Should moderators close threads due to rude posts?

It's my opinion moderators should repremand rude posters rather than closing a thread.

Opinions?

They usually do as far as I know (not that I know a lot, I'm a good little forum poster)..

From what I've seen they usually only close threads if they've become MAINLY rude posts or have lost focus on the topic at hand..

Once a thread has spiralled into back-and-forth and name calling and accusations, there's not much else to do but close the thread. It sucks for the couple people who wanted to carry on a discussion, but we can't honestly expect a moderator to continue policing, censoring and admonishing in one volatile thread at the expense of everything else.

It is possible to be banned from the forums, for a short while or permantly. And it does happen from time to time.

I just use the "Report Bad Post" icon at the bottom left if a post really bothers me.

I figure if enough other people report it, it will catch a moderator's attention and they will take appropriate action.

Either warn the post duellists individually, or make a general warning post, or close the thread if all else fails.

My working definition of a bad post is " problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts. " (like it says on the button when you click it)

I always report those types of posts too.

Mar

Moved to Off-Topic. Also, don't forget to read up on the Forum Guidelines

It seems to me the disrupters should be removed before a thread is closed. It doesn't take long, when the disrupters find out their behavior won't be tolerated, they will stop.

LL didn't create the forum guidelines out of thin air on the first available Sunday, it's based on best practices of the 30+ years of internet communities. Please read the forum guidelines for clarification of the rules.

I don't think the rules are a problem. Rude posts are improper, and against the rules.

"Please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults because you will risk having your Second Life account suspended or banned. "

Harassment is one thing, but rude is a pretty broad term.

Ok, harassment works for me. The rules say "personal attacks and insults ", but I would say rudeness that becomes harassment after several posts where a person targets another poster, even following him/her to other threads.

Where the attacker isn't contributing to the discussion in a positive way, but is trying to stop any further discussion. Then the attacker will personally attack those who support ideas contrary to the attacker's beliefs.

Yup, they should close it.

All rude posts do is get a thread closed and piss people off.

Which creates a simmering anger at SL and just leads to worse posts and more bad actors.

The term "rude" is extremely vague. Fortunatly there is no mention of the term "rude" in the forum guidelines. What is rude to one person is simply the truth to many others.

Even the overly spirited LL brown nosing by some posters is seen by many as rude.

Especially when that brown nosing is lies, half truths and slander.

After reading Webster's definitions for "rude," I have to say I agree.
It would be nice if mentally impaired posters, stubborn posters, and anyone who makes an assertive correction of another poster -or someone who makes an assertive error- be reprimanded for posting views that others are obligated to disagree with or feel hurt or offended by. I also think that anyone who can't spell should be reprimanded for setting a poor example for the community.

If you are not obsequious, don't follow a strict code of manners, and don't express the most loving, open, and politely tepid acceptance of all political, religious, scientific, and ethnic views then you should be banned because you're obviously just here to stir up trouble. In fact, it's not enough that you accept others' views in this manner, but you must also express the same level of tepidity with your own beliefs. The old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," reminds us that the best thing for everyone is to keep things barely lukewarm and not a skosh more or less. "Proactive" is just a euphemism that opportunists use to shield their opportunistic behavior and justify their ego-inflating agendas. It is simply uncivilized for any respectable, thinking being to be so uncouth as to express anything other than blissful complaisance.

That's just my humble opinion. It would be downright rude if you expressed anything other than respect for it and you WILL be reported for stirring up trouble if you do otherwise.

Glad to be in concord.

Psalm 34:13
Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.

Why not just close down both?

Chance,

Very amusing, but I have seen postings on here that, if they were said face to face, would end with the individual concerned being in a hospital bed. The trouble is that people say in forum postings things they would never say to someone's face. What is called for is not tepidity but common courtesy.

But having said that, I am totally opposed to forum censorship. It stifles debate and, ultimately, has a tendency to corrupt the censor. When a thread is arbitrarily closed, the person who has the last posting, or the last word, is given the advantage. And it is frustrating when a thread which has been through the insult stage suddenly arrives at a constructive discussion and then is belatedly closed.

I think what I would favour would be public chastisement of the more extreme posters, which would probably discourage offensiveness better than the stifling of free speech.

People keep saying that. I assure you I would be very happy to say anything I've ever said to anyone here face to face. I wouldn't say it in a forum if I wouldn't be prepared to say it!

And whilst there are a few people I would surely enjoy physically laying into here, I think it'd be far more fun to have them arrested and charged should they decide that hospitalization was the required response.

Though I have to say that I think the likelihood that the forums are filled with thin skinned neanderthals who would physically beat you in response to your posting given the opportunity are as exaggerated as the claims that they're all cowardly hypocrites who would only say stuff in a forum.

I think it says more about the people who keep venturing these stereotypes than the ones they accuse, frankly

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. I support your right to voice it. If you feel good about yourself, that's all that matters.

Agreed. I have never said anything in the forums that I wouldn't (or in many cases, haven't) said to people directly in real life. Recently, someone online remembered who I was in RL because they saw me try to "save" someone 5 years ago and thoroughly piss them off in the process. I can't even remember the event (meaning that I have been the source of so much absurdity that I can no longer keep track).

What advantage would this be?

The last laugh.

Me are hurt and ofended by this,

That's just your imagination. Did you see the shiny object?

You have your terms all wrong. "Rude" is a subjective term and can't be used, "harrasment" is defined in the agreement and *is* already used.

Personal attacks are already outlawed as well, so I can only assume that "rude" in this case means those ... "Clever ways of insulting people that dont actually break the rules " (and there aint no way to enforce against that.)

Similarly, you say "reprimand" for rudeness also, but the only reprimands in use are banning and warning before banning. To get a ban or even a warning of a ban for being rude (*outside* of the rules already in place to define behaviour) is certainly over the top IMO and unecessary and unfair etc.

Finally, think for a second what the implementation of this idea would be like. Jeska (and probably four more assistants) would have to troll the forums all day long wagging their fingers at folk and generally acting like your mother?

Is that what you really want? Sounds like gradeschool to me.