Thanking actionable posts.

Artful_Badger

I seen a post in AH today that was pretty abusive and vitriolic and the poster was rightly immediately banned for posting it. Yet its still there and people have thanked it. I've seen this a lot in my time on boards where posters are carded or banned for abuse while the post itself remains there and other posters pretty much get a free dig by thanking it.

Should posts that are actionable be deleted ? Or if its necessary to have the offending post available so people know why it resulted in a certain action would it be worthwhile making it so that a carded post cant be thanked ?

I just find it a bit odd that a post that's clearly not welcome on the forum and leads to a poster banned or carded can still be publicly supported by people. Imo thanking an abusive post is little different than making an abusive comment of your own.

Insect Overlord

What about people who mislead others by putting Μoderator as their tag-line?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Interesting point.

Artful_Badger

Insect Overlord wrote: »

What about people who mislead others by putting Μoderator as their tag-line?

I'd say that falls into the same category as people misleading others by calling themselves and Insect Overlord.

Spear

Such posts are often left as a public reminder of what happens when you cross the line, and the fact they'll be actioned.

The intent behind a thanks is too ambiguous to act upon. It can be anything from total support, to thanks for the laugh at your expense, or thanks for doing something stupid to warrant your removal from the virtual genepool.

Will I Amnt

From the soccer forum charter:

Minor Offences (including but not limited to):
Abuse of players.
Threadspoiling
Flamebaiting in threads.
Debating moderation in threads.
Mild flaming or trolling.
Provocation.
Derailing or off topic posting in super threads.
Accusing a member of trolling/being a troll
Misuse of the Reported Post system
Back-seat moderation
Abusing through the thanks system (thanking abusive posts)


Should be a sitewide rule IMO.

Artful_Badger

Spear wrote: »

Such posts are often left as a public reminder of what happens when you cross the line, and the fact they'll be actioned.

The intent behind a thanks is too ambiguous to act upon. It can be anything from total support, to thanks for the laugh at your expense, or thanks for doing something stupid to warrant your removal from the virtual genepool.

I guess you cant know the intentions of those who thank it. But the only time I might thank a post for those other reasons would be if the post was edited to contain a mod message and I may thank it for that. I've never otherwise thanked a post for any other reason than to agree with what was said.

I'd say the general consensus would be that thanking a post is showing support. And if you cant be sure enough to penalise those who thank it (even though most of the time its gonna be someone thanking the abuse) maybe there is merit to stopping people from thanking such posts completely ?

Could you link to the post please?

Posy

When I'm scrolling on the touch site, I often randomly hit 'thinks' by accident as I scroll. So if you're planning to action someone for thanking a post, they could claim that it was unintentional, whether it was or it wasn't.

Will I Amnt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Could you link to the post please?

I'm guessing it's this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88087806&postcount=7

Artful_Badger

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you link to the post please?

This is the one I was talking about but I've seen it many times across many forums where the poster is dealt with for an abusive post while the abuse itself can still be thanked by other posters.

Posy wrote: »

When I'm scrolling on the touch site, I often randomly hit 'thinks' by accident as I scroll. So if you're planning to action someone for thanking a post, they could claim that it was unintentional, whether it was or it wasn't.

Yeah I've done that myself too, I guess you really cant be 100% on why someone thanked a post. But I think that the thanks of a post will generally be supportive, and those thanking it accidentally or for another reason would be few.

Question is then is the fact that you cant be sure a reason not to do anything at all ? Or is it a reason things need to change to avoid the problem itself ? I see some forums make note of it and I recall Beruthiel saying in cases of bullying those who support it via thanks are culpable. So thanking a post to agree with abuse is seen as an issue on some level, yet dealing with it seems to be impossible.

Cookie_Monster

Artful_Badger wrote: »

This is the one I was talking about

"thanks for highlighting the users silly post and doing it before me so you get banned instead of me"

that would usually be the reason I would thank a post along the lines of the above - not that one in particular mind.

