proceeds to completely edit the OP's title and content.  This results in the users who posted their responses earlier looking stupid.

 

Edit: Making the "Edit by" line automatically inserted (instead of leaving it an optional extra) would also help during forum games.  Some users cannot resist the temptation of editing their earlier posts, resulting in unwanted disputes arising over which user was the first to post the correct answer. 

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ogre Shrek

[Ogre Shrek]

Thank you for the suggestion. It took some time to discuss it amongst staff (and figure out how to do it), but the option has been disabled for now.

 

Thanks sx21  

 

A bit. And, Chelsea.

 

Chelsea??      </3

 

 

Testing...  it worked! \o/

 

[Ogre Shrek]

So you're the one who I have to thank for my editor's OCD being exposed to the world. Were there a poll, I'd vote contra, dear mods.

 

Edit: Fuck.

 

 Inserts *I regret nothing* gif  

[Ogre Shrek]

Hi, sorry to bother you guys, but I've asked this same question here, here, and here, and have been told repeatedly that before a thread is locked:-

• a threat to lock the thread would first be issued
• if that does not work, warning points would be issued and/or suspensions would be meted out
• the thread would only be locked as a last resort.

Yet, once again, the "Rant About Users" thread has been locked instead of the offending users being temporarily suspended from posting.  Why?  

[Ogre Shrek]

The rules are a guideline, and not a strict go-to form:

"Staff members will use it as a set of guidelines along with their own judgment to assess the severity and degree to warn. This includes, but not limited to, increasing and decreasing warning points, adding suspensions and bans, and skipping earlier "levels" opting for more severe punishments. "

 

Furthermore,

"Stay on topic! If Staff feels like the thread is getting out of control or too volatile, they reserve the right to lock the thread for an extended period of time or indefinitely. If a staff member tells you to stop, please stop. If not, we will restrict your posting privileges or remove any offending posts/pictures."

 

The thread was and can be locked at any given moment, especially for a thread as volatile as the Rant About Users thread.

 

Thanks for responding.

 

I happen to be rather familiar with the concept of allowing for discretion in the interpretation and implementation of rules. Occupational hazard. My concern is with the inconsistency which invariably results. Left unexplained, they accumulate and gives rise to speculation as to mod partiality. Check out the Rant thread; the murmurs of discontent are worryingly loud and hard to refute.

 

Not sure I understand the point you were making in the "Furthermore" part. It was precisely (a) the absence of any staff warning before the thread lock and (b) the apparent reluctance on the part of the mods to restrict the posting privileges of the offending users (as opposed to the contrasting willingness to lock threads), that prompted my queries on each of the four occasions stated.

[Ogre Shrek]

I'm pretty sure that the posters in that thread know that once a conversation reaches 1 page that the discussion should stop. The conversation went on for 3 pages with attacks towards users in which a user did get warned as well as other users commenting in the thread itself that they should stop because the thread would be locked. Not to mention that the discussion was also OT.

Was not aware that all that had happened. Wasn't around when it happened; only saw the aftermath (thread had already been locked by then). 3 pages?! So the thread has been sanitized (with the offensive/OT posts removed)? I understand now; sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion based on incomplete data.

Nevertheless, would still hope that the mods would unlock the thread soon, since it does serve a useful purpose. Otherwise, the more belligerent users would simply switch the 'fight' venue to other threads, and pollute the rest of the forum.

[Ogre Shrek]

Two queries, if I may:

• What's the mods' position(s) on a post which is defamatory (be it of an idol/ user/ third party)?
•  
• Secondly, if posting "fuck you" is not allowed under the rules (hypothetically speaking only, of course; I'm not suggesting that it should be), would posting "f**k you" amount to a breach of the rules, given that the intent is clearly the same?

