Edited: Suggestions to improve the current message board situation (fake profiles, multiple crazy, belligerent posting)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:31 AM GMT
    We love Real Jock. Lots of eye candy and great guys to connect with. The message board? Could use improvement. The lax moderation, multiple fake accounts and crazy members off their meds make this place annoying.

    What are you thoughts on migrating to a RJ message board annex with effective member screening?

    edit- Suggestions to curb the spam from multiple fake profiles, democratic moderation and smoother message board posting are all welcome.

    Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:34 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo saidWe love Real Jock. Lots of eye candy and great guys to connect with. The message board? Could use improvement. The lax moderation, multiple fake accounts and crazy members off their meds make this place annoying...

    Thoughts?


    Make it so.

    In the mean time, I wonder if Chris might consider the wisdom of appointing anonymous mods with limited rights to keep things in order.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:41 AM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor said
    There's freedom of speech and then there's trouble makers that gots-ta-go!!!icon_twisted.gif


    Exactly.

    I'm not trying to hijack the site, but I'm not gonna keep complaining about it without brainstorming something I could do about it myself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:48 AM GMT
    GAMRican said
    Ciarsolo saidWe love Real Jock. Lots of eye candy and great guys to connect with. The message board? Could use improvement. The lax moderation, multiple fake accounts and crazy members off their meds make this place annoying.

    What are you thoughts on migrating to a RJ message board annex with effective member screening? I'd be happy to host it and make the site run better.

    Thoughts?

    Make it so.

    In the mean time, I wonder if Chris might consider the wisdom of appointing anonymous mods with limited rights to keep things in order.

    Well, AOL used to have a system somewhat like that. And they weren't always anonymous. But then those were all live chat rooms, and when you saw GUIDEcharlie or whoever in there with you, you knew to behave. Then AOL removed them, I guess for economy, and I feel the chat rooms degraded, especially the gay ones I frequented.

    The main problem I would see with RJ is objectivity. Is there anyone here truly objective, who could be a fair broker? And could that Moderator continue to ethically participate in the discussions? I note that apparently Chris does not, unless he's been using an alias SN.

    So what would you want to do -- continue posting your mind openly, or effectively become a lurking policeman? I don't think you can honestly do both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:49 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo said...

    Exactly.

    I'm not trying to hijack the site, but I'm not gonna keep complaining about it without brainstorming something I could do about it myself.


    I hear you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:56 AM GMT
    As it is I think it's possible that some RJ members (good guys) have set up alternate profiles that attempt mediating or stopping a real nasty troll.

    It seems to me that to have to resort to this means that, yes, some serious moderation may have to happen to keep this place at least friendly.

    -Doug

    Sporty, there are numerous spin-off RJ groups out there. ConservativeJock is one that pulls its members from this site and they screen you based on your posts here and a membership vote..



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 12:58 AM GMT
    Hi guys,

    We realize that this is becoming a real problem but we're not exactly sure what to do about it. We thought of appointing moderators but we don't feel that anyone can really be objective. For example, we could easily see all of the Republicans being banned from the forums because they're a minority.

    What about some kind of crowd sourcing? If I put a "spam" link on the posts and a member who received a certain number of spam reports in a certain amount of time would be automatically banned until they could be reviewed. Would something like that solve the problem?

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Chris
    RealJock.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:04 AM GMT
    Good suggestion. We'd both go with that.

    Keep the regular channels open for reporting though. They work ( as evidenced today).

    I think you'd have to make it so no one person could hit the spam key a hundred time to delete someone.

    Frankly, Chris, we don't see the need for multiple profiles (that can be created swiftly and can then use the spam key to ban someone, so there goes that idea) and can't understand how they are permitted.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:10 AM GMT
    Doug,

    We originally didn't think multiple profiles would be such a problem but they're obviously being abused in the forums. We can certainly try and limit them and will probably have to if we move forward with the spam link solution.

    Thanks again.

