Chat Kicking Poll

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

So the chat gets -1 troll and the troll gets removed. Everybody gets what they want. Why is this a bad thing?

Because that's not what actually happens. The chat does not get -1 troll, they get -1 bored/harmless troll and +1 (or more--especially if sock puppets are involved) troll who now knows that he or she can get a response out of the people in the chat. The troll will come back--often with friends--and now there are multiple trolls where there was previously one who would have just left if people could ignore things.

Trolling: Depends on how "trolling" is defined. Narrow it to "verbal harassment of someone else." This should be enforced.

Horndog, this is the other issue I have with banning "trolls." I have no problem with banning people for unprovoked verbal harassment of someone else, but I consider that flaming--not trolling. (If a person is provoked, I think kicking should be used instead of banning.) The problem is that the word troll has lost its meaning. "Trolling" used to mean that a person would seek to disrupt group communications online by posting messages that would anger the members of the group. A troll would seek negative attention--banning being the ultimate goal--for the sake of aggravating others until the banning ensued. Trolls who were banned would find a way around the ban, and return to resume their previously disruptive activities. What people figured out was that "trolls" needed to be ignored--not banned. A troll that doesn't get attention is a sad troll, and a sad troll moves on to another site. The problem is people no longer follow that definition and now label people that they don't like as "trolls" on the grounds that the disliked person annoys the person doing the labeling.

The question I find myself asking is "why would I even want to spend time in the chat room?"

Maybe if the people that spend the most time in the chat room were welcoming and inclusive to everyone it would be a big improvement in the atmosphere of the room without having to argue over rules and the quality and amount of moderation. Just a thought.

Freta just summed up a good portion of why you don't see me in chat. Few chats are welcoming and inclusive in my experience--most devolve into cliques soon after they're created regardless of where they're hosted or what the topic is. Entering a chatroom is the internet equivalent of lunchroom chatter and not in a good way most of the time. PMs on the other hand are a way to get out of the lunchroom and talk with the people who you actually want to talk to without having to deal with all the background noise and overlapping conversations. Occasionally the lunchroom chatter is fun, but I prefer to actually be able to pay attention to the people who I'm talking with.

[JBonn]

A bit late to the party on this one but here's my 2 cents:

• Cursing: As previously stated, supposedly everyone here is 18+ so we should all be able to deal with this. Only possible restriction I could see is if there was a specific age-play room where cursing could be limited for the roleplay experience.

• Spamming: If it's truly spam, then yeah, ban it on an as-needed basis.

• PMs w/o Permission: This has to be one of the silliest things I've seen. PM is the equivalent of getting someone's attention in a crowded room and whispering to them. If that person doesn't want to continue the private conversation they have the ability to step away. We should have the same ability to ignore someone who repeatedly PM's on an individual basis. If this were ban-able then any new person who doesn't know the rules, jumps into chat and gets up enough courage to privately ask one person a question instead of addressing it to the 20 or 30 people in the room at large would be banned in no time flat because someone interprets it as "a HNG stalking me".

• Trolling: Not sure how trolling happens in a chat room, but again, with a working Ignore feature, this could be dealt with on an individual basis.

• Baby Talk: Guess I'd kind of expect to see this in an AB chatroom, even though I have absolutely no desire to indulge in it myself. Were there seperate sub-rooms for ABs vs DLs vs whatever other flavor then it would be easier to police (keep it out of the "main" room but gaga/googoo to your hearts' content in the specific area for it. One of the reasons why I'm seldom in chat is that invariably I step into the room whilst there's an ongoing babytalk conversation. Interrupting that with "adult" talk just illustrates that it's difficult to have 5 different conversations across a crowded room with 30 people in it - whether that's typing or actual shouting.

I view a lot of this as much ado about nothing. It makes the old days of IRC chat seem so advanced and sophisticated That or perhaps we just applied a bit more common sense to it.

[Leilin]

Because that's not what actually happens. The chat does not get -1 troll, they get -1 bored/harmless troll and +1 (or more--especially if sock puppets are involved) troll who now knows that he or she can get a response out of the people in the chat. The troll will come back--often with friends--and now there are multiple trolls where there was previously one who would have just left if people could ignore things.

I think you vastly overestimate the attention span, intelligence, personability and technical skills of most of the people who have trolled these chats. If you IP ban most of them, they won't be back. Most of them wouldn't know an IP address from a phone number.

