Escalation in race and team threads

[Tizz]

Maybe we just need a few more moderators then?

I think you are adjusting the wrong side of the equation. We have to behave a little more mature so that we need no additional mods. I find it very positive that people also reflect on their own behavior. In the end, it all starts there. But there have been many suggestions. I guess the mods will have to discuss now what they think is the best approach.

[marvin78]

Everyone has to take a step back and have a look in the mirror: Fandom of someone you don't really know is a ridiculous concept. If everyone gets that, no one would make so much fuss about the things that happen on or next to the race track. And, as far as I'm concerned, I think if you do not have a favorite driver, it's more fun to watch. But this all is only my opinion.

[hollus]

A small personal reflection, and this is just my point of view:
If someone attacks your favorite driver or team and you feel the need to defend them, any ensuing escalation and any addition of noise to the forum is as much on the attacker as it is on the defender.

I mean, while maybe (or maybe not) unnecessary, the first time it (they) is (are) posted is actually discussion, what the forum is about. The second reposting might be insistence, the third clarification. By the fifth, calling it elaboration gets tenuous. By the 10th is spam. And if one gets there it is because no one wants to back up… then escalation is on both, the attacker and the defender.

[xaero]

A small personal reflection, and this is just my point of view:
If someone attacks your favorite driver or team and you feel the need to defend them, any ensuing escalation and any addition of noise to the forum is as much on the attacker as it is on the defender.

It appears to conveniently shift the blame and make aggressor less responsible

[hollus]

The aggressor is not really an aggressor until a defender perceives it as such, don’t you think? In many cases the gray zone is huge, few cases are black or white.
Anyway, how was it that we heard that worded recently?
“Predominantly but now wholly to blame”? Quite apt here IMO.
Again, all of this is only my point of view, I know others disagree.

[Big Tea]

The aggressor is not really an aggressor until a defender perceives it as such, don’t you think? In many cases the gray zone is huge, few cases are black or white.
Anyway, how was it that we heard that worded recently?
“Predominantly but now wholly to blame”? Quite apt here IMO.
Again, all of this is only my point of view, I know others disagree.

It is fine to defend once or even twice, but it seems to become endless and the whole point of that thread from then on. Making a statement or a reply is fine but to drip feed it to death destroys this thread for everyone else (Especially you mods, we understand that) Then it moves to another thread and carries on as before.

Everyone is entitled to a point of view, but that has to be everyone, even if someone thinks they are wrong.

[Just_a_fan]

A small personal reflection, and this is just my point of view:
If someone attacks your favorite driver or team and you feel the need to defend them, any ensuing escalation and any addition of noise to the forum is as much on the attacker as it is on the defender.

I mean, while maybe (or maybe not) unnecessary, the first time it (they) is (are) posted is actually discussion, what the forum is about. The second reposting might be insistence, the third clarification. By the fifth, calling it elaboration gets tenuous. By the 10th is spam. And if one gets there it is because no one wants to back up… then escalation is on both, the attacker and the defender.

There is the issue of some people posting entirely untrue or unpleasant things about a person / team / country / whatever. Rebuttal of such lies / defamation is entirely warranted. If said lies are frequently repeated, repeated rebuttal is in order. Unless the forum considers the continued pedalling of such stuff to be OK, of course.

[xaero]

There is the issue of some people posting entirely untrue or unpleasant things about a person / team / country / whatever. Rebuttal of such lies / defamation is entirely warranted. If said lies are frequently repeated, repeated rebuttal is in order. Unless the forum considers the continued pedalling of such stuff to be OK, of course.

I second it and it should not be brushed under the carpet in the name of maintaining tranquility.

[Wouter]

A small personal reflection, and this is just my point of view:
If someone attacks your favorite driver or team and you feel the need to defend them, any ensuing escalation and any addition of noise to the forum is as much on the attacker as it is on the defender.

I mean, while maybe (or maybe not) unnecessary, the first time it (they) is (are) posted is actually discussion, what the forum is about. The second reposting might be insistence, the third clarification. By the fifth, calling it elaboration gets tenuous. By the 10th is spam. And if one gets there it is because no one wants to back up… then escalation is on both, the attacker and the defender.

