Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: No longer relevant
The Robert Pattinson board (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo...) is being targeted by what I assume is multiple trolls. Pretty much every single on-topic thread we put up is reported and eventually (within two to three days) is deleted by IMDb staff. Today we had about 10 to 12 threads deleted. This happens over and over again.
These threads are completely on topic, there's nothing wrong with them, nothing reportable about them AT ALL. Just normal conversation about projects, interviews he's done, articles, etc.
I know false reporting is against IMDb's terms of service, but if they're going to delete the threads anyway, what options do we have? To say that it's getting beyond ridiculous at this point is an understatement.
Help? How can we stop this?
These threads are completely on topic, there's nothing wrong with them, nothing reportable about them AT ALL. Just normal conversation about projects, interviews he's done, articles, etc.
I know false reporting is against IMDb's terms of service, but if they're going to delete the threads anyway, what options do we have? To say that it's getting beyond ridiculous at this point is an understatement.
Help? How can we stop this?
Posted 7 years ago
Dan Dassow, Champion
Reporting a user multiple times could put your ability to report abuse at risk. I suggest flagging one of the most flagrant posts for each of the offending users and specifying "Other" from the drop-down menu. Include the information you've posted here and ignore the users.
I'm not reporting any users. THEY (the trolls) are reporting on-topic normal threads and they're being deleted for no reason.
You've got it backwards. They are reporting all the threads on the board maliciously.
You've got it backwards. They are reporting all the threads on the board maliciously.
Same thing happening on the Religion board.
Reading through these comments, it is obvious that any behavior can be validated if one chooses to regardless of its intent. In this case, pseudo intellectual reasoning and reverse validation serves to justify what amounts to harassment. In most educated circles, common sense and discretion would prevail. The users at the RP board (and probably other impacted locations) discuss RP and enjoy the community flavor. There is nothing inherently wrong with what the participants are doing there and at many other boards. What is wrong is that a circle of individuals are allowed to run roughshod abusing and harrassing throughout the IMDb community because some are unwilling to use discretion and common sense and say that is wrong and needs to be corrected. Even the most adament, rule spouting poster here has to admit that requiring board participants to change innocuous ( and honestly non violative) behavior as a means to quell Troll activity equates, albeit on a much more shallow level, to requiring a woman not dress a certain way to stem sexual harrassment or assault. The true problem is never addressed. I work in a profession where the application of rules, policy, and regulations have to be applied on a case by case basis using discretion and common sense. The public would, and does, have a field day when the application is not appropriate. I would just ask that people, and IMDb, step out of the narrow confines of the box that they have built around this issue and view the activity for what it truly is.
There is nothing pseudo intellectual or reverse validatory about reading and understanding the site rules and regulations. IMDb has it's rules printed for all to read. If you choose to ignore these rules and have your posts removed as a result, you have only yourself to blame. Having a minimum of 50% of threads on a particular message board provide links to two alternate film and entertainment websites, is not innocuous. It falls under the "advertising and spam" rule breach. It is akin to walking into a Burger King carrying a placard telling patrons that the burgers are better at McDonalds and handing them a meal voucher for good measure. No commercial organization or website, (such as IMDB), will tolerate such flagrant disrespect. And rightly so.
Lastly, your reference to sexual harassment and sexual assault of women is tasteless, histrionic, inappropriate and completely wrong. It shows me (yet again), why you are having problems on that board. What an utterly absurd and irrational statement.
Don't breach the site rules. If your threads are then reported, administration will action the perpetrators. End of story.
Lastly, your reference to sexual harassment and sexual assault of women is tasteless, histrionic, inappropriate and completely wrong. It shows me (yet again), why you are having problems on that board. What an utterly absurd and irrational statement.
Don't breach the site rules. If your threads are then reported, administration will action the perpetrators. End of story.
The intent of the rules is what matters and not your interpretation. I am sure posting links to fan photos and on topic articles were not what they meant by advertising and spam. I am absolutely sure you know that too and your officious, self serving interpretation is only meant to divert attention from the actual issue at hand (harrassment and trolling). You are bent on protecting the trolling activity and, make no mistake, the obvious attempts to deflect equate to protecting. Also, please do be offended by my comparison to misogynists suggesting women change to avoid being violated instead of addressing the underlying problem. You have chosen to ignore the actual issue here all along and it is understandable you would ignore the content and meaning of my entire statement. I have to believe Mr. Smith's comments and your immediate defense to what he said only bolstered what he said. Ignore the trolls, wasn't that your advice? It is sad that the trolls have even invaded the boards where individuals are supposed to ask for assistance. But, I am sure IMDb will react appropriately, lol.
Well now you are just ranting. Misogynists. 'Protecting trolls'. 'Mr Smith'.
These are the facts:
1. The Robert Pattinson board, according to a number or regular posters, was the target of false and malicious abuse reports
2. After reviewing the board, it was established, (and not just by me), that there were a number of issues relating to many of the threads on the board being in breach of site terms and conditions. 50-75% (depending on the stringency of the interpretation of site rules), of the threads were reportable and could be justifiably deleted by moderators.
3. This was pointed out to the complainants
4. Many complainants disagreed with the spirit of the rule breaches, but acknowledged the technicality of the rule breaches
5. Steps were taken by the complainants to tidy up the threads and posts of the board community and to ensure future threads and posts do not breach site rules
Problem asked. Advice given. Solution created. Solution enacted.
Everything else is superfluous and irrelevant.
If you want to think me the bad guy or a troll or a misogynist or Mickey Mouse, that is your choice. But I make no apologies for my demeanor, methodology, manner and assistance. At day's end, I have done you (and the rest of the board community), a great favor and deep down, you know this.
Thank you for your time.
These are the facts:
1. The Robert Pattinson board, according to a number or regular posters, was the target of false and malicious abuse reports
2. After reviewing the board, it was established, (and not just by me), that there were a number of issues relating to many of the threads on the board being in breach of site terms and conditions. 50-75% (depending on the stringency of the interpretation of site rules), of the threads were reportable and could be justifiably deleted by moderators.
3. This was pointed out to the complainants
4. Many complainants disagreed with the spirit of the rule breaches, but acknowledged the technicality of the rule breaches
5. Steps were taken by the complainants to tidy up the threads and posts of the board community and to ensure future threads and posts do not breach site rules
Problem asked. Advice given. Solution created. Solution enacted.
Everything else is superfluous and irrelevant.
If you want to think me the bad guy or a troll or a misogynist or Mickey Mouse, that is your choice. But I make no apologies for my demeanor, methodology, manner and assistance. At day's end, I have done you (and the rest of the board community), a great favor and deep down, you know this.
Thank you for your time.
Hello Ladies.. Sorry to read that is still happening there. :(
Dan,
This actually is a big issue on that specific board. They have a group of people(from another board) that don't like Rob Pattinson and that group will "serial report" on topic threads.
After so many reports the threads get wiped, likely by the automated system.
It's a new & incognito method of trolling a board who's members you don't like.
The biggest problem is- there's no way to report this "new improved" troll method and you can't ignore the user (in this case a small group) doing it because they very rarely post and ignoring wouldn't stop the thread deletions.
If I hadn't seen it happen with my own eyes, I probably wouldn't believe it- but it has & does happen there.
I was there numerous times per day, when the new boards went live and I saw it happen, now more than once.
Perhaps there's a way an admin could check the history of reports & deleted threads on that board?
It's actually happening so often the regulars there started saving their important threads & posts on his career & such so they could repost them after they were maliciously deleted!
I honestly don't know how to go about solving this- what would prevent it but the gals there do a great service for fans & to have it all wiped out for malicious reasons seems rather sad & juvenile.
Dan,
This actually is a big issue on that specific board. They have a group of people(from another board) that don't like Rob Pattinson and that group will "serial report" on topic threads.
After so many reports the threads get wiped, likely by the automated system.
It's a new & incognito method of trolling a board who's members you don't like.
The biggest problem is- there's no way to report this "new improved" troll method and you can't ignore the user (in this case a small group) doing it because they very rarely post and ignoring wouldn't stop the thread deletions.
If I hadn't seen it happen with my own eyes, I probably wouldn't believe it- but it has & does happen there.
I was there numerous times per day, when the new boards went live and I saw it happen, now more than once.
Perhaps there's a way an admin could check the history of reports & deleted threads on that board?
It's actually happening so often the regulars there started saving their important threads & posts on his career & such so they could repost them after they were maliciously deleted!
I honestly don't know how to go about solving this- what would prevent it but the gals there do a great service for fans & to have it all wiped out for malicious reasons seems rather sad & juvenile.
Thanks Pikabo. Started again several weeks ago. If you look at the main page, it is obvious. Very active threads with 300 plus posts and long term threads are gone.
Hi Pikabo. Do you have any suggestion or ideas on how we can get an admin to check the history of reports and deleted threads on Rob's board.
Thank you again Pikabo for all of your efforts related to this issue. Your support is very much appreciated.
Dan Dassow, Champion
Pikabo ICU,
I was not aware of this very sinister toll behavior. I cannot fathom why anyone would engage in such juvenile behavior.
Emperor made this suggestion that I support.
