Just now, Mike Lister said:

. As for people liking or not liking my beliefs, why would anyone care about that

Most of us need feedback, else we are posting in a vacuum.

 

Perhaps you only go on a limited number of threads and have the time to respond to each and every post you find interesting, or not, but some of us look at many threads. An emoji is a valid way of responding to a post without having to spend lots of time on it. To be quite frank, some posts deserve a response without words, as they are nasty, pointless and irrelevant. To post something on them would IMO take me down into the gutter with them.

If a post is relevant, respectful of other points of view, thought about, I'll spend time on it, but if not, an emoji is all it deserves.

5 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

One only has to take a quick look at a posters posting history to see what they have said from time to time on different subjects, to see if they are trolling stupid or if they are really really stupid.

 

Personally, I think I'm fairly good at guessing when someone is trolling.

However, I'm not convinced there is a "formula" that mods can use that would work all the time to identify it.

As the guesswork is intuitive, to some extent. 

And so I don't think "trolling" can be fully eliminated. 

 

On 11/10/2023 at 8:38 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Thanks

 

If "you" change moderation policy I think it would be good to publish information about that so that we are aware of the changes.

I was suspended a couple of times for little things which I would never have imagined could be a problem.

Now I don't post certain things anymore because I don't want to be suspended again - and only for that reason.

It's sad when members have to learn to self-censor even harmless jokes to avoid aggressive moderators. 

 

I agree I rarely come here now but I might if the moderation really has changed. I got banned for the most innocuous reasons just because a mod didn't like my opinion - I then mentioned that and got banned for mentioning moderation! 

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most of us need feedback, else we are posting in a vacuum.

 

Perhaps you only go on a limited number of threads and have the time to respond to each and every post you find interesting, or not, but some of us look at many threads. An emoji is a valid way of responding to a post without having to spend lots of time on it. To be quite frank, some posts deserve a response without words, as they are nasty, pointless and irrelevant. To post something on them would IMO take me down into the gutter with them.

If a post is relevant, respectful of other points of view, thought about, I'll spend time on it, but if not, an emoji is all it deserves.

Most of us need feedback, else we are posting in a vacuum.

 

Says the poster who admits to having 2 or 3 pages on his ignore list 

10 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

If somebody says something and I respond, I don't need emojis to confirm to me, over the course of the debate, whether I am right or wrong. If I am right, I don't need the approval of others to reinforce that, because it is after all my belief.

In reality, if one is discussing things, one has the other person's body language to tell us how we are doing. On line we only have emojis.

Perhaps you don't need feedback, but I, and I'm sure many, do.

 

It's not about approval of others that I post for, but to get different ideas from others which is what debate is all about. It's not debating if the only opinion we care about is our own.

 

On the God thread, which has to be the longest thread in TVF/AN history, I learned a lot because I was looking to interact with others, not because I was just saying what I thought without caring about any one else's input or opinions.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most of us need feedback, else we are posting in a vacuum.

 

Perhaps you only go on a limited number of threads and have the time to respond to each and every post you find interesting, or not, but some of us look at many threads. An emoji is a valid way of responding to a post without having to spend lots of time on it. To be quite frank, some posts deserve a response without words, as they are nasty, pointless and irrelevant. To post something on them would IMO take me down into the gutter with them.

If a post is relevant, respectful of other points of view, thought about, I'll spend time on it, but if not, an emoji is all it deserves.

I belong to a UK investing forum that doesn't have any emojis, posters ask questions, other respond with views and occasionally debates will follow but mostly, people post their views that other consider silently. Nobody needs emojis  to determine if what was said is good or not and it's a very very helpful environment. That works for me, perhaps others need something different.

I think a minimum time between posts from a single member in a single thread would help. 

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I think a minimum time between posts from a single member in a single thread would help. 

 

A good idea, I can agree with that.

18 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

A good idea, I can agree with that.

 It might slow your onslaught down too!  800 posts from last month?  jeeze  

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you know they are being removed arbitrarily?

call it a 6th sense...

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

 It might slow your onslaught down too!  800 posts from last month?  jeeze  

90% helping people understand and sort out the taxation issue.

Just now, Mike Lister said:

90% helping people understand and sort out the taxation issue.

 

Ah ok, that might well be correct - apologies if so.  But I do like the idea of limiting posting to say 5 or 10 posts a day.

13 hours ago, george said:

I'm driving a lot of traffic to this community via social media, via Google SERP's,  and ASEAN NOW currently have around 40k unique visitors per day, (sometimes double that traffic if any breaking news event), total page views around 110k per day. This site is huge. Huge traffic. Traffic and ad revenue pay our bills. Not much profit, but wtf?

 

Hi George, do you have statistics from the early days? 

How are we doing compared to say 2005, the golden days?

I remember when the Tsunami hit back in 2004, there was a record number of active readers/members. 

 

2 hours ago, CharlieH said:

 what matter is how its defined here, as per forum rules:

 

10. You will not post troll messages. Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing forum members by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other members into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

At its core, trolling is all about insincerity and sadism.