Spear

Artful_Badger wrote: »

This is the one I was talking about but I've seen it many times across many forums where the poster is dealt with for an abusive post while the abuse itself can still be thanked by other posters.

Is it people thanking it for the abuse, or because there's a valid point buried in the abuse? Where ambiguity like that exists, you can't go banning or infracting someone, people will just end up afraid to thank something even when done so with the best of intentions.

Zaph

Insect Overlord wrote: »

What about people who mislead others by putting Μoderator as their tag-line?

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'd say that falls into the same category as people misleading others by calling themselves and Insect Overlord.

Taken care of

As regards the question in the OP, you've pretty much answered it yourself here:

So thanking a post to agree with abuse is seen as an issue on some level, yet dealing with it seems to be impossible.

This is for a two main reasons:

- As already stated, intent behind the thanks
- When the thanks were added. You might come a cross a post that was infracted and has thanks, but the post could have been from a week ago and infracted at the time, but the thanks added in the intervening period. It's impossible to go back and check every post that's been acted upon to make sure nobody has thanked it since the action. And at what point would you stop checking anyway?

Personally I think that someone who thanks a post like the one you linked to says an awful lot about themselves by the act of thanking it. It basically tells the world that like the poster who was infracted, they too are dicks but are too cowardly to post it themselves and are happy to let someone else take the heat. I don't have a lot of time for people like that.

Artful_Badger

Zaph wrote: »

Taken care of

Boo !

As regards the question in the OP, you've pretty much answered it yourself here:



This is for a two main reasons:

- As already stated, intent behind the thanks
- When the thanks were added. You might come a cross a post that was infracted and has thanks, but the post could have been from a week ago and infracted at the time, but the thanks added in the intervening period. It's impossible to go back and check every post that's been acted upon to make sure nobody has thanked it since the action. And at what point would you stop checking anyway?

Personally I think that someone who thanks a post like the one you linked to says an awful lot about themselves by the act of thanking it. It basically tells the world that like the poster who was infracted, they too are dicks but are too cowardly to post it themselves and are happy to let someone else take the heat. I don't have a lot of time for people like that.

I know this one post isnt reflective of all of them but in this instance the poster was banned 3 minutes after the post and its gotten several more thanks since I started the thread. If I was the OP I'd be viewing each one as another person being abusive.

But I get the fact that you just cant know so you cant act on it. So I'm left wondering if the thanks itself cant be determined to be abusive or not then couldnt something else be done to make sure its not abusive ? Such as removing the ability to thank a carded post ?

Zaph

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Such as removing the ability to thank a carded post ?

That's not a bad idea but I don't know if it's technically possible. You could ask about it on the Site Development forum.

Black Swan

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Such as removing the ability to thank a carded post ?

Zaph wrote: »

That's not a bad idea but I don't know if it's technically possible. You could ask about it on the Site Development forum.

If Admin and Site Development want to remove the thanks function for actioned posts, no problem.

Thanks is not always thanks. It's just too subjective. Were they thanking the entire post, part of the post, agreeing not to agree, or merely acknowledging the post and not thanking it. Who knows? Some appear obvious, but others do not, opening a whole new can of worms for members and mods.

The last thing we need are more rules like this.

Turtwig

People can thank posts for a variety of reasons. By accident, an eloquent statement they agree with (note: they might not necessarily agree with the entire post), the stupidity of the post etc.That last one rarely but it does happen. They thank because it helped them make up their mind in the opposition direction. Or the apparent stupid of the post made them enjoy reading it in a bizarre way.

Actioning thankers is a very fine line. It's all too easy to accidentally thank a post. Especially if you intend to thank an adjacent post.

Rabies

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I seen a post in AH today that was pretty abusive and vitriolic and the poster was rightly immediately banned for posting it. Yet its still there and people have thanked it. I've seen this a lot in my time on boards where posters are carded or banned for abuse while the post itself remains there and other posters pretty much get a free dig by thanking it.

