IMPORTANT - New Process for warnings, thread bans, post moderation and post bans

[overscan (PaulMM)]

As a response to the increased incidence of posts requiring moderation, and some users feeling that punishments are unfairly or unequally applied, the SPF moderation team have created a standardised process we will follow.
The forum rules are here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/pages/rules/

When a user make a post which gets reported and requires moderation for breaching forum rules, the moderator will edit the post, assuming it contains parts that should be kept as well as the infringing content, or delete it.

The offending user will also receive a warning. It will typically be

• Inappropriate Content
• Inappropriate Behaviour
• Inappropriate Language
• Inappropriate Advertising / Spam

Or occasionally a custom warning if the above don't apply. Note that abuse of the reporting system itself is "Inappropriate Behaviour".

You will receive 1 warning point which expires after 1 month for each infraction.

When a user reaches 3 active warning points, further action will be taken.

There are 4 sanctions which can be applied - post moderation, thread bans, posting ban, and total ban.

Post Moderation means you will be placed an a group where your posts need approval by a moderator to be visible. The moderators will endeavour to approve your posts in a timely fashion, but we don't have 24/7 coverage so this inevitably will at times mean your posts take a little while to be visible.

Thread Ban can be used where a user is typically well behaved but has a particular "trigger topic" they seem unable to control themselves around. This is likely to be rarely used.

Post Ban can be used where the user contributes nothing of value, but is not actively malicious. They can read the forum, view large images, but not contribute.

Total Ban can be used where the user is actively malicious e.g. spammer / hacker.

For a first offence, typically Post Moderation will be applied, as it allows you to still contribute to all discussions.

If you are in Post Moderation, please don't take it as a sign you are not wanted on the forum. In fact, it means the opposite - that we believe you still have useful posts to make, we just can't trust you not to keep breaking forum rules right now. If you contributed nothing of value, you'd be placed in Post Ban instead.

Effectively this is a probationary period where your posts are moderated. If you can behave yourself and post good on-topic content for a month, when your warnings expire you will be taken out of Post Moderation and restored to standard user rights. If you persist in making infringing posts while in Post Moderation, you will stay in Post Moderation and also risk being moved to Post Ban.

Any user making repeat trips to Post Moderation risks being moved permanently to Post Ban.

If you disagree with any decisions made in this process, please contact me via Conversation or, if you can't, via email to [email protected]. I will review your case or, if I made the decision, I will pass it to another moderator to review.

For the sake of fairness, I am resetting all current warnings. This is a line in the sand.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Everyone, please read this important announcement.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Note that existing warnings are reset, this is a new beginning. However, bear in mind the consequences laid out above when posting.

 

[TomcatViP]

Dear Overscan,

Is that already implemented?
Since I read your post, half a dozen of my own posts have been erased the good old way, without any traces left to just guess what they were.

Best & Happy Easter,

TViP

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This may be an issue with the notifications? There should be a message supplied, but maybe it doesn't indicate the post it would relate to ?

 

[Orionblamblam]

You will receive 1 warning point which expires after 1 month for each infraction.

How does one check on their point status? Or is this one of them there "Double Secret Probation" things?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I can look it up for you if you are curious. You actually don't seem to have any right now, which was a surprise to me.

 

[publiusr]

I probably accumulate them just breathing.

Folks can insult me--I don't care. The only report I ever made was over the bots at disqus that ask about making $7,000 or whatever it was. My circulation issues keep me in a fog half the time.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I can look it up for you if you are curious. You actually don't seem to have any right now, which was a surprise to me.

Me too. There are many fragile, brittle souls around. In any event, the purpose of a "warning" is to warn you. A warning you are unaware of is not much of a warning.

A recommendation: along with an "ignore" function that makes it so you don't see posts from those you don't like, how about a "block" function so those you don't like can't see *you*? This can have some negative impacts, of course, but consider this modification: if someone reports you X number of times, they are automatically blocked for Y number of days or weeks. This seems to me entirely appropriate. Maybe a 1 day block for the first report, 2 days for the second, 4 for the third, 8 for the 4th, 16, 32, 64...

 

[Arjen]

Distribute your stuff via mailing list. Remove anyone from the list who has been nasty to / disagreeing with you.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So - you will know if you receive a warning. I think this question may be to do with deleting off-topic posts rather than warnings.

Small 'side quests' in topics are fine providing it doesn't derail the main purpose of the topic. Interesting side quest topics that seem to be generating a new conversation should be moved to new topics of their own.