I will note that I have yet to see anybody provide a reason why any of these people should be tolerated, just reasons why attempting to deal with them is futile. It's like saying that life is unfair, so you should never stand up for people who are being kicked when they're down, and a ridiculous assertion on its face.

[diaperwerx]

A LONG time ago, in a land far, FAR, away ;-). The chat room was only visited by adults!!!! Just kidding!!!!!(pls, pls, pls, ab's just acknowledge the extra exclamation!)

Overall I agree with JBonn and I thought it was discussed that there should be, in general, ab, and DL forums but at the time this was not technologically feasible. And that we all understood due to the technical limitations (at the time) and in mutual support of each other just put up with different conversations in the same chat just because we can understand and support each other. If the situation has changed now then great I should try again ;-)

As for spammers/trollers the ignore button works, for other issues assuming the mental one (your brain organ) filtering works for me. Having said that haven't been in chat in some time because there are too many kids Pun intended.

-dw

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

If the so-called trolls aren't making attempts to work around an IP ban then they're not actually trolls--they're simply your run of the mill disruptive members. The reason you don't ban *traditional* trolls is that it always has the opposite effect of what you're trying to do, witch (spelling pun intended) is to get rid of them.

That brings me to the other reason I won't support banning trolls--the definition of the term has lost its meaning, and is now too vague to support. If your talking about members who are generally disruptive, that should fall under the "common sense" category.

JBonn, I'm pretty much in agreement with you on all points. I particularly like your argument for why PMing without permission should be permitted. Just because your an AB doesn't mean that you have to act like a spoiled brat, and when I see a rule against PMing without permission that's the first thing I think of--a spoiled brat who wants his or her own way and is too thin-skinned to deal with an unwanted message by hitting ignore if its offensive, or just writing a quick reply saying that he or she isn't interested in talking if it's polite.

[diaperwerx]

Well I tried chat, and figured incorrectly, that another old-timer would help me figure out the new chat interface. I had no idea how hostile the chat has become...wtf? Seriously I was going to sponsor the site for year and what the hell has happened? I do appreciate the work of all moderators but as a "newbie" to the new interface to ask someone for help and get kicked is I guess a sign of the times. Guess I will remain a random and guest and not a sponsor. Good Luck. I do hope the site continues because I think a great many people still think they are alone. Cheers and Happy New Year!

[~*PrincessZozo*~]

I have no issues in chat, but granted I've been here 6.5 years. We're you randomly PM'ing people asking for help, asking EVERYONE if they wanted to PM when they logged in, etc?

[Leilin]

If the so-called trolls aren't making attempts to work around an IP ban then they're not actually trolls--they're simply your run of the mill disruptive members. The reason you don't ban *traditional* trolls is that it always has the opposite effect of what you're trying to do, witch (spelling pun intended) is to get rid of them.

Another silly assertion. Trolls were called that when it was just script kiddies using AOHell to piss people off in AOL chats, and if you think that those people had any knowledge of getting around an IP ban, well, that's just a bit silly. They are people who are purposely being inflammatory for a response. The simple fact that methods aren't being used to combat these trolls and that nothing is being done to eject them is the precise reason why trolls without technical skill are entering the picture. It has absolutely nothing to do with technical skill and is often inversely related with it for the aforementioned reasons.

And, again, you only provide a reason why getting rid of them is futile, not why it should not be attempted.

But let's nail down this definition, just in case:

Troll: A person who enters the chat with the express purpose of starting arguments and causing havoc, often pretending to be a member of the community to foster more dissent.

Flamer: A person who berates another member of chat intently, often without provocation.

Both need to be banned on repeated offenses, with a much lower threshold for trolling. Most of the trolls who are on these particular forums and chat are about as tech-savvy as your average middle school teacher, so there's really no purpose to fearing any sort of retaliation. Now, if we get another blitz from SA, that might be a different story.

