From time to time the team have to deal with abuse and disputes on the forums. At the moment we deal with this by deleting or editing abusive posts.

I am personally interested to see how the community believes we should deal with abuse on the forums. So here is a poll that shows some of the options available to us when dealing with abuse.

• Editing: this is a tool that allows a Moderator to edit abuse from any members post. Can not be undone
• Deleting: This allows us to delete a post or an entire topic. Can not be undone
• Locking: This stops all members from making further replies to a topic. Can be unlocked.
• Ignore Member Tool: this is a tool that all members have and can use. If you find another member offensive then you can add them to an Ignore List in your control panel. After that all posts made by those members in your Ignore List can not be viewed unless you click a link to reveal the text. Thus you can not be forced to read a post by those members in your list, you can only choose to read such posts.

I'd say implement a 3 strikes rule...

Give people warnings for 3 offenses, while editing/deleting their posts, and after that, if they continue, restrict their abilities on the site.

I'm not sure if it's possible, or even probable, but, I thought it would be a good idea.

I honestly don't see a whole lot of abuse on this forum. In fact, there's so little that the one or two individuals that are abusive stand out. While I hate it when they make personal attacks on others, and am happy to see that dealt with, I pretty much just ignore their posts.

Incidentally, I hate the Ignore Member Tool. I rarely use it, because it breaks up the flow of a topic. I just take the words of the people I don't care much for with a big grain of salt, and move on.

while it would seem like having the fox guard the henhouse, i will weigh in with my suggestions.


one --- who defines abuse ? because lately i have noticed that some people really get their feathers ruffled when they dont like your critique of their poem. now i cannot help but be honest when i am critiquing a poem, which is what i would want in return. whether or not people like my honesty is immaterial at best.

two --- if the parties involved are not complaining, i say let it go, but move it to the soapbox. if it gets out of hand and offends non-involved parties, delete or edit it. granted, it is a fine line, but over and all, since certain members have recently been banned, the arguments are fewer in number and animosity now.

three --- i can try to help by trying to control my temper. this only happens to a point tho. if i am attacking someone, i fully expect to be either attacked back or dealt with by the mods. however, if i give a critique that someone doesnt like, and that someone attacks me in no less than three other non-related forums, well, there is only so much my retarded ass can take.

four --- i forgot what we were talking about.

five --- like i said above, the people that i used to really get into it with are not here anymore, and the recent spat i had was a result of the other party missintepreting my honesty as hostility. i have been behaving, much as it behooves me sometimes.

six --- some people post poems with arguable content. by which i mean if someone posts a poem about something and other people disagree with it, i dont think that we should only be allowed to respond to the poem part of it. for instance, if someone posted a poem touting the wonders of late-term abortion, members shouldnt have to hold their tongue about the subject matter and only comment on whether it is spelled right or if it rhymes. there has to be some middle ground, because not everyone is going to agree with everyone else's subject matter. this alone would save a lot of arguments if it was understood by all that not only will their work be critiqued, but also their ideas or thoughts in the work itself.

seven---i dont really have a seven but i wanted to end on an odd number./





ps--- i agree with scott about the "ignore member tool", unless, it totally ignored the member, so you wouldnt even have to see their name or anything, like it never existed in your universe. also --- when you ignore a member, if someone else in the thread quotes that member, that part of their post still shows up/

I'm honestly not sure what the problem is here, anyway. I've been to any number of boards in my time, and, believe me, there are a lot nastier places out there. In the couple months I've been here, I've only seen one case of a poster abusing another, and it would appear that it was taken care of. The only other place I've seen people get nasty is in the political threads, and that's to be expected. If I post my opinion about a political topic, I expect people to take pot shots at me.

Legion's post reminds me of a Monty Python skit from years ago. I don't remember the details, but one line in it was "Rule Six - there is NO....rule six!"

for what it's worth, I've decided to just take your critique as a positive thing....

To go ahead and add my $0.02 in, the above post is part of what we are talking about. Not picking on you or anything Tim, but its not on topic. This topic was created with a specific reason in mind, and that was to get the communitys input on the way that we deal with problems on the forums.


As for my idea of how we deal with problems, it really doesn't make any difference to me. I've got plenty of time at night to do anything that is needed to be done. I do like the idea of locking the topic so that others can see what we call offensive behavior but at the same time, if it gets really bad with name calling and other things in it I don't think it should be left for everyone and their mothers to see. My reasoning on this is that if the topic is left there then our new members may go in and read it without ever having had dealings with the member(s) doing the harrassing and will form their own negative opinion about them. This is turn may create hostile behavior if the member in question evers says something that could be misinterpreted.

But on an over-all opinion, any way is fine with me.

That is a whole different nail that you hit squarely on the head. My cop out answer for the time being is: The Team decides. BUT (size is important) that is a whole different subject for a whole different discussion.

For the purpose of this discussion we have to presume that abuse has taken place and look at how to deal with it. I am not going further back than that right now. We will see about that in the future.