Given that the forum has also functioned somewhat as a database as well as a discussion forum (e.g. the topics collating information about specific unbuilt projects) historically we've also removed off topic posts, jokes, etc, once the discussion has moved on past them, to 'clean up' the topic of extraneous noise. Deleting a message should send a notification (assuming the moderator enters a reason for the deletion) but it will just be something like "deleted offtopic post".

These choices are reliant on the judgement of the moderator, so its possible your offtopic post was deleted sooner than you think is sensible. If an offtopic post you made two months ago gets deleted, I'm not sure there's any harm done, nor purpose in specifically informing you of the topic and post that was deleted.

If you think every post you ever made is a work of genius, required to be preserved in place forever, never to be moved or deleted, then I can see you might find this process irritating. However, wading through pages of off-topic chatter looking for useful information is also irritating.

 

[Archibald]

Hmmm maybe I should stay away from a lot of "modern fighters" threads, notably those related to a) Rafale and b) Ukraine war.

Going a step further, is "self, deliberate banning" feasible ? I mean, asking a moderator to ban yourself from a sensitive thread ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

You can request a voluntary thread ban, I guess?

 

[Arjen]

ban yourself from a sensitive thread ?

Read everything you trust yourself to read and/or reply to. Then click on <Mark forums read> on the SPF home page to remove the temptation to wade into sensitive threads.
<edit> Or - log out before you start reading sensitive threads.

 

[Archibald]

You can request a voluntary thread ban, I guess?

You said it better than me. Yes. I may request a banning from the Rafale thread - for a start.

 

[helmutkohl]

I am generally supportive of voluntary bans.
We have a number of members who are generally good contributors, but when it comes to certain topics, can't control themselves and they get themselves into trouble.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Small 'side quests' in topics are fine providing it doesn't derail the main purpose of the topic.

Example: a posting of a YouTube video that explained the Qatari 747/Air Force One issue and debunked a lot of myths about the issue was deleted by some mod or other because apparently it was "political," while the *entire* thread* is political.

 

[martinbayer]

I noticed that some of my recent posts were deleted, but I received no notification/explanation whatsoever - if you want posters like me to improve contributions, constructive feedback is vital.

 

[helmutkohl]

^ there's many mods in this section volunteering the time to clean up the forum and keep it on track and on topic.
That said, different mods have different styles of moderation and some don't actively leave explanations behind, so that's one area the staff can improve upon.

as for a political post being deleted in a thread that is dominated by politics. Two wrongs dont make a right. It means that the thread needs to be cleaned up and/or frequent violators need a time off from that thread.

 

[Orionblamblam]

as for a political post being deleted in a thread that is dominated by politics. Two wrongs dont make a right. It means that the thread needs to be cleaned up and/or frequent violators need a time off from that thread.

OR, and here's a crazy thought, a political post in a political thread that actually provides facts and context might just be useful. The problem is, some mods have political leanings and cannot countenance political views that differ from theirs.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I undeleted the post to take a look at the linked video.

The Youtuber in question is fervently partisan, and unpleasantly rude about anyone he disagrees with (which somewhat ruins his argument for me) but he does make a few interesting observations in between the insults. Watch it, if you want, see what you think.

I have stopped replies to the topic.

This is very interesting and relevant to both sides.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfekgjfh1Rk

 

[Orionblamblam]

The Youtuber in question is fervently partisan, and unpleasantly rude about anyone he disagrees with (

Yes, those are definite positives. Consider if the topic was, say, Holocaust denial, "Apollo was a hoax," Flat Earth, whatever: everyone sane would cheer for the guy laying a smackdown on the dishonest. Well, same applies here. Those who lie, and lie fervently, incessantly and blatantly, should be called out for it in loud and rude terms. Mockery is a time honored way to deal with charlatans.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, those are definite positives. Consider if the topic was, say, Holocaust denial, "Apollo was a hoax," Flat Earth, whatever: everyone sane would cheer for the guy laying a smackdown on the dishonest. Well, same applies here. Those who lie, and lie fervently, incessantly and blatantly, should be called out for it in loud and rude terms. Mockery is a time honored way to deal with charlatans.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. For me, 'loud and rude' is always the wrong way to make an argument. Calm and dispassionate is how to make arguments I will listen to. Like the video I linked above.

It's easy to jump to a conclusion when it aligns with your worldview, and that's as true for Trump-haters as Trump-lovers.

 

[Orionblamblam]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. For me, 'loud and rude' is always the wrong way to make an argument. Calm and dispassionate is how to make arguments I will listen to.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't align with how things really work. Calmly debating with professional liars makes *you* look like a fool; they are well practiced at what they do. Calm debate is only for those with honest differences and a willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. Bad-actor-politicians, campus activists, street thugs, cultists... these people cannot be swayed. But they can be mocked and made to look like the buffoons they are.

