Zero Tolerance of Rudeness/Attacks/Inflammatory Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pudge40

Forum Lieutenant
126
0
0
That's not the problem.

Participants may not create duplicate threads (cross-posting) or direct others to threads they have started.

So it is only against the rules if the same person posts it in several different places then.
 

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
11,057
1,506
113
I disagree. I think that is a problem, those threads quickly can turn nasty.

Only if somebody responds to them. Very rarely is it the original post that gets a thread removed. A vast majority of the time, it is the follow up posts that cause it.
 
OP
OP
MMiz

MMiz

I put the M in EMTLife
Community Leader
5,537
409
83
I disagree. I think that is a problem, those threads quickly can turn nasty.
Threads just don't "turn nasty." Members who hijack a thread or create posts that violate our community rules will be warned and issued infractions per the posted rules.
 

Sasha

Forum Chief
7,667
11
0
Only if somebody responds to them. Very rarely is it the original post that gets a thread removed. A vast majority of the time, it is the follow up posts that cause it.

However if we remove the reason for the flame fest that may follow, would that not cut down on the nastyness?
 

SanDiegoEmt7

Forum Captain
461
1
16
Here's my scene size up

In online forums there are always the veterans and the newbies.

The veterans have been around for awhile and have seen the same posts over and over again, hence their shortness with some new person coming in and starting a thread on a topic already previously exhausted.

The newbies, having just googled EMS, came across a new site emtlife.com where they decide to post either a topic that has either already been extensively discussed, at the time and energy of the veterans, or a topic that is frivolous (but was also probably already extensively discussed)

The Mods are correct in that people should be either answered politely or told to look for the answer on their own.

Others are also correct (Sasha, Rid, Vent, etc) in that a community should have some level of regard for the members that truly drive any meaningful discussion.

Frivolous posts should be discouraged by someone (politely) telling them the topic has been previously discussed and use the search button, and then closing the thread.

I am a member on another thread where they control this dynamic much more closely. They require new members to wait 3 days before posting, and require an introduction into an introduction thread describing themselves, their training etc. Finally they are required to fill out their profile. If any of this isn't done they are respectfully guided by a "vet" to complete these things.

These requirements help prevent quick and frivolous posts.

I can honestly say I have truly enjoyed this site and see it as a resource, but if the respected veteran members are silenced for the benefit of a new member having their feelings hurt because they were lazy and didn't full search for their topic, then I think I might come here less often.

Even if the good topics exist, its too tedious and minding numbing to search through 20 threads on boots, whether or not to attend EMT school, and how to clean rigs, to find that one decent thread that discussed something of importance.

Rant over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dominion

Forum Asst. Chief
607
0
0
I'm in agreement with trimming the posts down that have multiple topics. All it would take is a 20 second romp through the forums to find what you are looking for. If you search "Stethoscope" you'll get tons of topics on scopes.

Further to that I think busting these whackers down that come in here, we know who I'm speaking of, two major troll/whackers. There are the ones who come in, post something utterly retarded or whackerish and they can take that harsh criticism and say "oh :censored::censored::censored::censored:, wow I didn't realize, let me fix this" or they can "Oh these guys are mean, screw them, I don't need this".

If everytime I have ever made a mistake in my job or posting on these forums and my criticism was sugar coated, I would be in a poor situation. That opens up the, what is harsh criticism and what is an attack. At what line does it become an attack vs. telling them what they need to hear.
 

Meursault

Organic Mechanic
759
35
28
I'm in agreement with trimming the posts down that have multiple topics. All it would take is a 20 second romp through the forums to find what you are looking for. If you search "Stethoscope" you'll get tons of topics on scopes.

You know what's really amazing? I did precisely that. Of my own volition, I decided to condense most of the new-poster topics into little bits of information that can be handily spoonfed to the new people. As far as I can tell, nothing changed. I even saw another stethoscopes thread.
So I'll probably continue updating the abstracts infrequently, but I'm going to fall back on a time-tested strategy for reducing the amount of worthless posts.