    Chris
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:10 AM GMT
    RealJock saidHi guys,

    We realize that this is becoming a real problem but we're not exactly sure what to do about it. We thought of appointing moderators but we don't feel that anyone can really be objective. For example, we could easily see all of the Republicans being banned from the forums because they're a minority.

    What about some kind of crowd sourcing? If I put a "spam" link on the posts and a member who received a certain number of spam reports in a certain amount of time would be automatically banned until they could be reviewed. Would something like that solve the problem?

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Chris
    RealJock.com

    First, thanks for your active & visible involvement in this discussion. As to your question:

    How would spam reports not turn into negative popularity contests? What if all the right-wingers decided to report me for spam, maybe e-mailing among themselves to coordinate it? What if enough liberals did the same thing to certain right-wingers? There's already a Report Abuse button on each profile, but a Spam Report button on each post might be too tempting, and too intimidating to good-faith posters.

    At the same time, it should be obvious to you where the centers of dissension lie here, who these sources routinely are, day-after-day. And that most flame wars originate with them.

    Look at those who constantly post inflammatory political material, and rarely anything else related to a gay health & fitness site, or even general gay subject matter. If you use your own RJ mission statement, I think your task could be easier. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:10 AM GMT
    RealJock saidHi guys,

    We realize that this is becoming a real problem but we're not exactly sure what to do about it. We thought of appointing moderators but we don't feel that anyone can really be objective. For example, we could easily see all of the Republicans being banned from the forums because they're a minority.

    What about some kind of crowd sourcing? If I put a "spam" link on the posts and a member who received a certain number of spam reports in a certain amount of time would be automatically banned until they could be reviewed. Would something like that solve the problem?

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Chris
    RealJock.com


    Hi Chris!
    Thanks for joining the conversation. I'm not sure if a link that leads to any kind of automated "banning" would be free from unintended consequences. Multiple sock puppets could then be set up by a troll and used to ban legitimate users.

    I do think the idea of...
    1. A "TOS Violation" link.
    2. When clicked by a minimum number ("clipping level") of verified members.
    3. Results in the post being hidden until an administrative review can be performed.
    4. If a minimum number of posts by the same member have exceeded the clipping level and are hidden...
    5. The offending member's account is locked until an administrative review can be performed.

    This system would remove the necessity for "judges" to be appointed.
    This system would make it difficult for socks to abuse the triggers.
    This system would also shut down rapid repeat offenders.
    This system allows for community policing and "due process" by the administrator.

    What are your thoughts?

    UPDATE: This system would not address Art_Deco's concern about verified members ganging up on others. This is a legitimate shortcoming with the system I propose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:16 AM GMT
    You're welcome Chris.
    As Admin, you moderate the site, so how about more admins?

    What happened today was pretty awful until you arrived. Your advertisers, had they checked this site would have seen vid shorts of feces being eaten, graphic penetrative sex and other things they no doubt wouldn't want their products associated with.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:17 AM GMT
    I have mentioned to a couple of my friends recently that hate-mongers have taken control.. and every RJ Forum rule seems to be ineffective right now.
    I think Chris' idea of having something like a SPAM control could be very effective.. if there were several members involved.. to secure the objectivity of the control.
    I would further suggest that (1) if a forum has become too outrageous or too defaming, it could be stopped. (2) any member who continues to abuse the basic forum rules should be threatened with a permanent ban.

    The good thing is that it is finally being talked about!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:17 AM GMT
    Hi Chris,

    Good job with the forum.

    I think the problem with members deciding on spam also deals with objectivity. While there seems to be obvious new accounts that are likely fake, and generating spam, in other cases it's not so clear cut. A member can initiate politically oriented threads that may be very annoying to those who don't agree with the position of the member, but does that mean his postings should be considered spam? If he posts a large number of threads, is it similarly spam? Some think so because they have to scan through pages to ignore the threads.

    I think user voting of spam can lead to a tyranny of the majority effect. My thought is objective moderators who agree not to post in a particular folder would be better.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:19 AM GMT
    GAMRican,

    I really like your ideas. Particularly that verified members are in control of submitting violations and that the penalties are staged so that someone doesn't get locked out immediately.

