I think she's just lonely and wants the attention she can't get in real life.
I kind of feel bad for her...
I think she's just lonely and wants the attention she can't get in real life.
I kind of feel bad for her...
I Love PS3 Fanboy
Would it kill people to properly punctuate, grammar check and capitalise? A little bit of you must die inside when you type that nonsense PS3Fanboy (fixed your name for you by the way!)
The moderatos keep saying that we should ignore the trolls, fair enough, it's easy. But what about new users? There's a lot of them, in every news there's at least 2 users commenting that you never seen before, they don't know who the trolls are, they are the one who catch the small bait the trolls throwed. Then the troll throw a larger one and the big fish can't be helped, it always fall for it. A flag system would be a way to minimize the troll effect
or maybe a troll icon next to their name? :D
Expanded on what i said better.
Its the internet what do you expect?
Getting help is an understatement, getting deidcated help is another issue.
@LB I know, but I at least expect people to try. I just see it as a sign that even the troll thinks that what they're typing isn't worth the effort.
Ok. If thats what they think i pity them.
@Dave. I think the site need to pick a horse and back it. Either you paid staffers step up and babysit the threads and comments dealing with what needs dealing with(if you have the time) OR you select a set of time zone based mods to do that for you.
No system is ever going to be perfect. And no matter what is done(including doing nothing at all), someone is going to complain. However I feel that troll fatigue is an issue. So my advice is to enable real and active site wide moderation. Then turn them lose to clean up the trash.
Ofc I am going to say that, some folks might claim, I am a mod now. But it is rather frustrating to be a mod and have your hands tied. It isn't a power trip or an agenda or anything silly like that. Just an acknowledgement that something needs to give. The site will lose contributing readers, already has. I love this site, have been coming here for a while now. Pick someone else for mods, if you like, but pick mods.
Best advice I can offer.
You have to weed out the bad apples, or they will spoil the whole bunch.
@OlderGamer (A response to the earlier post, after mine.)
"And while it is true that mods can and do develop an attitude from time to time(they are just people), I have a hard time believing that a well meaning mod(or three or four) would be worse, more offensive or do more damage then a collection of unchecked trolls."
I don't agree. The VG24/7 guys have proved that they understand this with a very hands-off approach. Keep in mind that a 'troll' can be an unpleasant person, but it can also simply be someone you disagree with. It's that simple. I mean, because I'm not so much of a fan of where the mainstream is going right now, I could easily be a troll. Yet that's not my intent, I just want to highlight different strains of thought -- to show that people like me exist. My kind of person, whilst plentiful in other corners of the Internet, often doesn't speak up on gaming sites as they get punished for not liking whatever the populace does.
This is a problem with moderation, moderators are just people, as you said. However, a moderator can easily fall prey to bias. The human condition is the most fallible thing of all, and we are all prey to it. But to be aware of this is a true boon, sadly too few people are. Very few people question their ways of thinking, they take their own thoughts for granted, and assume that they are correct. (I bet some would think that of me, too, but I've at least sampled everything I've doubted, even the tired Assassin's Creed.) Anyway, the point I'm making is this: A person can seem more troublesome if they have opinions you don't like.
If there's a person who says weird/controversial things occasionally but they're the sort of things you like to hear, you may be more willing to overlook the sort of controversy they generate. If, however, you disagree with what they say, you may instead see them as a disruptive influence. This is where the failure on the part of moderation comes into play, because many moderators aren't at all aware of how much their own biases guide their actions, and never question their thoughts. This leads to a Cult of Popularity status-quo wherein everyone is trying to guess what the moderators want to hear, to stay on their good side. And they get into this negative feedback look where they try to be as average as possible.
Average doesn't offend moderators, but it also doesn't make for interesting people, either. And I'm not even really talking debates, just interesting people sharing their brains has more value to me than a moderator and their Cult of Popularity.
I appreciate not having to be in a position where I have to guess what a moderator wants me to say, or fear being banned. I'm sick of that, to be honest. I've often mentioned that I hate elitism, and I outright, openly disagreed with Alec Meer's vitriolic hatred of console owners on Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Whilst I may not be a massive fan of consoles, I don't hate them the way that PC elitsts do, so I started being a voice against that, since I felt that this whole elitism thing made PC gamers look like obnoxious, spoiled brats.
What did I get for my efforts? I got banned.
Right now, RPS isn't unlike Kotaku, with the authors writing essays about themselves, and ensuring that anyone who disagrees with them on any level is ridiculed, and/or banned, and/or deleted. That enforces a level of conformity which doesn't allow for interesting opinions to be aired. It's a kind of bullying that disallows people with interesting viewpoints from sharing them, as everyone has to pretend to be this average, normal construct just to fit in.