[Ogre Shrek]

That is a tricky slope to say the least. As I am sure that you are aware that it is a bit difficult to prove rather a post or verbal statement is libelous/slander. (In regards to idols and celebrities and such. It would be impossible to prove that a user's comment here has tarnished the reputation of an idol and etc.) There are however, rules against maliciously spreading lies or rumors about the users here. I am sure that I speak for all of the staff when I say that we will take action if such a situation occurs. It would fall under either abusive language or disturbing the peace. The rule against disturbing the piece also covers a user spreading false rumors about an idol as well. In short, (as if I haven't already said enough. lol) We, and especially myself are against such posts.

 

Personally, I do believe that both would/should be classified as breaking the rules. However, I cannot speak for how the others feel about this. When faced with the same situation, another staff member may not see the censored word as venomous, and may see no problem in it being used. Your answer here will vary a bit depending on the staff member that is handling the situation.

 

Thanks for your detailed reply; it is much appreciated

Given the caveat in the last sentence of your answer, would the other mods care to share their views?

[Ogre Shrek]

I can't imagine the forum with the f-word being banned on this site >_<

I would give a little leeway for that I guess. But if the word comes with malicious intent, I would deem it as inappropriate.

The intention of putting a * there is to kinda subdue it, but it doesn't particularly do a very good job and doesn't really alter the meaning. Unless there was a greater reason as to why (which I can't even manage to think of atm ._.), I wouldn't really see reason to treat it any differently.

Thanks for clarifying the position. Insult in question was **bred. I didn't report the offending posts before because of the uncertainty, but I'll draw the user's attention to your answers. Hopefully that'll be sufficient to put a stop to it.

[Ogre Shrek]

Sadly I don't think she realized the emotional damage she has caused me by that off handed remark

Sorry to butt into the conversation, but she is your mom, so she is more aware than you are of who you are/ who you are truly meant to become. She's subtly hinting to you that you've been fighting for the wrong side all these while. It's time to abandon the llamas and stand alongside the camels where you belong

Edited August 18, 2013 by Ogre Shrek

[Ogre Shrek]

Should this thread be merged with this thread?

 

When I created that 1st thread, I indicated in the OP that I would be making this request for merger, hence this post.  But since then I've notice a few other threads that were subsequently created which touches on the same topic and were left unlocked (probably because they discuss a different aspect of the same topic), so I don't know. I'm ok if the mods think the merge is unnecessary (especially as the discussion appeared to have died a natural death).

 

 

thanks

good night

 

Hey abra2:-

• the next time you decide to post something that may result in you getting yourself banned, please donate your won to me first 
• if your appeal is unsuccessful, and you need some won, let me know 

[Ogre Shrek]

Devolved wank + Report(s).

 

But (unless the thread has been sanitized) the 'wank' consisted solely of some users trading posts consisting of ugly photos of the other users' biases, and the report(s) likely to have been from another user (of perhaps rather over sensitive constitution) who was unhappy about this.  If indeed the rules have been infringed such that the mods felt the need to intervene, why lock the thread instead of targeting the users who are guilty of the alleged infringement(s)?

 

To be clear, the particular thread in question has little redeeming qualities, so its locking is not mourned; I'm just citing it as a convenient example to illustrate my puzzlement at the mods' tendency to lock threads when that solution is supposed to be used only as a last resort.

 

 

How long do you guys think it's going to take before I get banned? 

 

Surely that is dependent on your own conduct and whether you choose to continue to be an arse or not?

Edited August 30, 2013 by Ogre Shrek

[Ogre Shrek]

I don't want to answer this at the other thread due to being off-topic, I will answer this here

 

There are actually rules about punishing the users that engage in OT discussion, it's even in the first post of the thread. Maybe it's our fault for being too lenient, but we have hardly given out a lot of suspensions regarding the thread. We may work on this to become stricter, if the problem of OT discussions getting too far.