All message boards are going to have some level of idiocy. Mods are responsible for determining what sort of idiocy and influencing how much of it. If moderation is light, you get aggressive spam, rule-bending, and endless trolling and counter-trolling. If moderation is heavy, you get spam that posters are powerless to deal with, rule-bending, endless slapfights that end abruptly, and pervasive censorship.

Let them fight it out. Let the people with personal grudges send volleys of all-caps PMs, stretch threads to 10 pages of insults, and bawwquit. Intervene to keep them from ruining other threads and infecting the rest of the board with drama. Don't force them to bottle up their grudges and redirect them into anger at the mods. Let the members tell the people who start repetitive or stupid threads that their threads contribute nothing, that they should have searched, that they need to lurk moar, that they are whackers and they will die fat and alone. This board will be cleansed in fire.

I don't think it will be quite the cesspit of endless drama, politics, and trolling that the last forum I was a regular at became. Rather, it will be pruned. When there are consequences for making worthless posts, fewer worthless posts are made. When there are consequences for calling out worthless posts, the people that stand to contribute the most are punished for holding other posters to a higher standard. Eventually, they get frustrated and quit or are banned.

Mods, do you like seeing the same posts over and over again? Do you like having several separate "hi from [place]" threads outside of the introductions? Do you like seeing completely unrelated threads be dragged off into the same discussions of volunteer vs. private, fire vs. third service, BLS vs. ALS? If not, why are you encouraging them?
 

enjoynz

Lady Enjoynz
734
13
18
Those type of debates are more than welcome at EMTLife, but you may not hijack a members thread because of it. I'm tired of a volunteer posting a question and then the whole anti-volunteer gang jumps on the post because of it. If you want to rant about how much volunteers are hurting our profession then you're welcome to start a thread on the topic, but don't hijack another member's thread.

Here,Here...my point exactly from the other day!

Cheers Enjoynz
 

Sasha

Forum Chief
7,667
11
0
Is it too much to ask for the same rules against hijacking a thread with anti-volunteer propganda be applied to hijacking the thread to complain about the thread or other members?
 

Pudge40

Forum Lieutenant
126
0
0
You know what's really amazing? I did precisely that. Of my own volition, I decided to condense most of the new-poster topics into little bits of information that can be handily spoonfed to the new people. As far as I can tell, nothing changed. I even saw another stethoscopes thread.
So I'll probably continue updating the abstracts infrequently, but I'm going to fall back on a time-tested strategy for reducing the amount of worthless posts.

All message boards are going to have some level of idiocy. Mods are responsible for determining what sort of idiocy and influencing how much of it. If moderation is light, you get aggressive spam, rule-bending, and endless trolling and counter-trolling. If moderation is heavy, you get spam that posters are powerless to deal with, rule-bending, endless slapfights that end abruptly, and pervasive censorship.

Let them fight it out. Let the people with personal grudges send volleys of all-caps PMs, stretch threads to 10 pages of insults, and bawwquit. Intervene to keep them from ruining other threads and infecting the rest of the board with drama. Don't force them to bottle up their grudges and redirect them into anger at the mods. Let the members tell the people who start repetitive or stupid threads that their threads contribute nothing, that they should have searched, that they need to lurk moar, that they are whackers and they will die fat and alone. This board will be cleansed in fire.

I don't think it will be quite the cesspit of endless drama, politics, and trolling that the last forum I was a regular at became. Rather, it will be pruned. When there are consequences for making worthless posts, fewer worthless posts are made. When there are consequences for calling out worthless posts, the people that stand to contribute the most are punished for holding other posters to a higher standard. Eventually, they get frustrated and quit or are banned.

Mods, do you like seeing the same posts over and over again? Do you like having several separate "hi from [place]" threads outside of the introductions? Do you like seeing completely unrelated threads be dragged off into the same discussions of volunteer vs. private, fire vs. third service, BLS vs. ALS? If not, why are you encouraging them?