So, yes. I honestly think that a moderator with too much power is more dangerous than a troll. I doubt many will agree as people seem to have become accustomed to this notion of having to be average, taking torches and pitchforks to anyone who doesn't fit into their little clique. But that's very Old World thinking. The Internet represents something new and better. Whilst I don't like the trolls, I tolerate their existence.
This even goes for, to a degree, PS3Fanboy. I think he's a pain in the arse and I'm annoyed by him because he's trying very hard to make console owners look bad. Yet I tolerate him, I do so because it's better than the alternative.
Having a free phorum where one can voice opinions which stand outside of the clique is more important than having a safe harbour ruled by a Cult of Popularity.
That's just my opinion, anyway.
Nothing against you, OG. I just think that even you, given too much power, would fall prey to this. If you disliked what a person was saying, you too would view them more negatively than someone else doing the same. And soon enough, your opinions would be revered, as everyone would feel like they're walking on glass. Now, I really don't think that's what you want, I don't believe that at all. I just don't think that you've thought about this. I don't think that many people do, in honesty.
Frankly, a populace managed system of stratification may work better than moderation, anyway. Take a look at how Stack Overflow works, as an example. You might like what you see, there. Consider the VG24/7 forums and news comments threads running such a system. It's not ideal, but it's a better solution than putting too much power in the hands of a select cabal of persons, at least in my opinion.
I just want to say that, again, this isn't intended to insult you. I've refused moderation positions before because I don't think that I wouldn't be able to fall prey to the same. No human can be 100% objective, but nearly every human can be 100% biased.
I think being able to ignore someone is a virtue. I tend to counter-poke him sometimes for fun, but I still wouldn't want to see this place get ban-happy, and for all the variety to be lost.
I'll say it again, I would rather a few trolls be ignored, rather than the great variety this place could offer be lost to the worry over misstepping and breaking some Draconian rule, whilst watchful moderators are watching for those they dislike to trip up. It happens on every site where there is moderation -- disagree with a moderator and you're screwed, they'll get you on some technicality eventually.
I'm tired of the Internet being so backwards in this regard. Power shouldn't be put in the hands of a small cabal of persons, because those persons will invariably be biased. They'll ban someone for some violation, and then allow someone else a free pass. It becomes an ugly, political mess.
Let's have one site that's about games, rather than politics.
I couldn't agree more. I honestly think that a system of community moderation works better -- allow everyone to have a say in what happens and how.
As I've mentioned (and I will keep mentioning), the StackOverflow system is pretty much the future of the Internet. I just wish more people would take notice of exactly how it works. It's a perfect system of self-policing.
No, not at all. That's a horrible idea. That's just a way to get a mob together in order to feather & tar a person. That's a great idea for the middle ages, but as a modern community we really shouldn't be into shaming people like that. We should opt instead for a system that encourages relevant discourse. What do you think that would do anyway other than making the most determined of trolls angrier?
For some, it could even become a badge of pride, making the problem even worse. That's a horrible idea.
Conclusion: I really think a StackOverflow-like system would do wonders for VG24/7. Please, don't dismiss this... eh? Please? Look into it. If you really want a system that works, that one does. Look into why, and try to understand how it could be applied to a site like this.
OldGamer's comment really struck me. "weed out the bad apples, or they will spoil the bunch".
This is so true. Dave, you asked for an honest opinion from your readers, this is one. I've been around the internet for a long long time. Before the dial up days. Leaving things unchecked like this only encourages people to go to other sites (I want you guys to get bigger), fuel the hate flame, or make people develop a bad mentality on society in general. It literally corrupts naive people (Cue to politics mentality and reality shows). Good examples have to be shown, not hoped for. I'm all for non-strict approaches towards opinions, even uneducated ones. But posts like his are clearly not such. It's a clear indication of someone immature, young, and possibly a slight cluster B social disorder.. leaning towards a narcissistic side.
Hell... to be honest, lol. The only reason I joined and started reading this website in the first place was because I found the non-bias and educated posts to be refreshing. I've noticed this has been changing... Just take note at the number of posters that only registered after reading this thread. Many people don't even know there are forums here!
I say do it.
What you don't realise is that you're a prime target for banning. You're sounding elitist, right there. You sound like you want to "cull the unwashed," to create a pure environment. That sounds like a bad influence, as it would only encourage elitism, and create a pseudo-intellectual environment of faux snobs that would alienate everyone else.
Your disruptive influence would harm others, so logically, we should ban you. If I were a moderator, I could do that. You may call that biased, or unfair, or whatever else, but this is human nature. As I've said, no human can be 100 per cent objective, but every human can be 100 per cent biased. So who do you ban, then? How do you decide? And what does banning even achieve, since they'll just create accounts and return, won't they?