 

About the temporary closure of the thread, my take on the matter is that, the action may be abrupt, but it stops the argument. A timeout for the people involved would help calm them down. There would always be someone that would chime in with some offhand remarks and insults one or both the parties, and that will only make the matter worse. So, it's kinda a preventive measure, stop it before everything blow up

Good point, and perfectly perfectly understandable where the thread lock is implemented to stop pointless and/or repetitive arguments. But:

 

(1) where the thread is being derailed by rampant OT conversation (as was the case yesterday in the Rant About Users thread), locking it seems less apt than punishing just the guilty parties; and

(2) that was not how the mods dealt with the situation which developed in the Fanturd two days back.

 

Consistency in the implementation of the rules is desirable. And what the mods did in the Fanturd (post a warning, then punish the offender(s) who failed to heed the post) was far better and more nuanced than simply locking the thread.

 

My two cents' worth

Edited September 4, 2013 by Ogre Shrek

[Ogre Shrek]

thank you for the thoughtful input 

maybe it's the time to revise the rules for that thread after all. I will discuss this with the others.

that thread is always trouble sigh 

 

o.O

I try to edit the thread and it seems to be fine. I don't really know what cause the problem, and I can only suggest trying again :/ tell me what happen, if you still cannot I will help you

 

I AM TIREDD

IT'S SO HARDD

 

 

That thread is fun!  Most of the time, anyway.  Thing is, if we spot any rule infringement and report a post in that thread, we are contributing to the thread being closed, so there's a disincentive to do so....

 

 

Aww, hang in there    ... all of us we appreciate the work you guys do to keep Oh running smoothly

Just imagine that Tiffany is an incognito user here     

Edited September 4, 2013 by Ogre Shrek

[Ogre Shrek]

Warnings are given (and the amount of points that are issued out depends on what was said, the context it was used in, and the amount of times the offense has been broken previously) Again, this is private to all but the user being warned and the staff, as we do not publicly broadcast or display the actions that have been taken.

 

This reminds me of a hit thread that sad made back in H8, on whether it would be a good idea for the mods to reveal the actions taken against errant users.

 

If memory serves me right, the majority of the users were in favour of full disclosure.   Some were in favour of partial disclosure (e.g. have a list, updated monthly, setting out the offence committed and the action taken by the mods, but not identifying the errant user).  The rest of the community (including the mods and admin) were dead set against the idea, for fear that it may lead to witch-hunts and/or a blame-and-shame culture developing.

 

Would the mods/admin of Oh be prepared to reconsider the issue / re-open this issue for debate?

[Ogre Shrek]

Firstly:

Lol why does nearly every post have a minus in here: http://onehallyu.com/index.php?/topic/21291-better-than-the-main-version-shouldve-been-the-main-version

 

Probably just a fan being butthurt about something or another. 

But:

 

When someone negs every post in one thread is it considered neg stalking, do someone gets a warning for that? If yes then check this thread http://onehallyu.com/index.php?/topic/19709-tts-english-album-next-month/

 

Yes, and I will look at it. 

 

So is it a reportable offence or not?

 

 

Secondly, anyone else have a different take to XIA Fan on this issue?   I am particularly keen to hear from sad (since he was the OP of that H8 thread), to see if his perspective has changed now that he is a mod.  But I'm also curious as to the other mods' stand on the issue.

 

 

Thirdly, is there a limit to the number of times a user can be banned, yet allowed to create a new account and continue his trolling ways?

Shouldn't there be a "3-strikes-and-you're-out" rule?

Otherwise, getting banned becomes less onerous than getting posting rights suspended.  Which is not right.

[Ogre Shrek]

It's not exactly neg stalking considering it's to multiple users rather than someone negative stalking 1 person. Plus, it's warranted. Some stuff was shade toward DBSK, so meh. 

 

As for the visible warns issue. I'd have to say a no. There's already which hunts over certain posters, no need for there to be the same over warning points. 

 

Actually there is a 2 strikes your out. You get 2 accounts only and your IP banned. Unfortunately people continuously comeback through proxy and stuff so it makes it a bit harder for us. 

 

Well, this user was also the owner of these two banned accounts here, so ...

Edited September 7, 2013 by Ogre Shrek