 

[Antonio]

Calmly debating with professional liars makes *you* look like a fool; they are well practiced at what they do. Calm debate is only for those with honest differences and a willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints

Agree. Thus, in order to enjoy the benefits of calm debating we should try to keep the professional liars at bay.

 

[Arjen]

If a debate has professional moderation, or is conducted by honest participants, an audience willing to listen can actually learn something.
If the audience can't be bothered to listen, what is the point of the debate? Pandering to fans?
"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject" - Churchill

 

[galgot]

You said it better than me. Yes. I may request a banning from the Rafale thread - for a start.

Noooo Archie, I know you can do it ! Us and Dassault need you !

 

[galgot]

I see posts mocking others opinions more like quick emotional responses than something truly constructive. I fall for it myself cause I easily succumb making stupid jokes, and to be honest, some opinions sometime posted are so caricatural that it's hard not to try a good word on it... But anyway, I think (hope) I'm making progress dealing with that.
But most of mockery of others opinion are just self-reassuring reflexes when facing views contradicting one's own beliefs. Thinking that would bring more of the "audience" on their side, and get reassurance from that too.
When in fact, responding by mockery or aggressively only pushes the other side to stick to his own beliefs, even pushing some having sound ideas at the beginning to "radicalize" and go into complete idiocies for the sake of "winning" an argument, and it ends up like Churchill quotes posted by @Arjen .

 

[Archibald]

Noooo Archie, I know you can do it ! Us and Dassault need you !

If Dassault needs me, they should move back their logistics to the Bordeaux era and offer me a job. It's up to them.

 

[CiTrus90]

I admit I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, but the forum rules state that:

"Political, religious and nationalistic topics are strongly discouraged. [...] You are welcome to have opinions on all these subjects, but they are generally unrelated to the forum core subjects and your posts may be edited or deleted without warning for violations."

I struggle to understand why political discussions, posts, comments, etc. are still an issue after so many years, since this conversation keeps popping up time and again.
Also, it's clearly stated that moderators are not obliged to give warnings when dealing with these violations.

Ban all posts with political undertones.
Left, right, center it doesn't matter. This is not the place for it.
Go to Facebook, go to Reddit, go to Twitter, open a blog, go scream from a hill.
This is not the place for people to lay out their own grievances.
I can't understand why this keeps being tolerated.

People that say that it's impossible to separate political matters from technical aspects or news are simply gaslighting: it's not impossible, they just lack the will and discipline to moderate their own emotions while the rest of the people that would like to partake on this site in peace, do not want to read their opinions on every page for 80% of the discussions that pop up in the latest threads.

After all these years I think the experiment of letting people use common sense and believing they can handle their own feelings when reading something they disagree with in order to moderate themselves, has done its course and has failed.
We have reached the singularity at which point there are even people requesting thread bans for themselves, because they can't trust themselves not to break the forum rules.

Am I the only one that sees how absurd that is?

Just ban political posts. It's the easiest solution.

And start applying punishments according to what's stated above (once more) in this thread.
How is it possible that after all these years there are still users that keep posting links without adding "a brief description of what can be found at the link" (as stated in the forum rules), that have yet not received warnings and had their posts pulled for constantly doing the same thing over and over again?

It's always the same people that continue doing the same violations.
They can be great contributors from a technical point of view and can have the greatest political visions or the worst political ideas we have ever seen.
And we should fundamentally not care about the latter, because that's their own opinions to which they are entitled.
But, and here is the twist, this is not the place for them to put them on display.

If I'm at a restaurant and need to go excuse myself, I go to the bathroom, I don't go to the kitchen.
If I'm on the internet and I want to talk politics, I go on Twitter (or whatever else). I don't discuss politics on Artsation or the Blender community.

Why would it be different for SPF?
Why on Earth would people come on a forum about unbuilt projects to listen to or discuss about current political commentary?

This is what's keeping people from joining the site and contributing in a meaningful way: it's allowing this behavior, because in this climate people do not want to post when they see that users are repeatedly abusive and their conduct is not punished according to what's stated in the forum rules.
On the contrary, this invites more people to do the same thing, since this is seen as something that is tolerated.
And when those people see that their posts get removed while other people's posts aren't, they will complain (and this is the important part) not because they don't recognize that their posts violated the forum rules, but because they see that there is a difference in how people are being treated.
So, the only way to to keep everyone happy with how things are handled, is to ban all political discussions.