"Smokejumping" moderators to fight fires on the worst forums
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Another possibility is to put problem Message Boards on moderation. All messages and reports of abuse would go through a human moderator. However, this would not prevent someone from stalking a user on this message board and reporting a totaling unrelated post.
I was not aware of this very sinister toll behavior. I cannot fathom why anyone would engage in such juvenile behavior.
Emperor made this suggestion that I support.
"Smokejumping" moderators to fight fires on the worst forums
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Another possibility is to put problem Message Boards on moderation. All messages and reports of abuse would go through a human moderator. However, this would not prevent someone from stalking a user on this message board and reporting a totaling unrelated post.
I know, it's the strangest thing and to think it's adults.. It's head shaking behavior for sure.
I guess as sites get more efficient at controlling 'troll" activity, the "trolls" have to get more creative. Sad..
Anyway, moving on... I agree Emperor's suggestion is a very good idea! So is having problem boards monitored by mods. If a board has a certain amount of reports it could be flagged & then monitored..
Problem is- these ladies have been dealing with malicious deletions for a LONG time so I wonder if there is some way to "turn off" the automatic deletions?
If the board could have the deletions suspended until a "real person" could take a peek at what's being reported?
Or there should be a way for the admins to look at the history.. On my forums I have/had a log to see who reported what and what got deleted. That might answer who the serial reporters are so they can be warned and/or deleted..
Such an unnecessarily, immature mess.
I would normally just tell the people to ignore it but this group of ladies puts a lot of effort into updating that board & keeping things on topic- I hope something can be done to stop all the bogus reporting considering it violates the TOS.
I guess as sites get more efficient at controlling 'troll" activity, the "trolls" have to get more creative. Sad..
Anyway, moving on... I agree Emperor's suggestion is a very good idea! So is having problem boards monitored by mods. If a board has a certain amount of reports it could be flagged & then monitored..
Problem is- these ladies have been dealing with malicious deletions for a LONG time so I wonder if there is some way to "turn off" the automatic deletions?
If the board could have the deletions suspended until a "real person" could take a peek at what's being reported?
Or there should be a way for the admins to look at the history.. On my forums I have/had a log to see who reported what and what got deleted. That might answer who the serial reporters are so they can be warned and/or deleted..
Such an unnecessarily, immature mess.
I would normally just tell the people to ignore it but this group of ladies puts a lot of effort into updating that board & keeping things on topic- I hope something can be done to stop all the bogus reporting considering it violates the TOS.
Dan, is putting the entire board on moderation a possibility? I think most users on the board would be totally fine with that, even if it doesn't keep the trolls from stalking us on individual boards.
Tracy, thanks for getting this problem the attention it deserves and very much needs at this point. Yes as a regular poster it is indeed very frustrating to see extremely popular and interesting threads on Rob's movies, articles and interviews being unfairly deleted for no apparent reason.
I too think a moderator of some sort would help a lot.
- Demesne
I too think a moderator of some sort would help a lot.
- Demesne
Dan Dassow, Champion
We can continue to ask IMDb to provide moderation for problem message boards. Unfortunately, moderating an active message board would be very resource intensive. IMDb would not likely allocate staff time to patrol message boards, even it it were a limited number. It would have to be a trusted user, such as Pikabo ICU.
No idea if that's an option, then.
I don't think we need a person spending their time patrolling the board, tbh. We get very few active usual-type trolls, and when we do, we're pretty good at ignoring them.
We just need someone to put their eyeballs on a deletion request before hitting the button. This automated system is killing us.
I don't think we need a person spending their time patrolling the board, tbh. We get very few active usual-type trolls, and when we do, we're pretty good at ignoring them.
We just need someone to put their eyeballs on a deletion request before hitting the button. This automated system is killing us.
bluesmanSF, Champion
I would suggest doing the following.
Post a message that is completely on topic, non-offensive, and that could not be considered, in any way a violation of any terms and that no one should/could argue with, such as an opinion about the actor or a performance of his.
Bookmark the thread. Watch it to see if it gets deleted. Then send a message, with a link to the thread/post, to the staff via the Help Desk http://www.imdb.com/helpdesk/contact_... simply recommending they look into it because you feel user/users are abusing the report abuse system.
They won't respond, other than to refer to relevant help pages, or discuss the situation or any user's status. But, they'll likely place the user on their ignore list so that all of that user's reports are permanently ignored.
I wouldn't make a habit of using that, nor reporting in general, as it might make them think it's a report war and all users accounts, including yours, might get sanctioned.
Post a message that is completely on topic, non-offensive, and that could not be considered, in any way a violation of any terms and that no one should/could argue with, such as an opinion about the actor or a performance of his.
Bookmark the thread. Watch it to see if it gets deleted. Then send a message, with a link to the thread/post, to the staff via the Help Desk http://www.imdb.com/helpdesk/contact_... simply recommending they look into it because you feel user/users are abusing the report abuse system.
They won't respond, other than to refer to relevant help pages, or discuss the situation or any user's status. But, they'll likely place the user on their ignore list so that all of that user's reports are permanently ignored.
I wouldn't make a habit of using that, nor reporting in general, as it might make them think it's a report war and all users accounts, including yours, might get sanctioned.
We tried that last year with zero results, unfortunately. We think it's just one to three users that create sock accounts just to report the threads. If one account's ability to report was removed due to malicious reporting, they just created another.
I had thought that unusual reporting activity would be flagged and a human might check to see what is going on, but that appears not to be the case, unfortunately.
I had thought that unusual reporting activity would be flagged and a human might check to see what is going on, but that appears not to be the case, unfortunately.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Then you've alerted staff and they might not agree with your assessment of what is going on. You might just avoid the board for a while. Staff doesn't much like getting in the middle of report wars. The boards, also, are fairly low priority areas of the site. Most users visiting the site are not here to chat on message boards.
I think they'd have to be crazy not to agree with my assessment. This isn't a reporting "war", because myself and the other people on the board aren't reporting anyone.
When 20 to 30 totally innocuous on-topic threads with topics like "Maps to the Stars filming now" and "New interview in German GQ" get deleted PER WEEK, there's a problem.
When 20 to 30 totally innocuous on-topic threads with topics like "Maps to the Stars filming now" and "New interview in German GQ" get deleted PER WEEK, there's a problem.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Really? Then what did, "We tried that last year with zero results" mean?
Yes, there's a problem...always has been, always will be. Today, that board, tomorrow another...on and on...
This, by the way, is why staff doesn't comment. Those complaining are never satisfied with any answer or recommendation...the argument never ends.
Good luck.
Yes, there's a problem...always has been, always will be. Today, that board, tomorrow another...on and on...
This, by the way, is why staff doesn't comment. Those complaining are never satisfied with any answer or recommendation...the argument never ends.
Good luck.
Zero results is an exaggeration. We would take down our urls, and report them as specified when they were deleted. As I'm sure you're aware, probably 90% of those were never even looked at. Eventually I'm sure some of them would be, socks would be "dinged" for reporting inappropriately.
Deletions would then slow and finally stop...at this point alerting the trolls that their IDs were no longer reporting, so they start new IDs and the whole thing starts over again.
And unfortunately, with this new system, it is my understanding that the option to report in this manner is gone. Only "private" matters are supposed to be reported at that link.
Deletions would then slow and finally stop...at this point alerting the trolls that their IDs were no longer reporting, so they start new IDs and the whole thing starts over again.
And unfortunately, with this new system, it is my understanding that the option to report in this manner is gone. Only "private" matters are supposed to be reported at that link.
bluesmanSF, Champion
re: "it's my understanding that the option..it gone"
Your understanding is wrong. And, by the way, that type of report is a private matter. So, you're twice wrong.
Your understanding is wrong. And, by the way, that type of report is a private matter. So, you're twice wrong.
This has been a problem, on and off, for several years. It's got to a point where I am just sick to death of it and I rarely post anymore, what's the point if it'll get deleted in a day or so anyway?
In the past I have reported obvious trolls that go against the terms and conditions of IMDb, when I have threads deleted by admin for no good reason, I have saved the URL and contacted IMDb, only receiving a standard email basically saying there is nothing they can or will do. I have placed trolls on ignore, but when they are starting new sock accounts on a daily basis, it's fruitless, and that doesn't help with threads being deleted and regular users getting warning notifications.
I don't know what the solution is, except having several "human" admins actually physically looking at reported threads before deletion. What is to be done about trolls that write the most disgusting, and on occasion, libelous words about Robert Pattinson and/or fans? Again I think having actual people as admin would help.
I understand the amount of boards (in the thousands) that IMDb have to deal with, and for most I imagine the auto-admin, or whatever it's called, works. However I do believe that websites have a duty to protect their users as much as possible, especially considering the press that online bullying is now getting.
I am sure several regular posters would happily volunteer to help IMDb in this. I don't know if there is some kind of program that IMDb can use to allow this, plus if there is a way it can be done to guarantee that the privilege isn't abused, just to give some insurance to other posters that may not be so keen on the idea.
In the past I have reported obvious trolls that go against the terms and conditions of IMDb, when I have threads deleted by admin for no good reason, I have saved the URL and contacted IMDb, only receiving a standard email basically saying there is nothing they can or will do. I have placed trolls on ignore, but when they are starting new sock accounts on a daily basis, it's fruitless, and that doesn't help with threads being deleted and regular users getting warning notifications.
