[Rondec]

As a Moderator on another forum, I can tell you getting banned is not easy. I'm sure it's the same here, but when someone consistently disrupts the forums, attacks others, there is a record that Moderators make. Administrators then go by that record, before issuing a "time out", and if the "time out" doesn't work, then eventually a total ban.


Now, pornographic, etc., will get an immediate ban. But, members are not aware of the work that goes on behind the scenes, with the Moderators and Administrators. No site wishes to lose members by banning them, and will go to extreme majors to try to educate that member, as to their behavior.

It's interesting also, that some feel the Moderators are over bearing; yet when a call comes up for new Moderators; those same people suddenly become invisible. A site is only as good as the management behind it; and I feel this is a premier site!

My understanding was that there were points awarded and if you got too many you would either get a temporary break for the Forum or sometimes a break from an individual thread. As you say, a permanent ban usually only comes from ongoing bad behavior.

[ffking]

You should drink then post. That way you avoid spilling on the keyboard

Sometimes I wonder about the moderators here....

[Mikesul]

Here's a suggestion just for the News and Rumors section and no other area of Pentax Forums. Why not have a thumbs down just like the thumbs up for each post. Doing this would allow someone to express their disagreement with a post without getting into endless back and forth exchanges that eventually end up in the closure of an otherwise good thread discussion. Just a suggestion.

I too think that outside this section of Pentax Forums the discussions are very civil and often enlightening.

This is a good idea. I have frequently looked for a thumbs down to remember it is not there. Of course, this is a blunt instrument but it might help to alert tone deaf posters that they may have crossed a line.

It would also be helpful to require real names. Many of us already use something close to our full names so it really would not be a burden. Anonymity is the bane of the Internet.

[Serkevan]

It would also be helpful to require real names. Many of us already use something close to our full names so it really would not be a burden. Anonymity is the bane of the Internet.

Absolutely not. Anonymity is a very important safety (and security) feature of the Internet. I would 100% leave the forum - any forum - if my name were to be required.

[csa]

My understanding was that there were points awarded and if you got too many you would either get a temporary break for the Forum or sometimes a break from an individual thread. As you say, a permanent ban usually only comes from ongoing bad behavior.

Each site has their own method; the site I moderate does not use points, at all.

[csa]

It would also be helpful to require real names. Many of us already use something close to our full names so it really would not be a burden. Anonymity is the bane of the Internet.

I for one, would be against this. If a person wishes their real name to be used, it should be up to them.
"Anonymity" may be the bane of the internet in some eyes, however in others, it's protecting our privacy.

[zzeitg]

You seem to be conflating freedom of speech, something that doesn’t exist in any society on this planet, with freedom to be offensive and disagreeable.

Not at all. And I believe I did not say anything that might support such statement.

[gatorguy]

This is a good idea. I have frequently looked for a thumbs down to remember it is not there. Of course, this is a blunt instrument but it might help to alert tone deaf posters that they may have crossed a line.

FWIW I don't care for thumbs down voting since it tends to be used improperly, too often simply to indicate you don't like a particular person or product. I'd much rather see actual replies and counters for something you think isn't correct or an opinion you don't believe was well-conceived.

Anonymous downvotes are lazy and require no thought or effort. Who hasn't received an odd downvote somewhere and wondered what the heck was wrong with what you wrote? Were you incorrect, or is the topic disliked, or perhaps someone thinks they don't care for you personally? It doesn't tell the OP anything other than something was disliked. If it's an overtly egregious post report it to moderators, nothing more needed. Otherwise ignore it if it's not important enough for a reply.

Upvotes serve completely different purposes which very often need noting further than I like your photo, or I like the way you worded this.

Just my 2 cents.

[BigMackCam]

It would also be helpful to require real names. Many of us already use something close to our full names so it really would not be a burden. Anonymity is the bane of the Internet.

IMHO, real names only work if it's a truly level playing field where everyone - not just on a specific site such as this, but everywhere on the internet - uses them, and they can be reliably validated as those named users in everything they do (using multi-factor authorisation, for example). As it stands, there are just too many dangerous and crazy folks who can easily hide behind fake IDs, and I wouldn't want to share my name with them. There have even been a small few past users of this fine site who - having seen what they're capable of when they're aggrieved - I wouldn't want to furnish with my real name

[Lord Lucan]

It would also be helpful to require real names. Many of us already use something close to our full names so it really would not be a burden. Anonymity is the bane of the Internet.

You might argue it is a bane on unmoderated forums (think popular social media) where there are issues like childish on-line vandalism, stalking, scam lures, grooming of under-age targets, and use for the passing of criminal messages. You might argue that it makes it a bit harder to identify the miscreants, although they need to be very stupid not to use false names anyway. In practice it is not possible for forums to check that user names are real.

I'm pretty sure that none of those abuses are issues on PF and I fail to see any problem here in which real names would make any difference. We use consistent forum names, so if anyone is mis-behaving they can be recognised, their track record considered, and diciplined if necessary.

I won't be using my real name and would leave if I were required to do so. I have no wish for anyone to connect the dots between the several forums I use in very different subjects, in particular not by marketing people to whom I am very alergic.

[Mikesul]

There seems to be a lot of fear around this issue. It was just an idea.

[BigMackCam]

There seems to be a lot of fear around this issue. It was just an idea.

A perfectly valid one at that, Mike, and worth airing to get feedback

[Mikesul]

I will confess I have been concerned by the implications of internet anonymity for a long time but it has never risen beyond concern and discussions with others. It came to my attention again recently when I was prompted by a post from Clackers, which praised the demeanor of people on FB Pentaxians. I have had a FB account for a very long time but do not use it. Anyway, I checked out the group and I was struck by the comment someone made there (in response to my defense of PF as one of the nicest places on the internet) that one reason they consider their site more friendly is that they require real names. I have not checked to see if that is true but everyone I saw does have a real seeming name. No agenda on my side. Just a concern that anonymity breeds recklessness in some people.

[maw]

This is a good idea. I have frequently looked for a thumbs down to remember it is not there. Of course, this is a blunt instrument but it might help to alert tone deaf posters that they may have crossed a line.

It is certainly an idea, all ideas are viable, that is the basis of true democracy. But when you think about it, what happened to emperors and dictators?

[RobA_Oz]

I will confess I have been concerned by the implications of internet anonymity for a long time but it has never risen beyond concern and discussions with others. It came to my attention again recently when I was prompted by a post from Clackers, which praised the demeanor of people on FB Pentaxians. I have had a FB account for a very long time but do not use it. Anyway, I checked out the group and I was struck by the comment someone made there (in response to my defense of PF as one of the nicest places on the internet) that one reason they consider their site more friendly is that they require real names. I have not checked to see if that is true but everyone I saw does have a real seeming name. No agenda on my side. Just a concern that anonymity breeds recklessness in some people.

Facebook does not require the use of a user’s real name. Postings are often made by the moderator of a group under the name of the group, for one instance, and I know quite a few others who use false names to project a personal liking, or to protect their identities for valid (eg professional) reasons but there are plenty of false names created simply for the purpose of trolling.

Facebook allows the development of a cess-pit of bad attitudes and personal attacks in some areas, although it does take some complaints seriously (eg threats of violence). People can use it how they want, which is fine for some activities like family connection. I must say that the Pentax and other specialist groups there are pretty civilised, from my reading of them, but mostly because they’re small and closed to non-members. On the whole, though, it’s a money-making enterprise and a degree of controversy is essential to getting viewers onto the open pages for the sake of its advertisers.