Oh how I wish we could just ignore them. However, all it takes is one person to not ignore them and we have a problem. Also, what's the point of having any rules for these forums if we don't enforce them? Either we do or we go with a free-for-all anything-goes approach (and we keep losing folks, an unknown number that choose not to join WCG, and we build a solid reuptation as a project that can't control it's users). No, we can't ignore them. The rule-flouting flamers are a definite minority. We all are human and it's not always easy to think-first-then-post instead of stream-of-conciousness-posting when something has pushed one of our buttons. I want to believe that we can handle those situations on our own as a group. The flamers and the occasional but rare case where we get a chain reaction from a bad post that won't settle down can be taken to the admins.

So, I've prattled on enough about this. Let's get down to business.

First, we need those who are willing to commit themselves (the WCG VFD) to deal with these situations when they arise.

Second, when those volunteers see an append that violates one or more forum rules, they commit themselves to politely and respectfully respond to that post identifying the violation(s) and asking the poster to edit their post appropriately. Well, just one that is. We don't want to "spam" them. Maybe we can work out some basic text/format for that. We also need a way to "flag" those posts so that we can "back up" the "first responder" if that is necessary. In those cases where the poster edits their post removing the text at issue, we then edit our response to remove its contents so as to not leave a record of the issue in that forum.

Third, in cases where the poster does not edit their post or continues to post in violation of the forum rules, we all agree to report that poster and their posts to the admins.

Fourth, we want all actions of the WCG VFD to be open to all. We have nothing to hide nor want to appear so.

Fifth, our actions should strive to be non-advesarial. Our intent should always be respectful guidance, even when we are forced to take an issue to the admins, as much as that is possible.

That's the basics of my idea. It has plenty I'm sure of fine-tuning possible but we have to start somewhere. Thoughts?

U shalleth return to grid.org and join the Fire Brigade team of the lbm ;>)

Keith the thing is

None bar IBM admins have the capability to do anything about the posters

It currently is that free for all If I should so desire I could add a slanderous profanity to this post and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

I have asked repeatedly for the abilities mentioned above but IBM won't give us any tools to do anything about this.

We need to keep the pressure on IBM to grant us some kind of toolkit otherwise the vigilanty approach will just turn into an authorised flame war of sorts.

Only IBM can sort this out. Granted they have better things to be doing which is why a bit of delegation is required on their part.

IBM all we want is to make sure this stays a nice place to be

I'm not against a bit of heated debate, humour even innuendo - oo er - just the ability to deal with the extremes which we have seen from about 5 different sources since the start of the WCG that have blighted the great work being carried out here and as Keith says means that we can't always encourage other to join in because of it

Dave

If IBM won't give you the tools why not get your own?
Create an independent unofficial WCG community?

Then you'd have all the moderation tools you desire.

It is pretty much guaranteed that WCG are going to reexamine this issue. Currently the CAs are discussing what tools we would like to have available in order to keep this place pleasant, civilised and welcoming.

All the ideas being suggested are useful input to the debate.

As Keith says, a self-policing community is going to be the strongest and most flexible solution.