I don't know what the solution is, except having several "human" admins actually physically looking at reported threads before deletion. What is to be done about trolls that write the most disgusting, and on occasion, libelous words about Robert Pattinson and/or fans? Again I think having actual people as admin would help.
I understand the amount of boards (in the thousands) that IMDb have to deal with, and for most I imagine the auto-admin, or whatever it's called, works. However I do believe that websites have a duty to protect their users as much as possible, especially considering the press that online bullying is now getting.
I am sure several regular posters would happily volunteer to help IMDb in this. I don't know if there is some kind of program that IMDb can use to allow this, plus if there is a way it can be done to guarantee that the privilege isn't abused, just to give some insurance to other posters that may not be so keen on the idea.
bluesmanSF, Champion
re: "amount of boards (in the thousands)..."
There are 5 1/2 Million people listed (all have boards), and millions of titles listed (all have boards), plus the main boards.
And this site is not a message board site...it's a film information database. Staff focuses on the database, not the boards.
People monitoring probably won't happen. Staff warns they cannot monitor them and that, if you are having problems, you should stick to the core features of the site and avoid the boards (kind of like when you go to a swimming area that has no lifeguards...you're on your own, swim or don't).
People can't really be bullied if they can simply walk away (or simply click "ignore.").
There are 5 1/2 Million people listed (all have boards), and millions of titles listed (all have boards), plus the main boards.
And this site is not a message board site...it's a film information database. Staff focuses on the database, not the boards.
People monitoring probably won't happen. Staff warns they cannot monitor them and that, if you are having problems, you should stick to the core features of the site and avoid the boards (kind of like when you go to a swimming area that has no lifeguards...you're on your own, swim or don't).
People can't really be bullied if they can simply walk away (or simply click "ignore.").
Yes, I have been told all that in the email I received. I couldn't recall the exact number of boards, there may be "millions" but when it comes to active boards, it's far, far less.
In regards to bullying, that may be the case, I'm an adult and I have chosen to stay away for now. Not exactly morally right though, is it? What about younger fans that don't necessarily have the maturity to "simply walk away" or not take it personally? They need to be protected as much as possible. I know that IMDb focus on the main site, but they choose to have message boards, so should take at least some responsibility.
In regards to bullying, that may be the case, I'm an adult and I have chosen to stay away for now. Not exactly morally right though, is it? What about younger fans that don't necessarily have the maturity to "simply walk away" or not take it personally? They need to be protected as much as possible. I know that IMDb focus on the main site, but they choose to have message boards, so should take at least some responsibility.
IMDb's main business is the database, true, but their main INCOME is ads. And ad income is driven by number of hits. And if people regularly visit their 5 to 10 million message boards, then those users are providing hits and viewing ads, thus adding to their income.
If their boards are a vibrant place to discuss film and actors, this can only be a good thing for them.
They'd be idiotic to completely and totally ignore the boards. If they don't want to be in the board business, then get out of it. I'm not expecting a full-time mod to be holding our hand. At all.
We have an ongoing (more than two years!) issue that has reached ridiculous proportions. I'm asking for help. That's all. Two years. I think we've been patient enough, and I think we've done everything we've been asked to do to try to correct the problem.
I'm asking what WE (the users of this board) can do to help IMDb resolve the issue to some degree. I don't believe I'm out of line in doing that. This is, after all, the help boards. If I can't come here to ask for ideas or assistance, then why is it even here?
If their boards are a vibrant place to discuss film and actors, this can only be a good thing for them.
They'd be idiotic to completely and totally ignore the boards. If they don't want to be in the board business, then get out of it. I'm not expecting a full-time mod to be holding our hand. At all.
We have an ongoing (more than two years!) issue that has reached ridiculous proportions. I'm asking for help. That's all. Two years. I think we've been patient enough, and I think we've done everything we've been asked to do to try to correct the problem.
I'm asking what WE (the users of this board) can do to help IMDb resolve the issue to some degree. I don't believe I'm out of line in doing that. This is, after all, the help boards. If I can't come here to ask for ideas or assistance, then why is it even here?
The whole point of bullying is to make the person being bullied feel powerless. By telling people the solution is to simply "walk away" is to award and appease the bully...
These actions have also kept me from posting positive news about an actor on a movie database where discussions are encouraged (they suggest I talk on the board on an actors main page - thus they advertise their message boards as a place to visit). There should be some sort of solution or at least help offered.
These actions have also kept me from posting positive news about an actor on a movie database where discussions are encouraged (they suggest I talk on the board on an actors main page - thus they advertise their message boards as a place to visit). There should be some sort of solution or at least help offered.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Choose one active board. See how long it takes you to look at all posts and find possible abuse. Just one.
Even if 1% of the boards are active, that's still 100,000 something boards, some of them with many thousands of comments (not even getting into valid/invalid reports of abuse). So, how many staffer do you see this taking? And, how much do we pay them per month?
What we users can do about abusive users, is report them to the site staff. It's, then, kind of up to them. They are only able to respond to reports of abuse.
I, personally, don't want to the site to require payment just to maintain the boards, especially since it's one of the least used areas of the site. And, I'm gonna guess most others agree. If they want to hand the babysitting over to volunteers, that's okay with me, but then who monitors what they're doing?
And, by the way, they haven't completely ignored boards. They designed and implemented a report abuse system and also the authentication system which tracks users' abusive habits (as reported by other users) and makes it so their account status is affected. They also review some reports of abuse and take action as they see fit. If you think they're completely ignoring the problem, you're not looking hard enough for signs of what they've done. Many users can no longer make reports of abuse, many thousands of accounts have become disable, etc.
Even if 1% of the boards are active, that's still 100,000 something boards, some of them with many thousands of comments (not even getting into valid/invalid reports of abuse). So, how many staffer do you see this taking? And, how much do we pay them per month?
What we users can do about abusive users, is report them to the site staff. It's, then, kind of up to them. They are only able to respond to reports of abuse.
I, personally, don't want to the site to require payment just to maintain the boards, especially since it's one of the least used areas of the site. And, I'm gonna guess most others agree. If they want to hand the babysitting over to volunteers, that's okay with me, but then who monitors what they're doing?
And, by the way, they haven't completely ignored boards. They designed and implemented a report abuse system and also the authentication system which tracks users' abusive habits (as reported by other users) and makes it so their account status is affected. They also review some reports of abuse and take action as they see fit. If you think they're completely ignoring the problem, you're not looking hard enough for signs of what they've done. Many users can no longer make reports of abuse, many thousands of accounts have become disable, etc.
I understand that the goal is to report abusive users. But therein is the problem.
We don't know who they are. We would report the abusers if we knew who they were. But we don't. They no doubt create socks and additional accounts to use all the time.
And there's no way in the current system--as it stands today--to report people who are not *actively* posting/trolling a board, but rather, having threads deleted maliciously and for no reason.
It's a hole in the system. And they've figured out it's a hole, and they are abusing it.
We're not crybabies asking for a full-time nanny because someone said something mean on the boards. We're adults. We get it. We know how to ignore trolls and--on the rare occasion they are being ridiculous and posting porn links or something (it's happened)--we know how to appropriately use the tools IMDb intends for that purpose.
But we are being targeted. And the trolls have figured out a way to abuse the system. All we're asking for is assistance in how to close this hole.
We don't know who they are. We would report the abusers if we knew who they were. But we don't. They no doubt create socks and additional accounts to use all the time.
And there's no way in the current system--as it stands today--to report people who are not *actively* posting/trolling a board, but rather, having threads deleted maliciously and for no reason.
It's a hole in the system. And they've figured out it's a hole, and they are abusing it.
We're not crybabies asking for a full-time nanny because someone said something mean on the boards. We're adults. We get it. We know how to ignore trolls and--on the rare occasion they are being ridiculous and posting porn links or something (it's happened)--we know how to appropriately use the tools IMDb intends for that purpose.
But we are being targeted. And the trolls have figured out a way to abuse the system. All we're asking for is assistance in how to close this hole.
bluesmanSF, Champion
re: "there's no way in the current system ...to report people..."
If you know who they are, you can report any post of theirs. If you don't, you can save some links to threads, then report it to the Help Desk. If you can't do that, you can send a message to the Help Desk.
There are three ways.
Staff can see deleted threads and posts, by the way.
If you know who they are, you can report any post of theirs. If you don't, you can save some links to threads, then report it to the Help Desk. If you can't do that, you can send a message to the Help Desk.
There are three ways.
Staff can see deleted threads and posts, by the way.
They're removed the ability to send reports to the Help Desk unless it is a "private issue", from what I can see.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Well, if anything qualifies, this would. You give attention to board trolls by posting about them. So, this thread, if they find it, only encourages them further. There are two ways to report problems to staff. This board (which gets you no where-especially if you are not willing to accept advice given) or that contact form. I would not have suggested it if I thought it somehow wouldn't work because it wasn't a private enough situation. All messages there are read and referred to the appropriate staff. Also, don't expect discussion, nor even a specific reply...you'll be pointed to the Help Section. That doesn't mean they didn't read or act appropriately to the message. They've done nothing to remove its ability to reach staff. What they mean is, use the Get Satisfaction board, if you can. If you can't or shouldn't because it's a private issue, use the form.
