How do you deal with posters who are negative in response to just about every discussion? Do you hit the ignore button? Do you try to engage the person? Do such people really get much respect on a board like this? Not looking to attack any specific person, just delving into a question I've had for a while when it comes to sites like OKC Talk.

I have a few people on ignore, not naming names either. The ignore has worked well for some time now.

it's the open internet, just ignore them if it bugs you. the internet and message boards aren't going away or regulated. do you ignore them in one thread and use them for a lead in another?

You know Steve, that's the stupidest question you've asked yet. Take your liberal journalism Obama loving dribble on down the road!
:irule:

Personally, I've never thought hitting any sort of block or ignore button is a good idea because usually it restricts you in one fashion or another and not the person you're ignoring. I never engage those I think are merely trolling. In a world of nothing but text it is very easy to skip over contributions you don't care to read.

Reminds me of a saying from the old usenet days -- "Don't feed the trolls".

Brian, clearly you don't know me very well. Or is there a bit of irony in that answer? If so, you got me.

Brian, clearly you don't know me very well. Or is there a bit of irony in that answer? If so, you got me.

Steve! C'mon, I figured an "LOL" at the end would just be too obvious, so I settled for the "I Rule!"

I figure I annoy far more than annoy me so I just trust that I will choose who and what to ignore on an as needed basis.

It usually comes down to my mood at the time, time on hand, and how personal I take an individual's post when deciding how or whether or not to react.

As for 'respect' or credibility, I really don't give any one person more of either than another ~ except for the very few people who I actually know. I give credibility to posts, not people. If they can back their post up with logic and or some facts or foundation then I will most likely take their post seriously. I may have just dismissed or even argued with an individual on a previous thread, but I try and not let that bias me on future posts.

Some people I can get a pretty good feel for their personality, social status, education level or general ability to use common sense ~ and some seem to be lacking in all those categories. But we all know people like that.

I just ignore those posts / threads where I know most of the negativity will reside, such as the (oops, better not say it) threads, and the entire Political Forum in general.

Almost everyone here reveals themselves quite clearly...which is OK, it is comical with many of them, though...they do some really humorous maneuvers and dalliances...I think that most are only here out of sheer boredom--the specter of anyone being here for any other reason is truly...frightening...I must admit, though, I do appreciate a pretty good smart-ass from time to time, and this is fertile territory for that...

Hey, would someone mind letting me know what the original post says so I can respond to it?

Thanks.

Some people can be relied upon...and that is a postive--of sorts...

Brian, clearly you don't know me very well. Or is there a bit of irony in that answer? If so, you got me.

Oh, so you're an Obama hater?


:) Just kidding.

To be honest Soonerguru, when it comes to politicians and my life experience, I don't trust any of them.

I've been on message boards for quite a while now and I learned a long time ago that -- just like in life -- some opinions mean more than others based on the amount of respect earned.

So, I pay more attention to those that have earned my respect and while I never hide anyone, obviously some posts are taken with a pretty big grain of salt.


I've never understood those that get upset or angry over things posted on the 'net... It's very obvious that some (or even many) express themselves very differently behind the shield of anonymity; certainly saying things that a basic level of civility would preclude in any face-to-face conversation. But that's the nature of things and it's never going to change.

Once I realized that, I pretty much tune out the noise and focus on the good, and there is plenty of that.

Good points. Now, the reason I'm asking all this is ... not because of OKC Talk, but because I've got one or two individuals who are constantly lodging negative and hostile messages at OKC Central. They're not comments that would spur a good discussion or debate - they're generally just hateful.

In that case, I'd consider grinding them up in to hamburger meat.

Blogs are very different than message boards.

I would have far less tolerance than we show here if I was authoring something and taking comments.

In that case, I'd consider grinding them up in to hamburger meat.

We should appoint an attack squad to perform such tasks when deemed necessary by the active sane membership of the board. I nominate myself for such duties..

How do you deal with posters who are negative in response to just about every discussion? Do you hit the ignore button? Do you try to engage the person? Do such people really get much respect on a board like this? Not looking to attack any specific person, just delving into a question I've had for a while when it comes to sites like OKC Talk.

this board is actually pretty tame and the more message boards you visit the more you realize that people like to argue about anything and everything because its a hobby for them.

i visit a few messageboards and i rarely post; after spending days arguing with some people you realize that you're never going to change them (by them i mean their internet personality because ordinary people dont say the things they do on the internet in real life) and the only thing you're doing is wasting YOUR time.

go outside, go the the gym, watch tv, spend time with your kids and wife and realize that this is the internet - where fat people with no friends go to argue.