Also please note that a lot of the abuse that happens on this forum is not seen by many members as we tend to remove it when we find it. The team is rather efficient at doing so. There is more happens than most members get to see. So while I am sure you have seen more abusive forums Scott (I do not doubt that at all) we still have abuse here.

The criticism is: by editing or deleting members topics we are censoring people.

The whole team has the ability to do this and thus what gets censored can vary according to who is editing or deleting. As Legion pointed out: Who defines abuse? BUT we are not getting into that debate here. The team does a good job, sometimes under difficult circumstances, and we can never please everyone. (most people are not even aware of the implications of the rules. Other never even read them)

I just want to find out how people would prefer to see such things as abuse treated.


Legions point number 6: we have discussion forums where discussions on subjects can take place. If the subject of a poem makes you want to discuss the subject then create such a topic in the discussion forums. It is what they are there for. Even linking to the poem that created the discussion is not a problem. Linking to the discussion from the poem is also acceptable. The problem with discussing the subject of a poem (especially the contentious subjects) in the poem topic is that the creative content of the poem gets left behind. It stops being about creating poetry and becomes another discussion about a subject rather than about poetry. Most of those discussions reduce themselves to bickering and the team would often have to step in and deal with abuse. I believe there is a big difference between criticising a poem for its creative content and criticising the poet for their chosen subject. Show me 10 subjective discussions on this forum that were resolved in agreement, or that changed an opponents views, and I will be prepared to review that rule.

BUTT!!!!! hehe



now that you mention it, i kind of like this idea. leave the critique itself in the forum, and post a link to another spot for subject matter discussion. makes sense. odd, coming from a scouser like you. ( is that abuse?) hehe





censorship sucks! and not in the good cattieos way either!

the only abuse you can give to me is the type I enjoy.

I see the discussion forums as a more relaxed place where arguments (and strong language) are bound to take place. The kind of talk that has no place in poetry criticism and brings nothing to the poem nor the author, other than someone elses opinion of a subject. Lets face it, opinions are cheap and easy to come by. Good poetry criticism is not. I believe it is better that subjective discussions take place elsewhere. I have not come across anyone who posts poetry with the express intent of discussing the subject, though I would not be surprised to find people who do (if only to prove me wrong). I simply believe there is a line between criticising creative writing and discussing the chosen subjects within creative writing.

You are right Legion, censorship does suck. I personally hate having to go through and censor people, yet I have done on several occasions because people are not expressing opinions or dealing with topics, they are being malicious or spiteful and then other people get caught up in the heat of moment and do not speak as they would if they were of a level mind, and so things get edited and cleaned up to avoid further unnecessary conflict. I am guilty of creating the same problems myself.

I have no problem with allowing people the freedom of speech or the freedom to act. The only thing with this is that when push comes to shove those doing the pushing do not think it is fair when I (or the Team) shove back. They do not want to give the Team the freedom of speech or the freedom to act. I have lost count of the amount of times I have had to deal with members who have pushed boundaries around these forums. I take a lot of that in my stride as it is a part of my position here and I can rest assured that I am one of the few with the power to put a stop to anything that goes too far. I do let people know when enough is enough and always they are given a chance to change their attitude and get on with being a part of the community instead of apart from the community.

My point is that when me (or any of the Drytear Team) are asking people to stop their behaviour in a topic they should be listening to what we say. We are not here to order people around or to take sides in matters, we are here to try and keep the peace. To try and keep these forums flowing and break up any fights that may occur. One or two members are masters of understanding this and thus know where the boundaries lay, while other members struggle to understand just how far the team can be pushed before we take affirmative action. Any of the team can be approached with any problems that a member has around these forums. Problems can be dealt with publicly where they tend to escalate, or privately where they tend to get resolved.



I am not certain of which critique you refer to here but let me say that if legion has taken time to critique your work at length then the chances are that he had a serious point to make (somewhere in between his profanity at a guess). I am not saying it was a valid point. :D What I am saying is do not judge a book by its cover. You will find that when you get to the end someone has torn out the last chapter anyway.

i like the 3 strikes rule. there's only so much someone can put up with and if it goes that far numerous times, there's nothing more to do

again, off topic, but, I think Legion and I are starting over...or I hope so...unless I'm still on his ignore list.

But I'm still all for the three strikes rule(with exceptions, of course)

(had to get it back on topic,lol)

except that i am on my 1,256th strike lol



who are you again ?

well hopefully you know the boundaries by now :)

boundaries? we dont need no steenking boundaries!

that's a lot of strikes,lol


oh, and I'm the guy with the hair and the face, who sometimes wears shoes

^^^ Legion abuses so many people, he can't keep track anymore.

yes he does

Abuse is an art form where the witless are the victims.


I am the boundary of no return.

actually, and i wholeheartedly stand by this, i have never once abused anyone on this site that didnt a) have it fucking coming, or b) fuck with me first.

i dont start the fire, i just piss the fuel onto it once it has been started.




youre just being silly now.





a big fat AMEN and thanks for the recognition, dad!