I don't expect a discussion. I'm used to the form reply. lol. If you think we can still use that form, we'll try using it again then.
bluesmanSF, Champion
I don't think, I know, you can use that form!
Pamela- I agree. If a website is going to have a message board then they should at least have someone assigned to moderate it. Yes, it would take some resources but if they let trolls & immature posters ruin the site then imdb will lose a lot of internet traffic & eyeballs. I have reported trolls & abusers with them in turn "reporting" me- just b/c they can!
You do realize IMDb has millions of message boards, don't you? Even if they assign one moderator to moderate, say, 100 boards, (90 low post turnover, 10 mid-high post turnover), that will mean thousands of moderators, (to cover the full 24hr cycle). It's not practical. I agree with IMDb. If you don't like the message boards and how they are operated on the DATABASE, well it might be best if you don't use them.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Quick question...are there actually any real on topic discussions on that board?
I just opened a dozen threads and none of them contained any useful relevant discussion of the actor. Just links to pics, other stuff...even one that showed a Tweet that was completely unrlated (isn't twitter for seeing tweets?).
Many times when this "problem" comes up, I look at the board and see it's filled with people camped out there using it as a chat room. Had you considered that maybe the reports of abuse are correct and that the board is not a hangout for a few, but a place for all, for when they have a question or want to have a discussion about the actor or his work?
I just opened a dozen threads and none of them contained any useful relevant discussion of the actor. Just links to pics, other stuff...even one that showed a Tweet that was completely unrlated (isn't twitter for seeing tweets?).
Many times when this "problem" comes up, I look at the board and see it's filled with people camped out there using it as a chat room. Had you considered that maybe the reports of abuse are correct and that the board is not a hangout for a few, but a place for all, for when they have a question or want to have a discussion about the actor or his work?
Well, if every thread we created was not being deleted on an ongoing basis, then you would see plenty of discussion.
You're complaining that you don't see any film discussion, but that's because those are the exact threads they target!
Just this week, we have had several 100 to 300-comment posts on Maps to the Stars filming ... of course, they've all been deleted.
That's the problem. Don't you get it? We can repost the thread (and we try to do so), but at that point, all the relevant discussion is GONE. And it's hard to re-create that.
Explain to me, if you would, how a thread about an actor filming his latest film in Los Angeles is off-topic? Do we post pictures of him filming? Heck yes, but then...wouldn't everyone if they were available?
He's had five or six interviews come out in major international magazines this past week. We had threads for each of them.... all deleted, all reposted...but again, the discussion is gone.
And if you can't find an on-topic thread on the board, you're not really looking...
You're complaining that you don't see any film discussion, but that's because those are the exact threads they target!
Just this week, we have had several 100 to 300-comment posts on Maps to the Stars filming ... of course, they've all been deleted.
That's the problem. Don't you get it? We can repost the thread (and we try to do so), but at that point, all the relevant discussion is GONE. And it's hard to re-create that.
Explain to me, if you would, how a thread about an actor filming his latest film in Los Angeles is off-topic? Do we post pictures of him filming? Heck yes, but then...wouldn't everyone if they were available?
He's had five or six interviews come out in major international magazines this past week. We had threads for each of them.... all deleted, all reposted...but again, the discussion is gone.
And if you can't find an on-topic thread on the board, you're not really looking...
bluesmanSF, Champion
So, if every thread is being deleted, how did I just see more than a dozen off topic threads?
Also, it's mentioned above that there is no point in making a new comment if tomorrow it's gone. So, those 300 comment threads got 300 in one day?
Look...I get it. Because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand. This, again, is why staff doesn't comment. You (or whomever is irked tomorrow) will never agree with anything anyone says and the "discussion" never ends. I could reply 100 times and you'd still keep saying the same things over and over.
And, I never said I can't find an on topic thread. I found one. That's not the one that matters. It's the other dozen or so I found compared to one.
Also, it's mentioned above that there is no point in making a new comment if tomorrow it's gone. So, those 300 comment threads got 300 in one day?
Look...I get it. Because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand. This, again, is why staff doesn't comment. You (or whomever is irked tomorrow) will never agree with anything anyone says and the "discussion" never ends. I could reply 100 times and you'd still keep saying the same things over and over.
And, I never said I can't find an on topic thread. I found one. That's not the one that matters. It's the other dozen or so I found compared to one.
Because if you remove all the on-topic threads...then only the off-topic ones remain?
I don't know what you're seeing, but if you look, there's stacks of on topic discussion going on.
The only requirement at the top of the boards is this:
This message board is for conversations about Robert Pattinson.
So, are the threads about Robert Pattinson? Yes.
The top threads on the board at this moment:
- Robert Pattinson Dior Shoot BTS - on topic - Robert Pattinson's Romain Gervais-directed ad hits tomorrow. The behind the scenes video hit today.
Rob's Film Mission Blacklist - on topic - films in January, we hope
Rob's film Maps to the Stars - on topic - Just wrapped in LA on Thursday
QOTD late 2013/ early 2014 Shoot for Rob? - on topic - Queen of the Desert is the Werner Herzog film he has signed for. Shoots in Spring/Summer
Rob Gifs - borderline. Still about Rob, but in GIF form. I get your complaint there.
Rob Visits Teens at LA Children's Hospital - on topic - Maps to the Stars producer arranges a charity visit at the hospital where they were filming.
Tweets Galore - borderline - tweets about Rob, filming location sightings, etc. Depends on the tweet, but much of this is useful info.
New Message Board - on topic - this was bumped because we were looking for info on how to report our deletions.
Look, I get your point. But come on. You are barking up the wrong tree when you say the fault is somehow ours. These are not crazy off-topic threads here. And the ones you think are most likely to be on topic? Those are the ones that are deleted over and over and over again. We've had about five different Maps to the Stars threads deleted. All of our David Cronenberg Maps threads - deleted.
It's like you're trying to blame us, when the fault lies in the reporters. There is no way that 90% of what is deleted on our board is not deleted maliciously and due to false reporting.
I don't know what you're seeing, but if you look, there's stacks of on topic discussion going on.
The only requirement at the top of the boards is this:
This message board is for conversations about Robert Pattinson.
So, are the threads about Robert Pattinson? Yes.
The top threads on the board at this moment:
- Robert Pattinson Dior Shoot BTS - on topic - Robert Pattinson's Romain Gervais-directed ad hits tomorrow. The behind the scenes video hit today.
Rob's Film Mission Blacklist - on topic - films in January, we hope
Rob's film Maps to the Stars - on topic - Just wrapped in LA on Thursday
QOTD late 2013/ early 2014 Shoot for Rob? - on topic - Queen of the Desert is the Werner Herzog film he has signed for. Shoots in Spring/Summer
Rob Gifs - borderline. Still about Rob, but in GIF form. I get your complaint there.
Rob Visits Teens at LA Children's Hospital - on topic - Maps to the Stars producer arranges a charity visit at the hospital where they were filming.
Tweets Galore - borderline - tweets about Rob, filming location sightings, etc. Depends on the tweet, but much of this is useful info.
New Message Board - on topic - this was bumped because we were looking for info on how to report our deletions.
Look, I get your point. But come on. You are barking up the wrong tree when you say the fault is somehow ours. These are not crazy off-topic threads here. And the ones you think are most likely to be on topic? Those are the ones that are deleted over and over and over again. We've had about five different Maps to the Stars threads deleted. All of our David Cronenberg Maps threads - deleted.
It's like you're trying to blame us, when the fault lies in the reporters. There is no way that 90% of what is deleted on our board is not deleted maliciously and due to false reporting.
bluesmanSF, Champion
I didn't read all that. But, no...a link to a picture of him is not a discussion (it doesn't say "conversations" but it's not that either).
Re: "It's like you're trying to blame us..."
I'm doing no such thing. But, when I hear, "I keep getting deleted and I am on topic and doing nothing wrong" and "I've contacted staff and they did nothing" I wonder about the posts actually being on topic. And, when I go there, open 14 threads and only see one on topic discussion....
If I thought you are to blame, I would not have posted, several times, how to report the problem. I'd have simply posted, "It's your fault."
Keep in mind, no posts are meant to be permanent. If something useful comes from a discussion on a board, it should be submitted to the proper page of the database. If you're using the board as a chat room, you're likely to be deleted sooner than normal expiration rate, but still, all posts are just temporary discussions. A thread of 300 posts has not been deleted immediately making the posts useless. You might want to find a chat area on the internet and move chats there.
Edit to add: A thread about what to do about the deletions is not "on topic." Sorry.
Re: "It's like you're trying to blame us..."
I'm doing no such thing. But, when I hear, "I keep getting deleted and I am on topic and doing nothing wrong" and "I've contacted staff and they did nothing" I wonder about the posts actually being on topic. And, when I go there, open 14 threads and only see one on topic discussion....
If I thought you are to blame, I would not have posted, several times, how to report the problem. I'd have simply posted, "It's your fault."