Just about the only time I ignore people is when they chronically post stuff not worth reading. Not necessarily provocative things but just posts that don't lead anywhere. It takes a really, really long time to reach that point and has to be extreme. Usually it is a poster who has one issue and turns every thread into that one issue. I have ignored two people who were being ugly just to buy some cooling off time (for them) but eventually I take them off ignore. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And twice I have put someone on ignore to give myself some cooling off time when they insisted on getting mean and personal and wouldn't quit. Again, I generally keep it on ignore about a week or two then let it go.

....good one...

:numchucks where fat :numchucks people with no friends :numchucks go to argue:numchucks

realize that this is the internet - where fat people with no friends go to argue.

Don't rule out the skinny people with no friends, either. ;)

Along those lines, bradzilla...

One thing that occurred to me some time ago is that most people, over time, surround themselves with those of similar backgrounds. Many go to college, live in a nicer area of town, work with and around others that are the same. You also assume that's that is how most people are.

But most people aren't that way at all. And since the Internet is the great leveler -- as in there is no built-in separation or stratification -- people that are used to be being shown a certain amount of courtesy and even respect are wide open to all types of outrageous discourse, some aimed directly at them.

But if you want to play on the Internet you have to accept that you will occassionally have to take abuse from people who wouldn't have anything like that nerve (or opportunity) in the real world.

I've found the best way to deal with that is just ignore and not provide a return volley. And I do everything I can not to get down on that level and in fact, it's why I prefer to post under my real name and adopt the "if I wouldn't say it in person, I'm not going to post it" approach.

[QUOTE=Pete Brzycki;368523] I've found the best way to deal with that is just ignore and not provide a return volley. And I do everything I can not to get down on that level. . . "

not as brave as Pete (posting under real name), but bottom line is. . . dont' engage with "fools" . . . !!

Posting under one's real name is simple. Just don't write anything you'd be embarrassed if your momma were to see it. Easy peasy stuff.

How do you deal with posters who are negative in response to just about every discussion? Do you hit the ignore button? Do you try to engage the person? Do such people really get much respect on a board like this? Not looking to attack any specific person, just delving into a question I've had for a while when it comes to sites like OKC Talk.

I've learned over the years, Steve, that there are some people in this world you just can't please. Oklahoma can build itself a super resort and excavate a huge swath of land to build an ocean to the marvels ofthe world's greatest engineers. And yet, they will still be Debbie Downers. Reality is, you just can't save them. I've come to terms with these types of people. Let them go and write them off. I've got more important things to worry about in my short window of life.

Don't see any Ignore/Block by any post. Guess it was just a figure of speech?

Just don't engage in direct conversation with someone if the potential is there to lead toward hostile responses. Even if we do have the option to Ignore/Block a person, it is still a terrible feature, because the person will miss a whole bunch and not be on track with the discussion.

For me, I know who is a troll/troublemaker or just simply stupid. Read their posts, but don't respond directly to them. A response in a discussion can be made in general without direct hostile action. And I agree with some saying this is one of the very few forums that is actually very pleasant and informative. I like that. I stay away from other forums filled with drama, anger, and threats.

We're going to have our own ocean? That will never work.

Dealing with negative posters... Hmm.. Turn the other cheek, maybe?

Don't see any Ignore/Block by any post. Guess it was just a figure of speech?

Just don't engage in direct conversation with someone if the potential is there to lead toward hostile responses. Even if we do have the option to Ignore/Block a person, it is still a terrible feature, because the person will miss a whole bunch and not be on track with the discussion.

For me, I know who is a troll/troublemaker or just simply stupid. Read their posts, but don't respond directly to them. A response in a discussion can be made in general without direct hostile action. And I agree with some saying this is one of the very few forums that is actually very pleasant and informative. I like that. I stay away from other forums filled with drama, anger, and threats.

With all due respect, there's a difference between "gee why won't no one be my friend on here?" and "they're all haters, I know they're just trolling."

This might be a little long - but I honestly feel it needs to be said by someone and serious thought given to the following points. I guess I'll be the first one to say some things that Pete probably won't like. But that's okay because I believe Pete's a bit overwhelmed and might welcome ideas on improving OKCTalk.