Couldn't have put it better myself if I tried.
 

EMTinNEPA

Guess who's back...
894
2
16
If I could be frank for a moment...

The problem with determining whether or not a post is rude, insulting, personally attacking, purposeless, or inflammatory is that these things are largely subjective. They're contingent on the intent of the person making the statement and the interpretation of the person receiving, both of which are things that can only be known for certain to the parties involved. There's nothing objective about them that we could say with 100% certainty whether it is a violation of the rules or not.

For example: RandomForumProbieXYZ states how great it is to do EMS for free and help his community alongside his brothers and sisters, and frequently displays a disgusting lack of professionalism. As somebody who strives to better myself through education and help EMS become a true profession and division of healthcare, I find this insulting. Did RandomForumProbieXYZ intend it as an insult? If myself, Sasha, Rid, Vent, medic417, etc., proceed to tell him all the reasons we think he's wrong, he may interpret this as insulting. Did we intend for our statements to insult? With this new zero tolerance policy, all it takes for him to silence any objections to his view is one click. With no appeals or second chances, his opposition gets no chance to defend himself. I foresee this policy turning EMTLife into a haven for the unprofessional, the whackers, and the newbies who think they're all that and a bag of chips, with "report post" button-happy fingers resulting in frequent bannings of quality contributors. And for what? Just so that nobody gets their feelings hurt? The potential for manipulation is astounding!

Do I agree with the policy? Obviously not. In fact, I'm probably one of the people this policy was put in place to counter. Is it my decision? Nope. All I can say is that I hope I'm wrong, even though I don't think I am, and that I hope that you guys know what you're doing.
 

Burlyskink

Forum Lieutenant
103
0
0
If I could be frank for a moment...

The problem with determining whether or not a post is rude, insulting, personally attacking, purposeless, or inflammatory is that these things are largely subjective. They're contingent on the intent of the person making the statement and the interpretation of the person receiving, both of which are things that can only be known for certain to the parties involved. There's nothing objective about them that we could say with 100% certainty whether it is a violation of the rules or not.

For example: RandomForumProbieXYZ states how great it is to do EMS for free and help his community alongside his brothers and sisters, and frequently displays a disgusting lack of professionalism. As somebody who strives to better myself through education and help EMS become a true profession and division of healthcare, I find this insulting. Did RandomForumProbieXYZ intend it as an insult? If myself, Sasha, Rid, Vent, medic417, etc., proceed to tell him all the reasons we think he's wrong, he may interpret this as insulting. Did we intend for our statements to insult? With this new zero tolerance policy, all it takes for him to silence any objections to his view is one click. With no appeals or second chances, his opposition gets no chance to defend himself. I foresee this policy turning EMTLife into a haven for the unprofessional, the whackers, and the newbies who think they're all that and a bag of chips, with "report post" button-happy fingers resulting in frequent bannings of quality contributors. And for what? Just so that nobody gets their feelings hurt? The potential for manipulation is astounding!

Do I agree with the policy? Obviously not. In fact, I'm probably one of the people this policy was put in place to counter. Is it my decision? Nope. All I can say is that I hope I'm wrong, even though I don't think I am, and that I hope that you guys know what you're doing.

You can be frank if I can be suzie...

But back on topic, You have a very good point. If I post something that is wrong and another member comes in and doesn't sugar coat the truth. I want to be yelled at, made fun of, etc. because it makes me a better EMT and care provider. I realize I don't post on this site much, so I don't have insults aimed at me, this si because I am actually reading posts on here and attempting to learn new things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sasha

Forum Chief
7,667
11
0
If I could be frank for a moment...

The problem with determining whether or not a post is rude, insulting, personally attacking, purposeless, or inflammatory is that these things are largely subjective. They're contingent on the intent of the person making the statement and the interpretation of the person receiving, both of which are things that can only be known for certain to the parties involved. There's nothing objective about them that we could say with 100% certainty whether it is a violation of the rules or not.