Keep in mind, no posts are meant to be permanent. If something useful comes from a discussion on a board, it should be submitted to the proper page of the database. If you're using the board as a chat room, you're likely to be deleted sooner than normal expiration rate, but still, all posts are just temporary discussions. A thread of 300 posts has not been deleted immediately making the posts useless. You might want to find a chat area on the internet and move chats there.
Edit to add: A thread about what to do about the deletions is not "on topic." Sorry.
Really, I challenge you to find any board not operating similarly. The posters are there to discuss Rob and his career and activities. I am being reported for copyright infringement apparently. If I post a link to the source to an article or image for discussion and I am infringing on someone's copyright? Really, this is pathetic group of individuals attempting to control everything we do there. There is no justification for that action and trying to define it as such is equally pathetic.
Are you the same 'Sammie1863' from the Robert Pattinson board who posts threads about all films in general, gifs,'socks and trolls', the heatwave from around your way and the death of Helen Thomas? If so, you are making it extremely easy for those who have an axe to grind to legitimately report your (many) topics.
The fact others are doing it elsewhere does not make your board etiquette acceptable.
The fact others are doing it elsewhere does not make your board etiquette acceptable.
I am that individual. I post a great deal there. You see my name starting a number of threads right now because of the issue we are discussing here which is, pure and simple, a form of harassment. Based on your comments here, such harassment is justified as long as you can twist the rules to fit your needs. Officious interpretation of the rules does not take away from that fact the goal of these individuals is control. Your narrow view ignores the fact that the only true infringement is that which is being levied at the individuals participating on the board purely for enjoyment/entertainment. Regardless of one's ideas of self importance, that is what these boards are, entertainment. Everyone should be able to enjoy them without this sort of harassment. If the rules are written in such a way to facilitate those negative activities, perhaps they should be changed. There is nothing wrong using a link to a source to generate a discussion or discussing things that may be considered fluff. Whether or not that discussion is of interest to you or something you might engage in. is hardly the point. The harassment is the true violation and nothing else.
Excellent points, Sammie.
Again, you are making it extremely easy for those who have an axe to grind to legitimately report your (many) topics.
Sammie, with all due respect, in my opinion you breach the site rules and seemingly do so often. Does this make you a troll? No. Does this mean I would report you? Apart from your silly 'troll/sock' thread, no. But the fact remains you breach the site rules and as such, those you and others have made an 'enemy' of, can legitimately report many of your threads.
Do I agree with this? No. Is what I am saying probably the case? yes.
Your fight is not with me. I dare say, your fight is with yourselves. Your board etiquette. How you conduct yourselves as individuals and as a board community. Why you attract such vehement and committed negative attention, (if your claims are to be believed).
It is often most helpful to look in the mirror when trying to impart blame.
Sammie, with all due respect, in my opinion you breach the site rules and seemingly do so often. Does this make you a troll? No. Does this mean I would report you? Apart from your silly 'troll/sock' thread, no. But the fact remains you breach the site rules and as such, those you and others have made an 'enemy' of, can legitimately report many of your threads.
Do I agree with this? No. Is what I am saying probably the case? yes.
Your fight is not with me. I dare say, your fight is with yourselves. Your board etiquette. How you conduct yourselves as individuals and as a board community. Why you attract such vehement and committed negative attention, (if your claims are to be believed).
It is often most helpful to look in the mirror when trying to impart blame.
The blame for the activity is set squarely on the shoulders of those that report the threads for NO reason. Just because you can define something to legitimize bad behavior after the fact, does not make it OK. Our being invested in the issue is understandable as it impacts us, but, yours is questionable or, should I say enlightening. Did you legitimize the behavior before the initial question was posted?
I have no idea what you are asking me. Or, more accurately, the context of your question.
I am moving past the issue of the threads being reported, (justifiably or otherwise), and moving bck further as to the why. Why would these 'trolls' target the IMDb Robert Pattinson board for so long, (if your claims are to be believed)? What elicits such behavior? What brings it to the fore? THAT is where you need to look in the mirror and perhaps find your answers.
If this discussion is indicative of the usual Robert Pattinson board hive mentality, well then I think the answer is positively clear, (though, I imagine, possibly invisible to you and yours).
I am moving past the issue of the threads being reported, (justifiably or otherwise), and moving bck further as to the why. Why would these 'trolls' target the IMDb Robert Pattinson board for so long, (if your claims are to be believed)? What elicits such behavior? What brings it to the fore? THAT is where you need to look in the mirror and perhaps find your answers.
If this discussion is indicative of the usual Robert Pattinson board hive mentality, well then I think the answer is positively clear, (though, I imagine, possibly invisible to you and yours).
Really, this discussion is only indicative of the frustration I and others feel. The sad thing is there really is no solution here. We change our posting as you suggest and the reporting goes away? Doubtful, and, if not, there apparently still is no recourse. The absolute truth in the matter is that the site is truly too large to manage and the trolls like those reporting our threads daily know that. They do not have to have the rules on their side to continue with the activity. It will go on uninterrupted regardless of how egregious it becomes. You question my posting. Well, I have posted OT threads and I have no issue admitting that. In truth, I don't routinely start threads. The ones you see are in response to deletions. Today it was me reposting discussion that were deleted. I was there at the time. Tomorrow it may be me again or someone else. If it is me on site, I will continue to do the same. Those reporting will continue to delete without regard to whether what is reported is in line with the terms and conditions. Honestly, as well thought out as your so called solutions are, they are meaningless and, as I am sure you know, ultimately ineffectual. In my RL, I generally receive some satisfaction when voicing legitimate concerns. No such luck here where an automated system blindly controls and those that wish to subjugate what is true etiquette and common decency have free reign reign to run roughshod without repercussions. I do see a bright spot, if only with the fact they have voiced what seems true concern, with both Mr. Dasser's and Pikabo's response. I don't believe there is any more to say.
No, I think you have said it all and ignored it all.
I actually have ignored nothing. There is a great deal of insight here, but, first and foremost is the fact that some felt the need to twist the reported very simple form of trolling into something more important and valid than it is. Why? Those that reported the wrongdoing, and, sorry, that is what it is, are now the violators. What is harmless must be corrected while the true bad behavior goes unchecked. Blame the victim. It is an attitude that is pervasive here and elsewhere on the Internet because of the anonymity. Slipping out of one identity into another to facilitate games and what would be considered abuse in many RL circles is not something to be diminished, but, that is what has occurred here. I will acknowledge that you are very knowledgeable about IMDB and the process here although I somehow doubt you have any real role of oversight outside of the one you have created for yourself. Also, and I doubt this surprises you, you are very familiar, hence the frustration.
Firstly, I have NO role of oversight here, nor have I claimed to have. I am not IMDb staff. I am a user just like you. So your 'doubt' is well founded, if a little needless.
Secondly, the 'victim', as you so dramatically label the Robert Pattinson message board, behaves in such a way as to facilitate the actions of the trolls you claim are maliciously reporting posts. I have simply offered, (again and again), insights into how these trolls are achieving these aims more efficiently due to numerous breaches of site rules by the posters on the board. I have also offered my opinion as to why this might be occurring in the first place, (the cause and effect). I am in no way condoning false abuse reports nor am I taking sides, (despite your repeated insinuations in this regard)
Thirdly, nothing surprises me about the internet. nothing.
Secondly, the 'victim', as you so dramatically label the Robert Pattinson message board, behaves in such a way as to facilitate the actions of the trolls you claim are maliciously reporting posts. I have simply offered, (again and again), insights into how these trolls are achieving these aims more efficiently due to numerous breaches of site rules by the posters on the board. I have also offered my opinion as to why this might be occurring in the first place, (the cause and effect). I am in no way condoning false abuse reports nor am I taking sides, (despite your repeated insinuations in this regard)
Thirdly, nothing surprises me about the internet. nothing.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Being aware at this decade-old (or more) type of trolling and giving you advice on how you can protect yourself is far, far from blaming the "victim." That is the most ridiculous thing about this thread (which is chock full of ridiculous comments...IMDb only hears reports of "private" issues??? what the...????).
No one has even come close to blaming any of you complaining.
No one has even come close to blaming any of you complaining.
This thread has showed me why the Robert Pattinson board is being targeted. Trolls are attracted by drama, scandal and conflict and I regret to say, it seems the regular posters from the Robert Pattinson board, (those on this thread at least), are aficionados of all three.
The false abuse reports, if true, are wrong and should be stopped. But sheesh. The regulars from that board are their own worst enemies.
The false abuse reports, if true, are wrong and should be stopped. But sheesh. The regulars from that board are their own worst enemies.
If, whoever are reporting threads for deletion are doing so due to violating IMDB's terms and conditions, how come completely Off Topic threads such as "The Royal Baby Is Here", "RIP: Helen Thomas", "Hi" (no post, just an emoticon), "Arsenal won 7-0", to name a few, have not been reported and are still sitting pretty on Rob's board. These threads have link's to external sites as well. But threads that are about Rob's career, such as films he's working on, the Dior Ads, his involvement in charity works, are the ones reported for deletion. That is a clear illustration that whoever is perpetrating these are doing it out of pure malice.
You said somewhere that maybe some posters on your board are not being nice or words to that effect. "not being nice' is highly subjective and should not even be brought to the discussion.