If a forum this size is to function - and is be taken seriously - it must have top-notch moderation with serious consequences for offenders. I mean the kind of moderation that disallows personal attacks, keeps threads on topic, locks silly threads with trash talk quickly, bans people - not for any opinion - but for how it's expressed (meaning no personal attacks), bans members who operate under multiple sock-puppet usernames (yes, there are ways to tell other than IP addresses)...and I could go on. This is one of the least moderated city development forums I look at - and I browse quite a few.

As for the forum being "free" for members and it costing Pete money so we should not criticize and just accept it no matter how Pete chooses to moderate (or not moderate) the forum. Pete has said on multiple occasions since he bought the site that he's going to do this and do that. I have offered multiple ideas for developing an income stream. It's always, "coming," but when things go bad we hear from Pete about how he's having to pay for this out of his own pocket and so forth. Pete, it doesn't have to be that way if you would just actually do a few of the things that I, and others, have suggested.

This forum has some truly great members - and it also has many classless, one-liner, "members" who do nothing but cause trouble. There's several members who consistently post with up to 5 or 6 different usernames - all with different personalities. They are allowed to stay. That's Pete's decision and it's one of the things that has ruined OKCTalk. It's directionless and, for all practical purposes, leaderless.

Negativity on issues is a different thing. That's called differences of opinion and I, frankly, enjoy hearing two sides (or three or four) debate issues relevant to our city. While some may call opposing opinions, "negative,", it's not that which ruins things - it's the trouble-making, wisecracking sock-puppets that pop up into every thread - no matter how serious - to disrupt this forum. Forum disruption should be cause for banning. This forum with half the membership, but with most all members being regular, quality posters would be far more valuable than the car wreck it has become. Maybe completely getting rid of sub-forums for national political discussion would also help as that does nothing but bring out the angry trolls on every side of every issue and it all works its way into the other "main" forums here at OKCTalk.

One suggestion cuts sock-puppets and disruption down by huge percentages: A one-time $5 - $10 charge to become a member. They must use a credit card or PayPal or make arrangements for other forms of payment that might be considered by management. But they can still be banned for disruption, but they'll think twice about disrupting.

Pete, please don't take any of what I said above in a personal way, though that might be hard and I understand, but it's just getting ridiculous here. Good OKCTalk members shouldn't have to wade through the manure to find the good stuff. I, and many other one-time "regulars" - rarely post any longer and, for myself, find myself a very casual drive-by user. It could be so very different.

One suggestion cuts sock-puppets and disruption down by huge percentages: A one-time $5 - $10 charge to become a member. They must use a credit card or PayPal or make arrangements for other forms of payment that might be considered by management. But they can still be banned for disruption, but they'll think twice about disrupting.

Mike, I agree with most of what you say but the idea of charging people to be able to post on a public forum just strikes me wrong no matter how well intentioned the idea is and how small the fee is. I don't think it would accomplish what you're hoping for at all. And I think it might discourage many who might have good points or comments to make from posting at all.

Mike, I agree with most of what you say but the idea of charging people to be able to post on a public forum just strikes me wrong no matter how well intentioned the idea is and how small the fee is. I don't think it would accomplish what you're hoping for at all.

I understand your feelings. There is precedence for the charge with boards (the VERY successful Metafilter/AskMetafilter message boards and others). Also, remember, this isn't really a "public forum" in the sense that it's some kind of city-operated, non-profit message board. OKCTalk is a private for-profit enterprise and, as such, can make any membership rules needed to maintain civility and quality control. The Wall Street Journal is a paid content site and conversation there is far more intelligent and civilized than most newspapers. I understand your concerns and it's only a suggestion because it severely limits sock-puppets (multiple usernames by one person). It also makes it more difficult for banned members to make another appearance under a different username.

I always figured the political forum was a way to get the nasties to post there and leave the sane folks alone. :dizzy: Am I wrong?

Mike, I've heard all this before from you and just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm overwhelmed or not caring. I just see things differently.

I will also point out that all our numbers -- posts, users, new threads, views -- have gone up rapidly and steadily since I bought the site. Posters come and go; always have, always will.


It's pretty easy to just ignore the posts of people you don't care for or don't respect. It's always been my personal opinion and approach on this site (and on others I have moderated with 10x the traffic) that we aren't here to be parents and to moderate arguments and squabbles. If something gets out of hand we'll step in but otherwise, like any other community or group, it has to be self-regulating.