Should posts that are actionable be deleted ? Or if its necessary to have the offending post available so people know why it resulted in a certain action would it be worthwhile making it so that a carded post cant be thanked ?

I just find it a bit odd that a post that's clearly not welcome on the forum and leads to a poster banned or carded can still be publicly supported by people. Imo thanking an abusive post is little different than making an abusive comment of your own.

What if other people agree with the poster? Sure, he was out of line. But that doesn't mean others weren't thinking the same.

A 'thanks' on a post like that could simply be, "I agree with you, but I refrained from posting. How about you jump in front of the train first"

Will I Amnt wrote: »

From the soccer forum charter:

Minor Offences (including but not limited to):
Abuse of players.
Threadspoiling
Flamebaiting in threads.
Debating moderation in threads.
Mild flaming or trolling.
Provocation.
Derailing or off topic posting in super threads.
Accusing a member of trolling/being a troll
Misuse of the Reported Post system
Back-seat moderation
Abusing through the thanks system (thanking abusive posts)


Should be a sitewide rule IMO.

The soccer forum is a different kettle of fish.
Walk in there with a non Fifa sanctioned football and then you should expect to be banned.

To ban someone for thanking a post that gets infracted or the poster banned would be a step too far.

Might as well go all Minority Report on the place

"Oh here, we know you're going to thank that bastard next week. Have a week ban"

Meh!

Nody

Spear wrote: »

Such posts are often left as a public reminder of what happens when you cross the line, and the fact they'll be actioned.

The intent behind a thanks is too ambiguous to act upon. It can be anything from total support, to thanks for the laugh at your expense, or thanks for doing something stupid to warrant your removal from the virtual genepool.

My first yellow card on this site was because I thanked a poster who made a very good post with in a thread but ended with going over the line in the final sentance with a personal attack on a user. I ended up with a yellow card in Irish Economy (I think it was but could been any of the Soc -> Politics forums) before I was more up to speed on forum mod style .

Beasty

Will I Amnt wrote: »

From the soccer forum charter:

Minor Offences (including but not limited to):
...
Abusing through the thanks system (thanking abusive posts)

Posy wrote: »

When I'm scrolling on the touch site, I often randomly hit 'thinks' by accident as I scroll. So if you're planning to action someone for thanking a post, they could claim that it was unintentional, whether it was or it wasn't.

On the Soccer Forum rule, I don't think I've ever seen action taken based on an isolated incident - there's usually an established pattern, or something else that when added to the thanks results in action

There are two issues here:

1. The issue of a post being left after a user has been infracted or banned and 2. people thanking posts that have required mod action.

Posts are rarely deleted unless they are spam, troll, etc, some are of course, but it's not a regular occurence. There are a couple of reasons, one being that if a poster is continually obnoxious, isn't it better that other posters are aware of this? Rather than hiding their nastiness, leave it there so that it will weaken their standing within a forum. Others will eventually disengage this poster.

The other being that we like to be very transparent in our modding. It makes things clear cut, it means that posters are very aware of where the line is, what is acceptable and what isn't. It sets a tone for the rest of the thread - if you do X, Y will happen. It's a good reminder to keep it civil.

As others have said, the thanking of posts is ambiguous. Someone may agree with a sentiment but possibly not the abuse, people thank posts for all sorts of reason, so action can't really be taken against them. There was at least one occasion that posters have been banned for thanking a post, however it was a very very extreme case. There has also been an instance where a particular poster always thanked abusive or nasty posts, this was noticed and as they began to head towards permaban (from the forum) territory this was taken into consideration - but not on its own.

I know an infracted post got post of the day a while back and that's something which I'm not sure I agree with tbh but I know at the time, there was a discussion about kicking that up to the Dev team. I'm not sure what came of it if I'm honest.