People can purposefully antagonize others, post controversial / inflammatory / off-topic messages, provoke others and not be trolls at all. Happens all the time on topic involving politics / geopolitics.

 

@bob smith is right. No real trolls on AN. Petty sh$tposters now and then but that's it.

 

As for rule 10, let's not forget a simple truth: application of the term troll is subjective.

Therefore it shouldn't show in forum rules.

That rule is one of the reasons why moderation was so bad at times.

It allows mods to freestyle depending on how they feel towards certain people.

Edited November 15, 20232 yr by MrPancake

6 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

It would be much simpler and better if people wouldn't troll by emoticon in the first place and instead, tried to articulate their thoughts rather than posting silly  childish faces! If this were a kindergarten and all the posters under age 8, I might see things differently. But one minute there are intelligent and in depth discussions about taxation, economics or politics and the next we're faced with a wall of sad emojis, posted by people who presumably don't understand the subject matter or can't be bothered to join in.

If I was king of Asean Now I would ban emojis within text. A few use them constantly as though it adds gravitas or humour or substance to their post. Don't like them. 

3 minutes ago, MrPancake said:

 

At its core, trolling is all about insincerity and sadism.

People can purposefully antagonize others, post controversial / inflammatory / off-topic messages, provoke others and not be trolls at all Happens all the time on topic involving politics / geopolitics.

 

@bob smith is right. No real trolls on AN. Petty sh$tposters now and then but that's it.

 

As for rule 10, let's not forget a simple truth: application of the term troll is subjective.

Therefore it shouldn't show in forum rules.

That rule is one of the reasons why moderation was so bad at times.

It allows mods to freestyle depending on how they feel towards certain people.

Thanks pancake.

 

I knew I wasn't goin mad ;) 

3 minutes ago, MrPancake said:

 

At its core, trolling is all about insincerity and sadism.

People can purposefully antagonize others, post controversial / inflammatory / off-topic messages, provoke others and not be trolls at all Happens all the time on topic involving politics / geopolitics.

 

@bob smith is right. No real trolls on AN. Petty sh$tposters now and then but that's it.

 

As for rule 10, let's not forget a simple truth: application of the term troll is subjective.

Therefore it shouldn't show in forum rules.

That rule is one of the reasons why moderation was so bad at times.

It allows mods to freestyle depending on how they feel towards certain people.

You want to widen the definition of what is generally accepted, nice try but you can't.

15 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

You want to widen the definition of what is generally accepted, nice try but you can't.

the problem is what exactly qualifies as generally accepted. 

 

I hope one day you understand that.

 

For example, does someone who outsmarts you and is more articulate than you who ends up making you look a bit silly when he rebuts your posts fall outside the realm of what is generally accepted? Is posting a cartoon emoticon on someones post also a violation of what is deemed OK?

 

Sadly, it seems for some members here that would be the case.

 

I think most people can agree that overt racism, homophobia and direct threats to life are generally not acceptable, but most other topics and/or writing styles should be permissible in a public forum imo.

Edited November 15, 20232 yr by bob smith

5 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

You want to widen the definition of what is generally accepted, nice try but you can't.

 

Actually I think forum rules should get rid of the term not widen its definition.

6 minutes ago, bob smith said:

the problem is what exactly qualifies as generally accepted. 

 

I hope one day you understand that.

 

Even Wikipedia states the use of the term "troll" is completely subjective.

Edited November 15, 20232 yr by MrPancake

11 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If I was king of Asean Now I would ban emojis within text. A few use them constantly as though it adds gravitas or humour or substance to their post.

 

Because with plain text and no face-to-face contact we can't tell the emotion of the poster. That is the purpose of emojis. 

Life needs whimsy

32 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I belong to a UK investing forum that doesn't have any emojis, posters ask questions, other respond with views and occasionally debates will follow but mostly, people post their views that other consider silently. Nobody needs emojis  to determine if what was said is good or not and it's a very very helpful environment. That works for me, perhaps others need something different.

Your UK investing forum members have a common interest, much like a cat or Morris Minor fancier's forum do*.  For a forum with such wide ranging topics as this one does there is bound to be some / a lot of discord (not the social media site) and downright infighting, especially given the diverse backgrounds of the members, and the ages of most (dare I mention the grumpy old man syndrome?)  The very fact that this thread, designed to receive suggestions on cutting down toxicity and negativity, has descended into a pit of toxic negativity on just about every page, would suggest that a firm hand is needed by the moderation team to keep things civil and on topic.  It's rather like the head of an asylum asking the inmates if they're sane enough to be released into society and, while a few say yes, we are, thank you, the majority carry on gibbering and flinging excrement at the walls, the asylum head, and the other inmates.  That doesn't mean I'm calling for the same (often overly, in my opinion) heavy handed policing as previously though.  Maybe a walled off section where those who enjoy a bit of faeces flinging and receiving can retire to when the will takes them and have at it.  You know who you are.