The fact is Rob's board is being targeted by malicious trolls by reporting on-topic threads for apparently technical reasons such as linking to an external site. 'Cause what other reason could they possibly use? I just looked at George Clooney's board. They are doing the exact same thing - providing links to external sites and some threads are OT. I suppose I can report those threads too for abuse of IMDB's T&C but why?
There are a lot of fans who go to Rob's board for info and to get the latest updates on his career. It's a shame that the very info they go there for are the ones getting reported for false abuse and thus getting deleted. The question then is who do we bring this problem to that can actually do something about it?
You said somewhere that maybe some posters on your board are not being nice or words to that effect. "not being nice' is highly subjective and should not even be brought to the discussion.
The fact is Rob's board is being targeted by malicious trolls by reporting on-topic threads for apparently technical reasons such as linking to an external site. 'Cause what other reason could they possibly use? I just looked at George Clooney's board. They are doing the exact same thing - providing links to external sites and some threads are OT. I suppose I can report those threads too for abuse of IMDB's T&C but why?
There are a lot of fans who go to Rob's board for info and to get the latest updates on his career. It's a shame that the very info they go there for are the ones getting reported for false abuse and thus getting deleted. The question then is who do we bring this problem to that can actually do something about it?
I have no doubt that if the threads you mentioned were reported appropriately, they would justifiably be removed by site administration. Obviously the more recent threads that concern Robert Pattinson and that breach site rules will be reported first by those intent on annoying you. No mystery there. The secret is to not breach site rules and they will not have a leg to stand on.
I did not say anywhere that the posters on the Robert Pattinson board are ' not being nice', so your argument is pointless. What I may have pointed out is if the confrontational, shrill and abrasive attitude displayed on this thread by some regulars from the Robert Pattinson board are indicative of the board's general attitude and behavior, well it is no surprise that there are those who have perhaps gotten their noses out of joint and are looking for a get square. Not saying it is right. Just pointing out the cause and effect.
The George Clooney board is not under discussion here, but I will answer your query anyway. I dare say that if somebody took it upon themselves to visit the George Clooney board and report all threads that link to nothing but gifs, pics and tweets, all threads dealing with fighting trolls, all threads that link to online polls and all threads that link to one or two George Clooney fansites, well I have no doubt many of those threads would also be removed by site administration. These aren't 'technical' reasons. They are breaches of site rules. Breaches that can VERY easily be avoided.
Perhaps the fans of George Clooney are not so eager to look for a fight and as such, do not have a fight on their hands :-)
I did not say anywhere that the posters on the Robert Pattinson board are ' not being nice', so your argument is pointless. What I may have pointed out is if the confrontational, shrill and abrasive attitude displayed on this thread by some regulars from the Robert Pattinson board are indicative of the board's general attitude and behavior, well it is no surprise that there are those who have perhaps gotten their noses out of joint and are looking for a get square. Not saying it is right. Just pointing out the cause and effect.
The George Clooney board is not under discussion here, but I will answer your query anyway. I dare say that if somebody took it upon themselves to visit the George Clooney board and report all threads that link to nothing but gifs, pics and tweets, all threads dealing with fighting trolls, all threads that link to online polls and all threads that link to one or two George Clooney fansites, well I have no doubt many of those threads would also be removed by site administration. These aren't 'technical' reasons. They are breaches of site rules. Breaches that can VERY easily be avoided.
Perhaps the fans of George Clooney are not so eager to look for a fight and as such, do not have a fight on their hands :-)
Why is it that you fail to get the most basic point about reporting threads? That no human being even looks at them? The process is AUTOMATED. No one even looks at the threads. If somebody took it upon themselves to make some socks and repetitively report any thread on IMDb anywhere about any subject--be it against the T&C's or not--the thread would be deleted.
Period.
This is why the trolls are abusing the system. Because they can. Because its a hole in the system and they know it.
Period.
This is why the trolls are abusing the system. Because they can. Because its a hole in the system and they know it.
Tracy, I think he/she is just being deliberately obtuse now.
Now that is a slab of irony if ever I've seen one. -_-
The system is *partially* automated. If you abuse the system long enough your account will be actioned. If you open multiple accounts, you will eventually run out of verification methods, (as administration will eventually catch up with you).
Your position is not to tell IMDb how to run their own site. Your position (if you so choose to post on the site), is to keep your posts and threads within the scope of the site rules and regulations, resist the temptation to 'fight the trolls', do not treat the film message board for a specific actor as a chat board/fansite and finally, to listen to valid and sincere advice when it is proffered.
Now tell me, was that obtuse?
The system is *partially* automated. If you abuse the system long enough your account will be actioned. If you open multiple accounts, you will eventually run out of verification methods, (as administration will eventually catch up with you).
Your position is not to tell IMDb how to run their own site. Your position (if you so choose to post on the site), is to keep your posts and threads within the scope of the site rules and regulations, resist the temptation to 'fight the trolls', do not treat the film message board for a specific actor as a chat board/fansite and finally, to listen to valid and sincere advice when it is proffered.
Now tell me, was that obtuse?
Considering we know that the same individual troll can have many accounts over several years, the system is flawed. We have had, time and time again, threads deleted, no links, no pictures just discussion about Pattinson's career.
No system can be perfect, we are asking if anything can be done and if we can be of service.
Considering you are continuously choosing to ignore these points, yes, I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.
No system can be perfect, we are asking if anything can be done and if we can be of service.
Considering you are continuously choosing to ignore these points, yes, I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.
Considering the users of the Robert Pattinson board seem to be adopting the changings to posting habits that I have suggested here, I believe that whilst you may see me as being deliberately obtuse, you have finally seen the wisdom of my words and are following my advice. This pleases me.
To see you swallowing your pride, looking in the mirror and seeing where the partial fault lays with yourselves, is very heartening.
Now that you have a cleaner slate, a positive attitude and recognize/respect the site rules and regulations for what they are , administration are perhaps in a position to assist you.
Well done.
To see you swallowing your pride, looking in the mirror and seeing where the partial fault lays with yourselves, is very heartening.
Now that you have a cleaner slate, a positive attitude and recognize/respect the site rules and regulations for what they are , administration are perhaps in a position to assist you.
Well done.
Actually I personally still dismiss your thoughts on the matter regarding the Terms and Conditions and will maintain that legitimate threads are being deleted by trolls for no other reason than to troll, because that's what they do. To be perfectly frank, your smugness here is rather pathetic, not that I expected anything less from an arrogant person like yourself.
ETA: Reading down the page has confirmed many posters suspicions that you are a troll that has been a problem on Pattinson's board... So, I'm done with you.
ETA: Reading down the page has confirmed many posters suspicions that you are a troll that has been a problem on Pattinson's board... So, I'm done with you.
I agree threads are probably being reported for no other reason than to troll. I don't agree these threads were legitimate, in so far as they did breach site Terms and Conditions. Now that you are following my advice, the threads have become legitimate, meaning site administration can now assist you with your future complaints.
I will ignore your childish insults because I understand you hate being told what to do and as such, cannot help but lash out when you are. Normally a sign of immaturity and authority issues, but live and let live.
ETA: Believe what you will if it helps you cope with your varying problems and issues.
I will ignore your childish insults because I understand you hate being told what to do and as such, cannot help but lash out when you are. Normally a sign of immaturity and authority issues, but live and let live.
ETA: Believe what you will if it helps you cope with your varying problems and issues.
"a link to a picture of him is not a discussion" Yes it is, if several posters comment, then we are "discussing" the pic, are we not?
We have many discussions on Pattinson's films, a lot of us have an interest in movies in general, from the development of films through to how they are promoted. All this is discussed... just that the threads are now deleted and you are only seeing the early threads where deeper discussion has not started, or more likely been discussed over and over again, but deleted.
In regards to permanency, we are fully aware that threads move down the board and will eventually be deleted. But deleted within 24hrs? Threads that discuss his films, charity work, Dior campaign etc. I'm not talking about some frivolous topic on a picture or how hot Rob looks, either.
Having a quick look on the board does not give you a fair idea at all on how the board can be.
I don't think you appreciate that many of us know how IMDb works, we have been through the proper channels time and time again. Tracy has started this topic to see if there is anything else that can be done, and if we can help. Trolls have found a loophole in the system. It needs to be addressed.
We have many discussions on Pattinson's films, a lot of us have an interest in movies in general, from the development of films through to how they are promoted. All this is discussed... just that the threads are now deleted and you are only seeing the early threads where deeper discussion has not started, or more likely been discussed over and over again, but deleted.
In regards to permanency, we are fully aware that threads move down the board and will eventually be deleted. But deleted within 24hrs? Threads that discuss his films, charity work, Dior campaign etc. I'm not talking about some frivolous topic on a picture or how hot Rob looks, either.
Having a quick look on the board does not give you a fair idea at all on how the board can be.
I don't think you appreciate that many of us know how IMDb works, we have been through the proper channels time and time again. Tracy has started this topic to see if there is anything else that can be done, and if we can help. Trolls have found a loophole in the system. It needs to be addressed.
bluesmanSF, Champion
A picture is not a discussion. Sure, it could start one...so could lots of things.
Most I've seen there are not on topic. Not that I'd ever think to report them. But, also, I'd never think to sanction a user for reporting it either. I'd, if I am a staffer fielding it, wouldn't put much time/thought in and would think it's annoying the person reporting it and would delete it.