How do you ensure that the "right people" stay? Who dictates who the "right people" are? And how many moderators will have their own takes on whom the "right people" are?
Basically, what you want is an environment where everyone agrees with you -- a walled garden. That's what any moderator is going to want, too. This is why putting the moderation in the hands of a bare few will have bad results. This is why I suggested the StackOverflow approach as a means of community-handled moderation.
It also means that more positive, contributive comments will be seen.
Banning doesn't do anything except make people scared that they might step on a moderator's toes, then they might leave the group of those "right people," what you end up with is a group of yes men who have to agree with all of the sentiments of an article writer or moderator or get banned. To be blunt, I've been around longer than you have, I'm sure, and I've been to more places than you have.
The Escapist? Kotaku? Rock, Paper, Shotgun? All nicely groomed cults where only certain viewpoints are allowed to fester, where other viewpoints, no matter how worthy, are cast out. I really don't like the kind of unchecked crazy that moderation turns into.
So we'll have to agree to disagree.
You may want a walled garden, but I don't. I'm happy for people to disagree with me, or even to ridicule me. Goodness knows both have happened enough. I wouldn't call them trolls, either. People are people, and human nature is what it is. All banning does is create the aforementioned groomed tribe of people, which effectively cuts down on the audience, rather than expanding it.
"Our guidelines state that anyone being sexist, racist or as equally hateful on the forums or comment threads will get banned."
And yet Da Man can still post, despite the fact that everything he posts qualifies as hateful.
A few things:
Making a thread titled in the manner this one has been is foolish. It gives attention and limelight to an undesirable. It indirectly validates their behaviour.
Everyone, without exception, has the ability to ignore things. You don't need better software. You don't need a plugin/script. You don't need anything besides a modicum of self-control.
Moderating with tool_X or software_Y isn't a solution in itself. The solution is to be consistent. Lack of consistency will generally be interpreted as 'one rule for them, another rule for others' and lead to a disgruntled community.
Expecting the other guy to change whilst refusing to change yourself is going to guarantee a stalemate. When everyone has this attitude it assures nothing will happen.
Even though I don't agree with ps3fanboy per se. His comments are sometimes extremely funny. Can't deny that.
@Ireland Michael, i was just told i should go kill myself by someone here that work for vg247. i will not mention names but this don't fall good with your guidelines at the site. you can be butt hurt all you can, but telling your readers, to do suicide is not acceptable at any work place. i expect at least you that work here keep your cool. be clever about your insults and stay on topic of the article. suicide is nothing to joke about.
Oh stop being a dumb cunt.
You act the clown, so don't start pouting when you get a pie in the face.
@ps3fanboy I don't believe he told you to kill yourself, he told you to perhaps consider shooting yourself, and furthermore, he didn't say it had to be a lethal shot. So why are you in fact desperate to bring suicide into it hmm?
@ps3fanboy, Can you provide a link to this comment, please?
@Orbit Two wrongs don't make a right.
Read it in context though ofc
That was inappropriate of Dave, context or otherwise.
I'm honestly surprised to see Dave make a remark like that.
^ oh come on Ireland! It was a flippant remark that any mature adult would laugh off.
Cannot believe you're humouring the schmuck. This isn't fucking preschool.
You're a lying cunt, ps3fanboy. Nobody likes you! Nobody wants you here! I don't want you here! Even the staff hates you!
@Orbit, I agree. The context was humor and "shoot yourself" isn't equal to "kill yourself".
Personally I believe the idea behind the comment was don't be mad at the guy writing the story, be mad at yourself that the story is true.
ps3fanboy is trying to turn the spot light off of himself while playing victim. Michael, don't let his guy use your morality against you.
@Orbit That still doesn't make a remark like that okay. Users would be banned for remarks like that, if they were aimed at staff. But since its aimed at other users, that is apparently completely acceptable.
I'm not going to resort to selective bias. Even if that kind of remark was aimed at Da Man, I would still say it was inappropriate.
Dave usually knows better than to resort to low insults like that. Telling someone they should shoot themselves is totally stepping over that line in my opinion.
Anyway, this is nothing more than my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with it.
I respect your ethics Michael, no matter how misplaced I think they may be in this case.
But let's not let this indecent take away from the real issue here.
thanks Ireland Michael for your honest answer and see it my way. this is what i expect from a staff here. i have no hard feelings toward dave cook and he properly didnt mean it literally. but suicide is nothing to joke about. so i hope from now on we can leave 'suicide' remarks out of the discussion. when there is a heated moment over microsofts or other related articles here at vg247.
You slimey little creature...
Trying to turn this round, for shame...
@monkeygourmet, I agree with Michael Stop Cyber-bullying PS3Fanboy
Don't worry, PS3Fanboy i've your back against the haters
You must log in to post.
© videogaming247 Ltd.