Rovi

I've occasionally come across another scenario whereby a post has been actioned/edited/whatever by a mod, and the mod has added a <modnote> to the post issuing instructions or explaining their reasons for their action.
I sometimes would have liked to 'Thank' the <modnote> part of the post, but haven't for fear that it would look like I was thanking the original actionable content.

I think that removing the 'Thanks' function (and the thanks box if it has already been thanked) from posts that have received a Yellow or Red card would be a good idea.

If people wish to Thank an uncontentious part of the post, they can Quote it and comment in their own post.

It would also eliminate the accidental Thanks that sometimes happen when using the Touch site.

Dades

I don't think I'd be for the idea of preventing sanctioned posts from being "thanked".

I see it a little conscientious objection, no more. Sure, ofter the thanker is as big a dick as the thankee (thanks for drawing yourself to our attention!), but we've all seen posts where we wish could have posted the same rebuke of another poster without the sanction.

weisses

Rabies wrote: »

What if other people agree with the poster? Sure, he was out of line. But that doesn't mean others weren't thinking the same.

A 'thanks' on a post like that could simply be, "I agree with you, but I refrained from posting. How about you jump in front of the train first"





The soccer forum is a different kettle of fish.
Walk in there with a non Fifa sanctioned football and then you should expect to be banned.

To ban someone for thanking a post that gets infracted or the poster banned would be a step too far.

Might as well go all Minority Report on the place

"Oh here, we know you're going to thank that bastard next week. Have a week ban"

Meh!

Yeah that's a tricky one for 2 reasons imo

1) You could thank a post before it gets the label abusive.

2) you could thank a post and without your knowledge the post is edited with some abusive phrases.

I say leave the thanks feature as it is ... There is a pattern of posters who do this i think ... leave them be.

But just to add another one is it actionable if you thank posts while having a thread ban ?

5starpool

Beasty wrote: »

On the Soccer Forum rule, I don't think I've ever seen action taken based on an isolated incident - there's usually an established pattern, or something else that when added to the thanks results in action

There was a case a few years back where a mod in soccer banned people on the back thanking a post, and it cause a bit of a storm in here at the time I believe, at a time when such storms were more common about soccer moderation.

I think it is a stupid thing to have in the SF charter and would be against something like that being a general rule, although personally it probably wouldn't affect me too much. It seems like something that would essentially be unpoliceable anyhow and would lead to lots of fingerpointing "how come I got one when the people on this post didn't, etc".

hullaballoo

Thoughtcrime.

Frank Lee Midere

Presumably a post is thanked for its idea - not necessarily for the reason for any infraction. A long post may be an attack on a mod along with a valid point, you can't know what people are thanking.

Artful_Badger

This is starting to go in circles a bit arguing against a point nobody has made.

I nor anyone else as far as I see has said this can be dealt with by actioning posters for thanking a single post. The issue is abusive posts being thanked, whether or not that is an issue at all and what can be done about it. The two possible ways I put forward in the OP to deal with it are deleting the post, and stopping people from being able to thank those posts to begin with.

From what I see it does happen and happen quite a bit.

Is it an issue ? I would say so, I think even though there are a multitude of reasons for thanking a post the main reason to do so is agreeing with/supporting the post itself. I think this perceived and deliberate support adds to the abuse or at the very least reduces the impression of the severity of the wrong doing. If I was target of an abusive post I'd take further offence from the fact other people supported a post that was abusive towards me. It shows that its not just one guy with an attitude, its a group view that you are deserving of the abuse you got.

Deleting the post might not be the best solution as the posts being left there to what happens when you cross the line has some benefit. This also highlights the fact that an abusive post thats been carded yet thanked numerous times might negate that "This is what happens" message somewhat.