And I assure you as soon as we were to take a more pro-active approach, there would be far more people howling about heavy-handedness and censorship. I'd always rather err on the side of letting people work things out themselves.


If there are people using multiple screen names, report them and we'll do our best to deal with them. Pretty simple, really.


I'd also like to point out that you've raised these gripes publicly several times now without censorship. I'm sure you see the irony in that.


And finally, changes will come to the site when I feel the time is right. I've actually made tons of them already... But in terms of monetizing, I think that's a little premature and against the idea of being an open community forum for the benefit of all.

I guess I've missed the threads where anyone was called out for using multiple accounts surreptitiously - surely if this was as rampant as Mike suggests then it would have surfaced on each occurrence. Personally, I think there are times a person is justified in creating an alter forum ego.

Good points. Now, the reason I'm asking all this is ... not because of OKC Talk, but because I've got one or two individuals who are constantly lodging negative and hostile messages at OKC Central. They're not comments that would spur a good discussion or debate - they're generally just hateful.

You only get what you give.

I kind of like the reputation system similar to the one at City-Data although I understand its vulnerabilities. You gain points to give by time and number of posts so those who do not participate have less ability to add to someone's reputation.

I know there have been many occasions when I would have given a reputation point to several posters because of their input but it isn't available.

One thing I don't like about City-Data's system is that you are prevented from giving points to the same poster until you've spread some around.

I've been on other forums where they've had different methods but in general I do think the reputation point system is worth investigating.

MikeOKC thoughts are bolded.


I will also point out that all our numbers -- posts, users, new threads, views -- have gone up rapidly and steadily since I bought the site. Posters come and go; always have, always will.

Metro Area Talk has dropped dramatically. Some days only a very few threads have responses. To me, MAT is what branded OKCTalk.

I'd also like to point out that you've raised these gripes publicly several times now without censorship. I'm sure you see the irony in that.

No, I don't. The "gripes" are serious proposals. No more of an irony than a California resident owning and running the site.

And finally, changes will come to the site when I feel the time is right. I've actually made tons of them already... But in terms of monetizing, I think that's a little premature and against the idea of being an open community forum for the benefit of all.

Then why did you ask for suggestions on monetizing the site? Yes, it's been some time ago, but you felt it necessary at one time because of all the costs you are personally burdened with (which I can certainly understand).

I'll only hope major changes are made as many serious posters, who would post on city development issues (versus politics or zombies in Crossroads Mall), now avoid this site. Your numbers might be up, but the quality of posting is, imo, way down.

In the end, it's your site. If you're happy with it now - there's nothing more I can say.

Good luck....




My thoughts, in response to Pete's post, are bolded above.

The funny part of this is, I've seen MikeOkcs' on many other forums I've belonged to. Running one of these forums is kind of like playing solitaire. There's usually someone looking over your shoulder that wants to tell you how to play. As I consider myself one of the many guests in Petes house, I keep my nose out of his business. (seems like the polite thing to do) It also goes without saying that MikeOkc is free to go off and build a bigger and better forum if he feels this one isn't to his personal satisfaction.

PQ..please don't put me on ignore! I am one of your biggest fans and love your posts!! :-)

The funny part of this is, I've seen MikeOkcs' on many other forums I've belonged to. Running one of these forums is kind of like playing solitaire. There's usually someone looking over your shoulder that wants to tell you how to play. As I consider myself one of the many guests in Petes house, I keep my nose out of his business. (seems like the polite thing to do) It also goes without saying that MikeOkc is free to go off and build a bigger and better forum if he feels this one isn't to his personal satisfaction.

Stick, You've never seen me on another forum. This, and a couple of forums related to my industry, are the only forums I actively post to. I READ a few others, but this is the only forum I post to that has to do with these issues.

As this being "Pete's house," that has nothing to do with it (in fact it's the opposite of what he says). Gmail might be free, but if it goes down and loses all your mail would you be upset? Offering ideas and suggestions and yes, even criticism, should not be out of bounds anywhere. I don't think even Pete would disagree with that. This isn't personal - it's about making OKCTalk a better place.

Stick, You've never seen me on another forum
If you can't interpret what I said to mean I've seen people like you elsewhere (ie: the guy looking over the shoulder of the person playing solitaire and telling him how to play) I don't think I'd want you giving suggestions on how to run a forum. So you tell me, do you approve of someone telling a person how to play sol? Would you be one to do that? I think that should explain why I posted what I did and yes this is Pete's house. Like it or leave it.