For example: RandomForumProbieXYZ states how great it is to do EMS for free and help his community alongside his brothers and sisters, and frequently displays a disgusting lack of professionalism. As somebody who strives to better myself through education and help EMS become a true profession and division of healthcare, I find this insulting. Did RandomForumProbieXYZ intend it as an insult? If myself, Sasha, Rid, Vent, medic417, etc., proceed to tell him all the reasons we think he's wrong, he may interpret this as insulting. Did we intend for our statements to insult? With this new zero tolerance policy, all it takes for him to silence any objections to his view is one click. With no appeals or second chances, his opposition gets no chance to defend himself. I foresee this policy turning EMTLife into a haven for the unprofessional, the whackers, and the newbies who think they're all that and a bag of chips, with "report post" button-happy fingers resulting in frequent bannings of quality contributors. And for what? Just so that nobody gets their feelings hurt? The potential for manipulation is astounding!

Do I agree with the policy? Obviously not. In fact, I'm probably one of the people this policy was put in place to counter. Is it my decision? Nope. All I can say is that I hope I'm wrong, even though I don't think I am, and that I hope that you guys know what you're doing.

You named me specifically in your post. That hurt my feelings! ;)

I think there has to be some standardization. There have been times when on moderator allows one thing and another gives a warning for it. There are also times when you will get a warning for something one day and not the next. It's nuts, I am very cautious to post, and i am sure a lot of others are as well. We don't know what will get an infraction and what wont becuase it's all open to interpertation.
 

JPINFV

Gadfly
12,681
197
63
I think there has to be some standardization. There have been times when on moderator allows one thing and another gives a warning for it. There are also times when you will get a warning for something one day and not the next. It's nuts, I am very cautious to post, and i am sure a lot of others are as well. We don't know what will get an infraction and what wont becuase it's all open to interpertation.

I second this post. There has been times in chat where I have been told that it was ok by the mod currently in there, but warned that some other mod might take 'offense' over something.
 

DV_EMT

Forum Asst. Chief
832
1
0
I actually like this rule for 1 reason only,

a while ago I belonged to a car forum that went from being a great forum to a racial slur page. Ethics went down the crapper and the page eventually got shut down due to how viscious everyone was toward one another.

I think that this page holds a much higher standard (as it should) and even though this rule has been enacted, debates and opinions should stay consistent. Nobody should feel afraid to post because of the "ban hammer" but at the same time they should be able know what is and isn't acceptable.


am I right?
 

Sasha

Forum Chief
7,667
11
0
One more thing, I honestly think that unless there is blindingly obvious fighting that gets the thread shut down, infractions shouldn't be issued on the principal that someone MIGHT be offended by another post. I think in order for there to be a violation there should be an actual complaining victim.
 

Shishkabob

Forum Chief
8,264
32
48
Sasha, while I agree with you, remember chat a few months ago? Nothing insulting. No complaints. Yet both of us were banned.


Some people think that if it has the potential to be insulting, even if not intended to be as such, that it's grounds enough for the infractions.


If they aren't going to go by the "complaint = offensive" rule, then they need to clearly define what IS and is NOT offensive / inflammatory (of course I don't mean define every word... I mean such things as "you are an idiot" = offensive, I don't expect every single phrase to be defined one way or the other)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JPINFV

Gadfly
12,681
197
63
Some people think that if it has the potential to be insulting, even if not intended to be as such, that it's grounds enough for the infractions.

Which is kinda of exactly the problem. You've gotta try really hard to be insulting to me if you aren't meaning it. At the same time, a lot of us are fairly blatant in our opinions and expect the same in return. If someone feels that everything needs to be all mushy to be "constructive," then it kills the dialogue, even if no one who is actually involved is even remotely insulted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top