[Horndog]

Horndog, this is the other issue I have with banning "trolls." I have no problem with banning people for unprovoked verbal harassment of someone else, but I consider that flaming--not trolling. (If a person is provoked, I think kicking should be used instead of banning.) The problem is that the word troll has lost its meaning. "Trolling" used to mean that a person would seek to disrupt group communications online by posting messages that would anger the members of the group. A troll would seek negative attention--banning being the ultimate goal--for the sake of aggravating others until the banning ensued. Trolls who were banned would find a way around the ban, and return to resume their previously disruptive activities. What people figured out was that "trolls" needed to be ignored--not banned. A troll that doesn't get attention is a sad troll, and a sad troll moves on to another site. The problem is people no longer follow that definition and now label people that they don't like as "trolls" on the grounds that the disliked person annoys the person doing the labeling.

It's just semantics.

Personally, I define "trolling" as an act of disruption toward an individual or group. Verbal harassment toward someone counts as "trolling." "Flaming" is a subsection of "trolling." Flaming, in itself, is disruptive because it breaks the flow of a conversation. All the other things you said are absolutely right on. We just have a different view of what "trolling" is.

[~*PrincessZozo*~]

New Rule everyone:

If you talk about what you do in your nappy at a completely random time (ESPECIALLY if you just masturbated into it) *cough* greg86 *cough* You need to be reported/removed. I don't want to hear your masturbation schedule or what what the poo you just had feels and smells like. *gag*

[sarah_ab]

but this is partly a diaper fetish website, so it makes sense that people are going to enter a fetish chat room and begin talking about their sexual fetish.... there has to be SOME leeway for people who make a mistake... this whole no tolerance policy without explaining all the rules before hand is getting a bit silly really...

If someone doesn't know it is not allowed, then it is not appropriate to immediate punish them for doing it.

Again, this is an over 18 website, which in the internet world implies something sexual is going on... and for many diapers are a fetish... and on other fetish websites, teh point of the chatroom is to discuss that fetish... so coming in and stating they are engagin in fetish behavior is completely reasonable.....

[DiaperPony]

New Rule everyone:

If you talk about what you do in your nappy at a completely random time (ESPECIALLY if you just masturbated into it) *cough* greg86 *cough* You need to be reported/removed. I don't want to hear your masturbation schedule or what what the poo you just had feels and smells like. *gag*

I disagree with this. What's the point of a diaper chat if we can't talk about all aspects of diapers and their uses?

[FretaBWet]

Another silly assertion. Trolls were called that when it was just script kiddies using AOHell to piss people off in AOL chats, and if you think that those people had any knowledge of getting around an IP ban, well, that's just a bit silly. They are people who are purposely being inflammatory for a response. The simple fact that methods aren't being used to combat these trolls and that nothing is being done to eject them is the precise reason why trolls without technical skill are entering the picture. It has absolutely nothing to do with technical skill and is often inversely related with it for the aforementioned reasons.

And, again, you only provide a reason why getting rid of them is futile, not why it should not be attempted.

But let's nail down this definition, just in case:

Troll: A person who enters the chat with the express purpose of starting arguments and causing havoc, often pretending to be a member of the community to foster more dissent.

This definition of a troll sounds so simple on the face of it but it's not really simple at all. How is anybody to determine what any persons express purpose is. People start arguments all the time, most of the time because they disagree with something someone wrote or said. How do you tell the difference between that and someone with the express intent to start a fight? The only way you can know what is in another persons mind is to have the ability to read minds. I have a feeling that would disqualify all the mods we have right now.

I also have an issue with the "often pretending to be a member of the community to foster more dissent." part of your definition. It seems to me that if someones dissents something it's coercive to try to punish them for having a different view by labeling them as pretending to be in the community.

Flamer: A person who berates another member of chat intently, often without provocation.

Both need to be banned on repeated offenses, with a much lower threshold for trolling. Most of the trolls who are on these particular forums and chat are about as tech-savvy as your average middle school teacher, so there's really no purpose to fearing any sort of retaliation. Now, if we get another blitz from SA, that might be a different story.

The chat room will always have differences of opinion between some people. There will always be some arguments that get heated when you have 2 people with opposing views and both have strong personalities. Trolls aren't the biggest problem in the chat and PMing without permission isn't either but I'm not going into that here because I just wanted to point out my dissent on this definition of a troll.

Hugs,

Freta

[ErinM]

I will note that I have yet to see anybody provide a reason why any of these people should be tolerated

For the lulz?

[Leilin]

The chat room will always have differences of opinion between some people. There will always be some arguments that get heated when you have 2 people with opposing views and both have strong personalities. Trolls aren't the biggest problem in the chat and PMing without permission isn't either but I'm not going into that here because I just wanted to point out my dissent on this definition of a troll.