 

Regarding the emoji question, I'm in favour of them.  On other fora I've visited that don't have them, you often get a post made followed by a dozen saying "good post", or similar, or the opposite, followed by a dozen more for each of those agreeing or disagreeing with them, so you wade through pages of the stuff until you get to another original post.  They do seem over complicated here though. Simple like and dislike ones should suffice - though "groan" and "that's been posted before. Multiple times" ones would be nice for the joke threads.

 

*Though my experiences with some common interest fora shows that they too can often erupt into clique warfare, reinforcing my point about firm moderation.

Just now, MrPancake said:

 

Actually I think forum rules should get rid of the term not widen its definition.

I think we should all stop burning fossil fuels by midnight but that aint going to happen either.

 

One of the big downsides of the internet is that today, everyone has an opinion about everything and has a medium for pressing that their preferred version is adopted. Such things are akin to debating how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. They detract from progress being made elsewhere, "Lord, give me the strength to understand the things I cannot change.....", and all that.

2 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Your UK investing forum members have a common interest, much like a cat or Morris Minor fancier's forum do*.  For a forum with such wide ranging topics as this one does there is bound to be some / a lot of discord (not the social media site) and downright infighting, especially given the diverse backgrounds of the members, and the ages of most (dare I mention the grumpy old man syndrome?)  The very fact that this thread, designed to receive suggestions on cutting down toxicity and negativity, has descended into a pit of toxic negativity on just about every page, would suggest that a firm hand is needed by the moderation team to keep things civil and on topic.  It's rather like the head of an asylum asking the inmates if they're sane enough to be released into society and, while a few say yes, we are, thank you, the majority carry on gibbering and flinging excrement at the walls, the asylum head, and the other inmates.  That doesn't mean I'm calling for the same (often overly, in my opinion) heavy handed policing as previously though.  Maybe a walled off section where those who enjoy a bit of faeces flinging and receiving can retire to when the will takes them and have at it.  You know who you are.

 

Regarding the emoji question, I'm in favour of them.  On other fora I've visited that don't have them, you often get a post made followed by a dozen saying "good post", or similar, or the opposite, followed by a dozen more for each of those agreeing or disagreeing with them, so you wade through pages of the stuff until you get to another original post.  They do seem over complicated here though. Simple like and dislike ones should suffice - though "groan" and "that's been posted before. Multiple times" ones would be nice for the joke threads.

 

*Though my experiences with some common interest fora shows that they too can often erupt into clique warfare, reinforcing my point about firm moderation.

Isn't Thailand or Asean the common interest here?

5 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Doesn't it change the history of posting to the new updated name?

 

You're right, must have confirmed it some other way. "Edited by" and quoted posts still show the old username so that was probably it.

10 minutes ago, MrPancake said:

 

Even Wikipedia states the use of the term "troll" is completely subjective.

Oh well, in that case....!!!!

 

 

3 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

everyone has an opinion about everything and has a medium for pressing that their preferred version is adopted.

 

towards people they don't know nor have ever met. That is my mystery.

11 minutes ago, bob smith said:

the problem is what exactly qualifies as generally accepted. 

 

I hope one day you understand that.

 

For example, does someone who outsmarts you and is more articulate than you who ends up making you look a bit silly when he rebuts your posts fall outside the realm of what is generally accepted? Is posting a cartoon emoticon on someones post also a violation of what is deemed OK?

 

It seems for some members here that would be the case.

 

I think most people can agree that overt racism, homophobia and direct threats to life are generally not acceptable, but most other topics and/or writing styles should be permissible in a public forum imo.

 

Yes, "...I think most people can agree that overt racism, homophobia and direct threats to life are generally not acceptable..." but overt racism, homophobia and direct threats to life are all subjection.

 

If guy calls a someone a drama queen, it's generally no big deal, but if a guy calls a homosexual male a drama queen it may be a big deal, particularly is they are in fact a drama queen. 

6 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I think we should all stop burning fossil fuels by midnight but that aint going to happen either.

 

One of the big downsides of the internet is that today, everyone has an opinion about everything and has a medium for pressing that their preferred version is adopted. Such things are akin to debating how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. They detract from progress being made elsewhere, "Lord, give me the strength to understand the things I cannot change.....", and all that.

 

Rewriting a moronic forum rule has nothing to do whatsoever with avoiding fossil fuel as a source of energy.

 

"everyone has an opinion about everything and has a medium for pressing that their preferred version is adopted."

 

Yeah... Freedom and democratic debate. Terrible !

 

Edited November 15, 20232 yr by MrPancake

1 minute ago, Mike Lister said:

Isn't Thailand or Asean the common interest here?

As their joining dates reveal, many come here just to engage in talk on US / UK politics, Covid, Israel vs Hamas etc.  It would be interesting to see just what percentage of members actually live in Thailand / Asean - not that not doing so is a bad thing, but purely as an academic exercise, though the use of VPNs would make that difficult.