Stopping people from thanking a post which has been deemed to be in breach of the charter I dont see any downside. As Rovi said anyone wishing to agree with a particular sentiment or point can make their own post and do so. So all it does is simply remove the ability for people to thank a post thats been deemed to be in breach of the charter. They can still quote and agree with any points or sentiment they wish. It would remove any perceived/deliberate support for abuse or whatever boards doesnt want posted on this website.

Overheal

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'd say that falls into the same category as people misleading others by calling themselves and Insect Overlord.

I for one welcome an Insect Overlord.

whiteandlight

To be honest I always assumed people were thanking it for the mod note!

Turtwig

Musicmental85 wrote: »

To be honest I always assumed people were thanking it for the mod note!

Now that you mention it. I've actually thanked posts that infracted for this reason.

biko

It's up to the forum mods to decide whether a post should be removed.
If you think a post should be removed then report it with an explanation. If the mods agree it will be deleted.

I don't want to go into examples but as said previously, sometimes actioned posts are left as a warning and anyone who thanks it is left visible for anyone else to see and draw their own conclusions from.

Artful_Badger

biko wrote: »

It's up to the forum mods to decide whether a post should be removed.
If you think a post should be removed then report it with an explanation. If the mods agree it will be deleted.

I don't want to go into examples but as said previously, sometimes actioned posts are left as a warning and anyone who thanks it is left visible for anyone else to see and draw their own conclusions from.

If its actioned and still there then the mods will have already viewed it and made a decision on it so I'd be hesitant to report it and question the mods actions tbh. I also think if a mod has to go back and deal with a post a second time then there is an issue thats not being addressed by simply dealing with the poster.

In the case of the post I linked to on page one it had received close to 20 thanks before a mod edited the post to show the poster was banned for it. So there does seem to be an issue with people thanking such posts if the warning had to be placed in the post in retrospect. I'd imagine most posts that have abuse dont result in an outright ban too so if it only gets an infraction there will more than likely be no mod edit, just a warning further on in the thread.

Imo there should be no room for ambiguity (or as little as possible) when it comes to abuse, its not tolerated in round about ways in posts so it shouldnt be tolerated in round about ways via thanks. There are ways to deal with this so I see no reason to ignore it.

Sulla Felix

I dislike the idea of issuing further infractions for people who thank purely because touch.boards is still a bit twitchy on my phone and the two most common miscommands are profile jumps and thanks. Plus once the first person gets their thanking-card/infraction removed on such a technicality, the trolls will jump on the chance and it'll create a headache of large proportions imo.

Depending on the forum architecture, it'd be better just to remove thanks from infracted posts, or probably easier from a coding perspective, just make them invisible. There's already a rudimentary if/then in there because we don't have any thanks section shown when none are present, so in this case another parameter would be added in a similar vein.

Tombi!

Like others have said I think the only time I've ever thanked a post that was acted on by a mod was to thank the mod for acting on it.

I mean if you agree with someone's point and they throw in a few insults, surely you could just edit the post and then quote it?

anncoates

Think I've thanked actioned posts before. Not a big deal and related to the post, not a dig at the mod.

Artful_Badger

anncoates wrote: »

Think I've thanked actioned posts before. Not a big deal and related to the post, not a dig at the mod.

My point was more about thanking insults. I seen another post in AH since I started this thread that was simply "You're a twat". It was carded but left there and thanked a couple times.

Not a massive deal but still those who thanked it were basically let away with insulting another boards member. A thank in that instance cannot be anything other than a +1. Would a +1 be ok in relation to an abusive post ?

anncoates

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

My point was more about thanking insults. I seen another post in AH since I started this thread that was simply "You're a twat". It was carded but left there

Didn't read it but perhaps they were a twat?

P. Breathnach

anncoates wrote: »

Didn't read it but perhaps they were a twat?

Irrelevant. You are allowed be a twat here, so long as you are an inoffensive twat; you are not allowed call another person a twat.

anncoates

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Irrelevant. You are allowed be a twat here, so long as you are an inoffensive twat; you are not allowed call another person a twat.