.
There is the issue of some people posting entirely untrue or unpleasant things about a person / team / country / whatever. Rebuttal of such lies / defamation is entirely warranted. If said lies are frequently repeated, repeated rebuttal is in order. Unless the forum considers the continued pedalling of such stuff to be OK, of course.

You expressed my thoughts exactly when I read that post. So I agree 100% @Just-a-fan!

[dans79]

There is the issue of some people posting entirely untrue or unpleasant things about a person / team / country / whatever. Rebuttal of such lies / defamation is entirely warranted. If said lies are frequently repeated, repeated rebuttal is in order. Unless the forum considers the continued pedalling of such stuff to be OK, of course.

We have an almost perfect example of this on the forum right now.

user ABC refers to a person as someone who supports criminals multiple times. When user XYZ responds to the user ABC specifically asking for proof because user XYZ can't find anything that corroborates users ABC statements, some posts magically go poof but some of the original defamation/insulations posts remains.

[coaster]

Give them pointy hat icons and 3 upvotes removes the pointy hat?

[RZS10]

There is the issue of some people posting entirely untrue or unpleasant things about a person / team / country / whatever. Rebuttal of such lies / defamation is entirely warranted. If said lies are frequently repeated, repeated rebuttal is in order. Unless the forum considers the continued pedalling of such stuff to be OK, of course.

We have an almost perfect example of this on the forum right now.

user ABC refers to a person as someone who supports criminals multiple times. When user XYZ responds to the user ABC specifically asking for proof because user XYZ can't find anything that corroborates users ABC statements, some posts magically go poof but some of the original defamation/insulations posts remains.

To add to this: that entire discussion is completely misplaced and off topic in the first place so none of it should be allowed to remain anyways, a mod even commented on it without actually intervening.

(btw i believe user ABC confused news about driver X with AOC and thus mixed up two black designers)

But it's what i have mentioned elsewhere - some feel that they have to use whatever tiny tidbit of (mis)information and every opportunity to badmouth certain teams and/or drivers - it's just tiring ... like, we get it, you don't like them, keep it to yourself, make a voodoo doll if you have to but don't vomit your hate all over the forum repeatedly.

[Just_a_fan]

Interesting to see a new user has arrived. They have posted three posts in the month they've been on the forum and have a -5 rating already. It would have been -7 but they appear to have a sympathiser for their fan/hater rhetoric.

Do new users get any form of checks carried out? Should a new user with such a posting history not be flagged up and given a cooling off period? That sort of negative posting history must be a red flag alert, surely?

[west52keep64]

Interesting to see a new user has arrived. They have posted three posts in the month they've been on the forum and have a -5 rating already. It would have been -7 but they appear to have a sympathiser for their fan/hater rhetoric.

Do new users get any form of checks carried out? Should a new user with such a posting history not be flagged up and given a cooling off period? That sort of negative posting history must be a red flag alert, surely?

The rating system doesn't appear to be a reliable system to gauge this kind of thing. One of the most disruptive users in the race threads has a positive rating greater than 20, and somehow seems to accumulate votes despite making mostly combative posts. As you suggest, there does appear to be a "system" with users sharing votes between each other to bring their ratings up. Or perhaps they are the same person with multiple accounts?

[AeroDynamic]

Interesting to see a new user has arrived. They have posted three posts in the month they've been on the forum and have a -5 rating already. It would have been -7 but they appear to have a sympathiser for their fan/hater rhetoric.

Do new users get any form of checks carried out? Should a new user with such a posting history not be flagged up and given a cooling off period? That sort of negative posting history must be a red flag alert, surely?

The rating system doesn't appear to be a reliable system to gauge this kind of thing. One of the most disruptive users in the race threads has a positive rating greater than 20, and somehow seems to accumulate votes despite making mostly combative posts. As you suggest, there does appear to be a "system" with users sharing votes between each other to bring their ratings up. Or perhaps they are the same person with multiple accounts?

Exactly. When I Joined it was long term users as well as younger users who were as bad as each other, and some people on here getting upset at others for using emojis and negging them for it. Think about that.