All and any.

Some months ago I promised myself that I should have stayed away from threads like this one, but I think we have reached a level of absurdity where, for my own sanity, I should have at least said something.
It's painful to see such intelligent and educated people that keep doing the same things over and over again, without seeing how ridiculous this is.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Banning all political threads is doable.

That doesn't stop politics arriving in posts on non-political threads. That's not an easy judgement call, on each post. Also, I don't read every post.

Regarding users posting numerous links with no description - two repeat offenders have been placed into post moderation. One did attempt to do better for a bit but has backslid into old ways. You are also making an assumption I've looked at any of the topics they post in recently. You, like all users, are free to report posts to draw attention of moderators to posts violating the rules. I've never seen a single report of this kind of rule violation.

 

[starviking]

Banning all political threads is doable.

That doesn't stop politics arriving in posts on non-political threads. That's not an easy judgement call, on each post. Also, I don't read every post.

Regarding users posting numerous links with no description - two repeat offenders have been placed into post moderation. One did attempt to do better for a bit but has backslid into old ways. You are also making an assumption I've looked at any of the topics they post in recently. You, like all users, are free to report posts to draw attention of moderators to posts violating the rules. I've never seen a single report of this kind of rule violation.

Indeed. The recently-locked Qatari AF1 thread is a case in point: concerning a aeroplane, currently news, lots of technical points to be considered - but overt politics intruded.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ban all posts with political undertones.

Not really possible. Some unbuilt projects are probably politics-free, but others - like the X-20 or project Pluto or project Orion - cannot be accurately and fully described without politics. And any *currently* unbuilt project probably can't be discussed without politics... who's building it to fight which enemy, how funding is influenced, what political parties oppose/support it, etc.

 

[Arjen]

Example of a recent thread, now locked, that triggered overt political comments.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-a-theoretical-nationalization-of-defense-contractors-in-the-us.46252/

I clicked on the report button. After three pages.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I have never managed to have a calm debate in this forum: If I share an opinion I suffer unfounded criticism, if I respond with publications, they question the credibility of the bibliography, if my data is overwhelming, I only receive silence or a big laugh emoji, if I prove to be right in my statements my opponents begin to politicize the thread to cause it to close.

I understand that it is not possible to maintain a forum open to all kinds of new ideas without suffering from cultural misunderstandings and rhetorical discourtesies, but I miss the good, civilized manners common in scientific debates in which theories are tested for falsifies and admitted if they are convincing.

 

[CiTrus90]

That doesn't stop politics arriving in posts on non-political threads. That's not an easy judgement call, on each post.

It's more like politics is "brought" into posts, rather than it "arrives" in posts.

Also, I don't read every post.

Which is an inhuman task that nobody is asking you as the site owner or the other moderators to do. Everyone of us has a life and things to do outside of here.

But, I'm sorry if I sound rude, we can't pretend like it's not always the same people that keep repeating the same behavior of derailing threads. Some people seem to enjoy creating arguments and picking at other users who they perceive to be on the opposite side of their political spectrum. We can't have an honest look at the issue if we act as if this is not what's happening.

Maybe one starts with a joke in poor taste, then somebody else does the same but from the opposite camp, then the first one answers in tone and it snowballs from there. I've also seen some comments in recent times that made my skin crawl, because they were clearly fishing for rude responses.

It's that behavior that needs to be halted and punished if it's kept up.
Not because one is right in their beliefs and the other is necessarily wrong (which is what some people perceive is what's happening here when the mods remove a post but not another one) but because SPF is not the place for this.

In the example I made above, I would administer warnings to both users and remove their posts. To the first user because, one, I think we can all recognize patterns of behavior to predict what somebody is trying to do (even more so when it's always the same people involved), two, because posts that are one-liners/jokes add nothing to a discussion and to the second user for responding in kind and not using the report function.
And if they kept it up, in either the same thread or in other threads, I would ban both.

If you don't feel that bans and punishments are going to be useful, I'm not going to convince you, but adding increasingly more complicated solutions like the point systems above, when we can't even seem to recognize when a post is political or bait, is not going to solve anything. On the contrary, it's going to make people believe that "the system" is bent against them and they will keep looking at things under the premise that this is what's happening.

Mine doesn't want to be an accusation against you or the mods. I have the utmost respect and esteem for what you have created with your site, trust me, because were it not for the projects and drawings on here that kept my mind busy modeling, I'm not sure I would be here today due to my CPTSD, but I can't wrap my head around how the rules seem to need to be interpreted rather than applied. The fact that every couple of months we are still facing the same issues should be indicative that this approach is not working.