Yes, I may well have gleaned this already from my years as a user of the site?

Artful_Badger

I was just talking to Rónán in site development and he said removing the thanks on carded posts is possible and would be a "relatively small change".

So its an option IF there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Femme_Fatale

Not sure it's something that warrants blanket policing. Case-by-case if needs be, would be enough IMO. I know personal abuse is not allowed, but sometimes... well, sometimes it's what lots of us are thinking. It's not undeserved in other words.
If the post is really bad, maybe if the moderator quotes it to say it has been actioned, but delete the original post?

It'd be a bit thoughtcrimey to clamp down on mere thanking for certain posts, but then again, the thanks button can be used to take passive-aggressive digs.
And the following is a post that's pretty atrocious and was not provoked whatsoever (the poster it was aimed at had barely posted, let alone acted the dick):

Are Polish a race? Or a nationality? Either way its his car. If he wants to limit the buys its his loss probably. OP please slit your wrists for being a PC shítlord.

P. Breathnach

I can't see how Boards would be made worse by disabling thanks on actioned posts. It seems obvious to me that some of the thanks are from people who wish to express solidarity with statements that break posting guidelines, and some others are simply people trying to express contempt for moderators or for moderation actions. Boards would be improved if that type of low-level acting the dick didn't happen.

If disabling thanks on actioned posts is relatively easy to implement, I say go for it.

whiteandlight

I agree even though I'm one of the people who often thank to express gratitude for the moderator stepping in. Probably better if neither those thanking the OP or the moderator can do it.

Daqster

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Irrelevant. You are allowed be a twat here, so long as you are an inoffensive twat; you are not shouldn't be allowed call another person a twat.

FYP


I just thanked a post that I reported for the simple reason that I believe in what the user was saying and endorse their point but they said something which I also found objectionable. Just because someone thanks a post, does not mean that they stand behind every single aspect of it.

Rabies

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

I was just talking to Rónán in site development and he said removing the thanks on carded posts is possible and would be a "relatively small change".

So its an option IF there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

No one should be able to tell a poster who they can and can't 'thank'.

Gokei

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I'm guessing it's this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88087806&postcount=7

Thanking the fact the poster was banned?

Artful_Badger

Rabies wrote: »

No one should be able to tell a poster who they can and can't 'thank'.

But they can tell people what they can or cannot say and how they should or should not say it ? We're talking about a feature of the website here not human rights. Like it or not Boards.ie can tell everyone exactly who they can and cannot thank and they already do. You cant thank posts in certain forums such as prison or dispute resolution as it stands while you can in others. And just as there is no need for the feature in certain forums it can also be applied to single posts.

People dont have a fundamental right to thank posts and in the case where there is an issue with the post being out of line or abusive I dont see any issue in removing the feature. To me its no different than not being able to respond in a locked thread. Things cross the line and there is a downside to allowing it continue so the feature is removed.

Artful_Badger

Gokei wrote: »

Thanking the fact the poster was banned?

The majority if not all of those thanks appeared before the cmod edited it to say he was banned. There was a mod post shorty after it initially and looking at poster names not many (if any at all) who thanked the abusive post thanked the mod for banning him. So I'd say its pretty clear those thanks were not in relation to the ban.

Doesnt mean they were thanking the abuse but if you're gonna thank a post that puts its point across in an abusive manner then I'm not sure there's much difference.

Gokei

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

The majority if not all of those thanks appeared before the cmod edited it to say he was banned. There was a mod post shorty after it initially and looking at poster names not many (if any at all) who thanked the abusive post thanked the mod for banning him. So I'd say its pretty clear those thanks were not in relation to the ban.

Doesnt mean they were thanking the abuse but if you're gonna thank a post that puts its point across in an abusive manner then I'm not sure there's much difference.

I agree, and apologise for my short and vague post.
I was putting that forward as a possible ulterior motive as to why someone would thank an abusive post.