Hugs,

Freta

That's very valid, Freta, and this is why we need common sense mods, so they can say, at a certain threshold, after warning a person, "Yes. This person is doing this on purpose, and not actually to make a valid point or defend a position."

[Bettypooh]

The chat room will always have differences of opinion between some people. There will always be some arguments that get heated when you have 2 people with opposing views and both have strong personalities. Trolls aren't the biggest problem in the chat and PMing without permission isn't either but I'm not going into that here because I just wanted to point out my dissent on this definition of a troll.

Hugs,

Freta

Freta, you'd better be careful with common sense around here. You might just find yourself moderating

Bettypooh

[aleyxsis]

Kick em when they're up kick when they're down .Kick em alll around I say! hee hee !

[FretaBWet]

I know all about catch 22, you're not going to trick me :-) Bettypooh.

Hugs,

Freta

[wetman]

'scuse me for this, but are some people here asking for 'my way, and my way' only? I guess it's not his/their mode of operating this site and the chat, but if anyone can dictate the correct behaviour, then it's the admin.

This 'democracy trial' fails so badly because people cannot tolerate or ignore a different opinion and feel that others have to make sure that they are not exposed to anything that could possibly upset them. No, even more: they do not want to read what they don't like most. It's chocolate only, all the time.

I wanna wanna wanna.

Sod* the chat. I vote to switch it off.

If someone needs to chat, let them go to some IRC server and open a room with the title 'diaper talk, but not really about diapers as such, and no babytalk either, and please no sexual references, and no PM, or only after you asked, but don't ask me anyway, and nothing dirty, and not about NASCAR, and I don't like light blue and not about Taco Bell or Boston Red Sox, and not things that I don't like and other things that I havent thought of yet, but if you post them I'll ban you.'

I bet you get a lot of conversation.

*Some rare swearing from me, but can't be replaced by more civil terms without losing the feeling.

[missyD]

Holy diapers wetman, you mean people should be allowed to talk about anything, and that as adults we can just ignore what we don't like? Call Commissioner Boredom!

But sorry, I can't support "switching off" chat - I love it! It feels like my extended family. And, like my real extended family, it is indeed a bit dysfunctional, but it is a family.

[Leilin]

Because ignoring the trolls has worked SO well so far, right? I mean it just did WONDERS for the environment at DPF.

[ItchyTasty]

I think you vastly overestimate the attention span, intelligence, personability and technical skills of most of the people who have trolled these chats. If you IP ban most of them, they won't be back. Most of them wouldn't know an IP address from a phone number.

I will note that I have yet to see anybody provide a reason why any of these people should be tolerated, just reasons why attempting to deal with them is futile. It's like saying that life is unfair, so you should never stand up for people who are being kicked when they're down, and a ridiculous assertion on its face.

Trust me only a thick person doesn't know how to get past an IP ban. Trolls and flamers, best to IGNORE them like a brickwall till they get bored and leave.

If they go too far, a total ISP ban for them perhaps, as I doubt they will change ISP's as that costs loads of money and you can't cancel your contract just like that.

ISP's would only ban someone for persistant stalking, hacking, and similar. I doubt trolling though, unless it was persistant severe personal attacks and a few other things.......

Not all IP's are static, some are dynamic, then suspect(dodgy) people can use proxy servers to get around IP bans or just use a different username if they have dynamic IP's.

[sarah_ab]

i must be very thick then ... i have no idea how to get around an ip ban ... but im sure i could google it

[Sojourner]

I'll weigh in here...under "Other (expound)", I'll put "any and all slurs against race, ethnicity and sexual preference".

As far as proxy servers: every time I've experimented with using a proxy server to get into a Java-based chatroom, the applet refuses to pop up.

[innocentagain]

I don't think anyone should be banned without first getting at least one warning. Period. Give people a chance. And the only bannable offenses should be: 1. Repeated bullying of another member, 2. And open advocation of pedophilia (being a pedophile), 3. Threatening real bodily harm or death on another member.

Cursing? Maybe if this was a convent, I guess. Even insulting other members, I think you should have patience for, unless it's being sexually degrading (using the word "faggot", for instance), and even then only after a warning- use your best judgment.

Bottom line is the golden rule, restraint, and common sense about whether a member is being persistently and intentionally malicious toward others.