Just saying...
Most I've seen there are not on topic. Not that I'd ever think to report them. But, also, I'd never think to sanction a user for reporting it either. I'd, if I am a staffer fielding it, wouldn't put much time/thought in and would think it's annoying the person reporting it and would delete it.
Just saying...
A link to a picture, a gif or a tweet is not a discussion, no matter how much you claim it to be or want it to be.
The first post of any thread is not a discussion either, but it starts a discussion, whether it be an essay on Robert Pattinson and his quest as a serious actor, or a picture of Robert Pattinson from his latest Dior campaign, both arouse conversation.
So, if someone tweets "Ben Affleck is the new Batman!" as an exclusive story, you wouldn't find that tweet worthy of discussion?
You wouldn't link to an article saying so? You would find a thread about that topic off-topic?
Interesting.
You wouldn't link to an article saying so? You would find a thread about that topic off-topic?
Interesting.
Now you are resorting to fallacious debate. As such, i will leave you to it. Life is too short.
bluesmanSF, Champion
I'd never post a tweet about anything, anywhere.
And, unless it was backing up an answer I made about something, I wouldn't post a link to an article.
If I heard about such a thing, I'd look for valid sources on my own, not run to a message board to "discuss."
But that's just me. And, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, either.
And, unless it was backing up an answer I made about something, I wouldn't post a link to an article.
If I heard about such a thing, I'd look for valid sources on my own, not run to a message board to "discuss."
But that's just me. And, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, either.
I will list the first 30 threads here and inform you of any possible breaches of site rules
1. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to an alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
2. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
3. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
4. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains another link to the same alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
5. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
6. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
7. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (nothing but links to gif pictures featured on various alternate sites. Could be considered flooding. No discussion. Deletion justifiable)
8. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... ((contains yet ANOTHER link to the same alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
9. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains numerous links to twitter and tweets from twitter. Deletion justifiable)
10. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (originally off topic discussion of new message board layout. Now a discussion of trolls and Kristen Stewart fans. Referred to as "fvckwit Kristen fan(s)" Deletion totally justifiable)
11. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (thread created to encourage board readers to 'vote' for Robert Pattinson to win some sort of online poll. Two polls linked. Reportable for any number of reasons.)
12. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (game thread for guessing release of film trailer. Though on-topic in subject, off-topic in nature and should be on the games board, which was created for such things. Deletion justifiable)
13. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to an alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
14. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (discussion of "socks" and "trolls". Off -topic and deletion justifable)
15. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (a discussion of all films. As this was posted on a board specific to one particular actor, deletion is justifiable. Film General is the best board for this thread.)
16. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (Contains the FOURTH link to the same alternate entertainment website and as above, could be deleted by IMDb for steering traffic away from IMDb. It begs the question, does this alternate entertainment website, designed for sole discussion of Robert Pattinson, have its own message boards/forums?)
17. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (a thread to showcase pictures of Robert Pattinson sourced from mostly the SAME alternate entertainment website linked numerous times in other thread topics. No discussion. Just pictures. Deletion justifable).
18. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to a commerical clothing wear website and seemingly promoting clothing that Robert Pattinson wears. Deletion justifable for numerous reasons).
19. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to an alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
20. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... ( (contains another link to the same alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (see above. Same site. Same link. Deletion now justifable for possible flooding)
21. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (link to alternate entertainment website, though URL apprears toi be broken. Deletion justifiable on the grounds that the thread offers nothing)
22. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (same site. Same link. Now the 9th or 10th link to the alternate entertainment website in the first 20-25 threads. Board flooding now a justifable reporting option, as is advertising/spam)
23. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (as above. Same site. Deletion justifable for flooding and advertsing/spam)
24. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (link to promotional magazine article for Robert Pattinson's new fragrance/perfume. The 3rd or 4th such thread discussing this topic. Loosely on-topic and probably okay)
25. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (another link to another magazine article about the new Robert Pattinson fragrance/perfume. A pattern is emerging)
26. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (link to article concerning Robert Pattinson's late-night activities on the social circuit. An alternate entertainment website and deletion probably justifable).
27. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
28. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (yet another link to yet another alternate entertainment website with yet another article/promtion concerning Robert Pattinson's new fragrance/perfume. Deletion justifiable).
29. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (same alternate site linked over a dozen times in 30 threads. Same reasons for justifable deletion)
30. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic
So, the verdict:
7 threads could be considered totally or partially on topic and in my opinion, not in breach of site rules and regulations
the remaining 23 threads are reportable for a variety of reasons, with the most prominent reason being advertising/spam, (a concerted effort by only a couple of users to seemingly promote 2 alternate entertainment websites) and flooding (for continually posting links to these two websites).
There is very much a 'chat board' mentality in place. If this is an indication of the normal board status, (and I suggest that it is, as most of the off-topic and questionable thread topics indicate they are being re-posted, presumably after deletion), well, in my opinion, I do not think you have much reason to complain.
My advice:
- stop the spammed linking to alternate entertainment websites, (two in particular)
- stop the 'chat room' threads, discussing off topic, 'general' subjects and fighting 'trolls' and 'socks'
- stop the advertising and spam threads, promoting online polls, games and commercial interests
- stop the repetitive 'gif'. 'twit' and pic' threads, as they do not involve discussion and often link to sites that contain malware, (at best), or steer IMDb users to alternate entertainment sites.
- stop the 'troll fight' mentality that seems to permeate many threads. Fighting trolls sees you lose the fight as soon as you begin.
- start discussing more Robert Pattinson films on the Internet MOVIE Database. If you wish to discuss the fluff and guff loosely associated with his life, perhaps the Robert Pattinson fansites that are being continually linked would be a better venue for your 'discussions'
All this is just my opinion and in no way represents IMDb's official view on the matter.
1. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to an alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
2. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
3. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
4. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains another link to the same alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
5. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
6. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
7. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (nothing but links to gif pictures featured on various alternate sites. Could be considered flooding. No discussion. Deletion justifiable)
8. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... ((contains yet ANOTHER link to the same alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
9. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains numerous links to twitter and tweets from twitter. Deletion justifiable)
10. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (originally off topic discussion of new message board layout. Now a discussion of trolls and Kristen Stewart fans. Referred to as "fvckwit Kristen fan(s)" Deletion totally justifiable)
11. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (thread created to encourage board readers to 'vote' for Robert Pattinson to win some sort of online poll. Two polls linked. Reportable for any number of reasons.)
12. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (game thread for guessing release of film trailer. Though on-topic in subject, off-topic in nature and should be on the games board, which was created for such things. Deletion justifiable)
13. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to an alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
14. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (discussion of "socks" and "trolls". Off -topic and deletion justifable)
15. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (a discussion of all films. As this was posted on a board specific to one particular actor, deletion is justifiable. Film General is the best board for this thread.)
16. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (Contains the FOURTH link to the same alternate entertainment website and as above, could be deleted by IMDb for steering traffic away from IMDb. It begs the question, does this alternate entertainment website, designed for sole discussion of Robert Pattinson, have its own message boards/forums?)
17. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (a thread to showcase pictures of Robert Pattinson sourced from mostly the SAME alternate entertainment website linked numerous times in other thread topics. No discussion. Just pictures. Deletion justifable).
18. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to a commerical clothing wear website and seemingly promoting clothing that Robert Pattinson wears. Deletion justifable for numerous reasons).
19. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (contains a link to an alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
20. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... ( (contains another link to the same alternate entertainment website. Would not surprise if IMDb chose to delete it for taking traffic away from IMDb)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (see above. Same site. Same link. Deletion now justifable for possible flooding)
21. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (link to alternate entertainment website, though URL apprears toi be broken. Deletion justifiable on the grounds that the thread offers nothing)
22. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (same site. Same link. Now the 9th or 10th link to the alternate entertainment website in the first 20-25 threads. Board flooding now a justifable reporting option, as is advertising/spam)
23. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (as above. Same site. Deletion justifable for flooding and advertsing/spam)
24. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (link to promotional magazine article for Robert Pattinson's new fragrance/perfume. The 3rd or 4th such thread discussing this topic. Loosely on-topic and probably okay)
25. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (another link to another magazine article about the new Robert Pattinson fragrance/perfume. A pattern is emerging)
26. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (link to article concerning Robert Pattinson's late-night activities on the social circuit. An alternate entertainment website and deletion probably justifable).
27. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic)
28. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (yet another link to yet another alternate entertainment website with yet another article/promtion concerning Robert Pattinson's new fragrance/perfume. Deletion justifiable).
29. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (same alternate site linked over a dozen times in 30 threads. Same reasons for justifable deletion)
30. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo... (on topic
So, the verdict:
7 threads could be considered totally or partially on topic and in my opinion, not in breach of site rules and regulations
the remaining 23 threads are reportable for a variety of reasons, with the most prominent reason being advertising/spam, (a concerted effort by only a couple of users to seemingly promote 2 alternate entertainment websites) and flooding (for continually posting links to these two websites).
There is very much a 'chat board' mentality in place. If this is an indication of the normal board status, (and I suggest that it is, as most of the off-topic and questionable thread topics indicate they are being re-posted, presumably after deletion), well, in my opinion, I do not think you have much reason to complain.