    Anyone else have thoughts on this? I think this is definitely on the right track.

    Chris



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:27 AM GMT
    Changed the thread title to something more open to suggestions from members.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:33 AM GMT
    I think the one idea I might add to the TOS Violation link is that a member could be exempted from getting banned for a period of time if they were being unfairly locked out. That would prevent groups of verified members from ganging up on other members they didn't like. They could get away with it once, but that would be it.

    Let me know if you guys have any other thoughts on this. I'll check this forum for the next 12-24 hours and implement what seems like a reasonable solution. Then we can tweak it as we get feedback on its effectiveness.

    Thanks,

    Chris


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:41 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidI think user voting of spam can lead to a tyranny of the majority effect. My thought is objective moderators who agree not to post in a particular folder would be better.

    That is the concern I expressed above. The issue should be one of those who violate TOS, and the stated purposes of this site, not of popularity, or the lack thereof.

    Any mechanism that could degenerate into a kind of "RealJock Idol" contest with eliminations, a sort of reverse MOTD, should be rejected.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 05, 2010 1:41 AM GMT
    Am I the only one who doesn't mind the message board as is? It's not as though the admin is totally hands-off. They do respond to e-mails and take action.

    Besides, if you read the TOS, a great number of us have been guilty of a violation at one point. Thanks to the administration's relax approach, we can get away with it. And I kinda like that, so long as the violation isn't extreme.

    There may be some calling for a strict enforcement of RealJock's rules, but they are not as innocent as they wish to appear.


    Please do not add a TOS link that would lock someone out. That could be like going to jail on a fictitious charge, and waiting for justice to take place. A very tedious process. Let the persons contact RealJock and you guys can review it before taking action.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 1:45 AM GMT
    creature saidAm I the only one who doesn't mind the message board as is? It's not as though the admin is totally hands-off. They do respond to e-mails and take action.

    Besides, if you read the TOS, a great number of us have been guilty of a violation at one point. Thanks to the administration's relax approach, we can get away with it. And I kinda like that, so long as the violation isn't extreme.

    There may be some calling for a strict enforcement of RealJock's rules, but they are not as innocent as they wish to appear.


    Did you witness what happened on the boards this afternoon? There's a difference between members getting occasionally snarky and individuals basically defacing the board with filthy, obscene and vicious spam that makes you want to say "fuck it, I have no reason to put it with this, bye."
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 05, 2010 1:51 AM GMT
    Were those creating the problem reported? And from multiple people? I know some people give up and don't bother doing anything. But the RealJock admin are quick to resolve issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 2:05 AM GMT
    "What happened today was pretty awful until you arrived. Your advertisers, had they checked this site would have seen vid shorts of feces being eaten, graphic penetrative sex and other things"

    I am glad I read this afternoon and I missed all that! ... icon_eek.gif

    And some thought the LOLcats were bad! .... icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 2:08 AM GMT
    Here's a suggestion:

    New members can't post in the forums. Instead, send them to a sub-forum for noobs only. They can talk amongst themselves in there for a while. After they reach 100 (or more) posts, they can start posting in the regular forums. I've seen this implemented on other sites. It works.

    - It reduces clutter in the regular forums.
    - It deters drive-by posting.
    - Forces noobs to actually search for topics that were previously posted.
    - Isolates spammers to a single area.

    Another thing to consider is a "Flag" or "dislike" button. The more flags a particular poster gets, the more time they have to wait before they can post or reply again. This deters guys from posting numerous asinine topics in a given time period.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 05, 2010 2:15 AM GMT
    Feces being eaten? Okay, now I understand what Ciarsolo meant. Blech.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2010 2:19 AM GMT
    Sporty, it will mean that if you wish to post, you get verified for admin's purposes. This is not a bad thing.

    As it is, likely only 1/2 (being optimistic, lol) of verified members post on the boards.

    -Doug