I don't think this situation is enjoyable for anyone involved. Banning repeated offenders that don't seem able to control themselves, might be a solution.

You, like all users, are free to report posts to draw attention of moderators to posts violating the rules. I've never seen a single report of this kind of rule violation.

There are threads that are entirely comprised of links without any sort of input from the posters. I'm pretty sure that a lot of users with several thousands of posts under their belts (some with even over 10k posts) would see their numbers slashed to less than a third of what they currently have if I were to go to their profiles and report every post they made in violation of this rule.

I think that would open up several thousands of tickets for the mods to look at for the next few weeks/months. I'm not sure that's going to be useful for anyone.

On the other hand, I've used the report function in the past, either for things where (once mods stepped in) I was told I had perceived them the wrong way or due to comments from users that were particularly hateful, and I've always found it a very effective tool to request intervention without "taking things into my own hands"*. For this I'm very thankful to both you and the mods.

Albeit the use of the report function seems to be a measure that still eludes a number of users.
This could be incentivized by punishing user that don't resort to it.

*After my spate with you-know-who I believe I learnt my lesson.

Not really possible. Some unbuilt projects are probably politics-free, but others - like the X-20 or project Pluto or project Orion - cannot be accurately and fully described without politics. And any *currently* unbuilt project probably can't be discussed without politics... who's building it to fight which enemy, how funding is influenced, what political parties oppose/support it, etc.

Describing past political choices and events is one thing that I think we should all agree on, is definitely useful to put projects into context.

But what I'm strongly against is when people start injecting their own opinions and values into those past choices.
Saying something like "Duncan Sandy's' decisions in the 1957 White Paper that brought an end to the TSR.2 development were influenced by the finances of the country and the advances in missile technology" is one thing, saying "Duncan Sandy's mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries because he canned the TSR.2" is another one.

Also, for me current politics should not be discussed at all. Time and perspective are useful when looking at this sort of things and when feelings are in play and opinions are so polarized as they are right now, it serves no use to discuss them. You have your opinions, to which you are entitled to and you have probably very good reason to believe in. Others will have their own, to which they are also entitled to and have very good reason to believe in.
But...
Is anybody going to convince you here on SPF that you are wrong to believe in them?
Do you think that you are going to convince some of the people here that they are wrong?

If this sort of things is something that people feel a need to discuss, I'm strongly in favor of it. It means that you have strong beliefs and want the best for yourself and for the people you hold dear, even for the ones that you consider stupid.
So I'm not against that. I'm just against the fact that one must feel the need to discuss them on SPF.

 

[galgot]

...

But what I'm strongly against is when people start injecting their own opinions and values into those past choices.
Saying something like "Duncan Sandy's' decisions in the 1957 White Paper that brought an end to the TSR.2 development were influenced by the finances of the country and the advances in missile technology" is one thing, saying "Duncan Sandy's mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries because he canned the TSR.2" is another one.

...

Then stupid me would say "My mirage 4000 farts in your general direction"... then someone would start questioning the speed of European Fighting Falcons to African Fighting Falcons... yeah, can see how this kind of thread would derail, the horror, the horror...

 

[Caravellarella]

Does (my) complaining about previous topic merges (of my carefully curated topics) count as an infraction? Will I be sent to the "naughty step"?

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Archibald]

Then stupid me would say "My mirage 4000 farts in your general direction"... then someone would start questioning the speed of European Fighting Falcons to African Fighting Falcons... yeah, can see how this kind of thread would derail, the horror, the horror...

Tis but a scratch. I've been through worse. Fetchez la vache !

 

[Orionblamblam]

Also, for me current politics should not be discussed at all.

Good luck with *that.* *Current* unbuilt projects - fighters, bombers, missiles, jetliners, spacecraft, launch systems, etc. - are all powered by politics.

Is anybody going to convince you here on SPF that you are wrong to believe in them?

It's possible. My political views have changed a lot in the last 30 years, in large part due to conversations online. Granted, mostly they've changed not by being convinced by the other side, but recognizing that a bunch of those who agreed with me were raging lunatics.

Do you think that you are going to convince some of the people here that they are wrong?

Maybe, maybe not. But as the man said: "When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be."

Me, I'd be fine - more or less - with a blanket ban on "politicking." But as many of us have noticed, politicking seems to be well tolerated so long as it's one side doing it; the other side speaks up and *then* the moderation begins. Maybe it's the mods, or maybe it's one side being more fragile and ready with the "report" button than the other. I hardly every use it myself. It promotes rust.