My advice:
- stop the spammed linking to alternate entertainment websites, (two in particular)
- stop the 'chat room' threads, discussing off topic, 'general' subjects and fighting 'trolls' and 'socks'
- stop the advertising and spam threads, promoting online polls, games and commercial interests
- stop the repetitive 'gif'. 'twit' and pic' threads, as they do not involve discussion and often link to sites that contain malware, (at best), or steer IMDb users to alternate entertainment sites.
- stop the 'troll fight' mentality that seems to permeate many threads. Fighting trolls sees you lose the fight as soon as you begin.
- start discussing more Robert Pattinson films on the Internet MOVIE Database. If you wish to discuss the fluff and guff loosely associated with his life, perhaps the Robert Pattinson fansites that are being continually linked would be a better venue for your 'discussions'
All this is just my opinion and in no way represents IMDb's official view on the matter.
bluesmanSF, Champion
A well-stated and, in my mind, accurate assessment. Thanks for taking the time, C&P. Well done!
Not a problem and thank you.
In my experience, whenever there is a user(s) complaining about a particular board being 'targeted' by 'trolls' and threads being 'unfairly' or 'maliciously' deleted by site administration, a cursory glance will show the reality to be a very different animal. In my opinion, if the threads I listed are an indication of the threads previously deleted, I do not see IMDb administration being remiss in their jobs.
In my experience, whenever there is a user(s) complaining about a particular board being 'targeted' by 'trolls' and threads being 'unfairly' or 'maliciously' deleted by site administration, a cursory glance will show the reality to be a very different animal. In my opinion, if the threads I listed are an indication of the threads previously deleted, I do not see IMDb administration being remiss in their jobs.
Do you routinely post on any specific board, either of you?
Emperor, Champion
To be fair, most forums about someone/something with a large and vocal fanbase will have a lot of similar posts, which will also provoke a similarly strong response from people who dislike the subject. Personally I don't see much harm in the former and it is the kind of thing people visiting the forum might expect or even be looking for. If that isn't your cup of tea, then walk on by. If there was friction between say die hard Twilight fans and people interested in the actor for more recent roles, then it might be worth the more... fannish posts being cleared out, but really the more posts like that the faster the turnover is from the autopurge, so IMDB isn't going to end up being cluttered up with these posts and, in the end, over the years this will tend to correct itself.
tl;dr: Live and let live, they aren't doing any harm.
tl;dr: Live and let live, they aren't doing any harm.
Thank you. Officiously interpreting the the terms to justify an argument is rather self absorbed. This is common activity on the boards. None of this is offensive. Some posters here seem to be desperately avoiding the point that this is being done purely to harass. Why? And, may I ask if IMDB does not wish posters to link to outside sources of information, why do they facilitate doing so?
bluesmanSF, Champion
You're misunderstanding again. I've said in the thread, that I don't agree anything I've seen is offensive. But, that you give power to the person reporting when you're off topic, etc. You're all saying the site hasn't done anything. What you mean is, they haven't done what you want them to do. Big difference is, if they've reviewed these reports, they're likely seeing the reports are valid. So, you help yourself by staying on topic (though it seems you don't know what that means-but that's another story).
"If there was friction between say die hard Twilight fans and people interested in the actor for more recent roles,"
The board is actually full of the latter rather than the former, Twilight is rarely discussed and it's the posts regarding Pattinson's current/future films that are being targeted. Regarding links to fansites, a lot of these threads don't have them, they are just general discussions regarding Maps to the Stars or The Rover etc. Not that I can prove that to you, because they have been deleted!
There's always a thread for various fan polls, which personally I'm not interested in, so just ignore it. Personally I don't think it requires deletion, though it's puts people in mind of a teen heartthrob, and well that's part of who he is at the moment.
Going a bit OT here...RE Cosmopolis: I thought it was an excellent film, I have loved Cronenberg's work for a while, Spider is my favourite of his so far. I have heard many say that they appreciated Cosmopolis far more after the second viewing even though they hated it at first, just an idea... The last twenty or so minutes with Paul Giamatti has got to be worth a repeat viewing at the very least. I know and understand why the film is not exactly to everyone's taste (and thank God for that!) but the dialogue is so rich, I just ate it up.
The board is actually full of the latter rather than the former, Twilight is rarely discussed and it's the posts regarding Pattinson's current/future films that are being targeted. Regarding links to fansites, a lot of these threads don't have them, they are just general discussions regarding Maps to the Stars or The Rover etc. Not that I can prove that to you, because they have been deleted!
There's always a thread for various fan polls, which personally I'm not interested in, so just ignore it. Personally I don't think it requires deletion, though it's puts people in mind of a teen heartthrob, and well that's part of who he is at the moment.
Going a bit OT here...RE Cosmopolis: I thought it was an excellent film, I have loved Cronenberg's work for a while, Spider is my favourite of his so far. I have heard many say that they appreciated Cosmopolis far more after the second viewing even though they hated it at first, just an idea... The last twenty or so minutes with Paul Giamatti has got to be worth a repeat viewing at the very least. I know and understand why the film is not exactly to everyone's taste (and thank God for that!) but the dialogue is so rich, I just ate it up.
Emperor, I am not stating anybody should be offended by the threads I linked. In fact, there is only a couple of thread there I personally would report. Nor am i saying the Robert Pattinson board is much different from any other IMDb board for a specific popular actor.
My point was, that for whatever reason, (and I think I know what that reason is), the Robert Pattinson board is being targeted by the reporting of its threads for breaches of site rules and regulations. Unfortunately for the regulars of that board, by strict definition of the site T & C, many threads DO deserve deletion, by letter of the law, if not the spirit. My lengthy synopsis of the board's first 30 threads was to showcase this, thus giving the targeted a credible means by which to stymie the alleged malicious assault.
Of course my valid advice has been met with confrontation and ridicule, but whatever.
And for the record, Cosmopolis was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Very disappointing.
My point was, that for whatever reason, (and I think I know what that reason is), the Robert Pattinson board is being targeted by the reporting of its threads for breaches of site rules and regulations. Unfortunately for the regulars of that board, by strict definition of the site T & C, many threads DO deserve deletion, by letter of the law, if not the spirit. My lengthy synopsis of the board's first 30 threads was to showcase this, thus giving the targeted a credible means by which to stymie the alleged malicious assault.
Of course my valid advice has been met with confrontation and ridicule, but whatever.
And for the record, Cosmopolis was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Very disappointing.
"And for the record, Cosmopolis was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Very disappointing."
I thought you only knew Robert Pattinson as the "tweeny heartthrob" from Twilight?
I thought you only knew Robert Pattinson as the "tweeny heartthrob" from Twilight?
Emperor jigged my memory. I am a Cronenberg fan and remember watching the film last year. Up until this discussion, I had not given it another second's thought, as it was a truly terrible film. I did not recall the lead actor. I do now.
So, now that we have got that out of the way, shall we move on?
So, now that we have got that out of the way, shall we move on?
That was handy. :-)
The truth is often at hand.
Yes it is, lol. Amazing isn't it.
No, not really. The truth is at hand because it is the truth.
Emperor, Champion
Unfortunately for the regulars of that board, by strict definition of the site T & C, many threads DO deserve deletion, by letter of the law, if not the spirit.
Quite possibly, but I assume these are not the threads being targeted (as they are still there) but the leftovers from these attacks. I don't feel we can judged the whole forum on what has been left (which might be the... "dregs" of a forum, with the better quality threads removed - the leftovers). This is why it is difficult for us normal users to say what the problems were that saw the mass deletion of threads, which is why the users need a way to kick this up a level to staff who can look into the deleted threads and see if they infringe T&Cs, in letter or spirit. As the system seems to be semi-automated, a human might not have given them a proper eyeballing yet.
The board is actually full of the latter rather than the former, Twilight is rarely discussed and it's the posts regarding Pattinson's current/future films that are being targeted.
Good to hear - my point though was that this isn't fan vs fan, this is a bunch of griefers targeting the forum. So it isn't a "he said, she said" situation, it is very specific disruptive behaviour.
Going a bit OT here...RE Cosmopolis: I thought it was an excellent film, I have loved Cronenberg's work for a while, Spider is my favourite of his so far.
I will give it a rewatch when it is on TV (it is Cronenberg after all) but I'm a fan of his earlier work (I'd struggle to pick my favourite) and it was Spider that stopped me automatically buying his films on DVD - A History of Violence was great (but that is largely part to John Wagner, who is a lovely chap, despite his being able to write such hard boiled characters) and Eastern Promises was solid, if flawed but Cosmopolis... Ah well. I will be watching it again and crossing my fingers.
"Good to hear - my point though was that this isn't fan vs fan, this is a bunch of griefers targeting the forum. So it isn't a "he said, she said" situation, it is very specific disruptive behaviour."
It is very specific. We have a pretty good idea of what section of the Twilight fandom that is doing it. We'll get a few troll threads that will make it obvious and then you can guarantee that several legitimate, on-topic threads that do not violate the Terms and Conditions, will be deleted. It's a pattern that we've seen over the years. Most don't engage with trolls, and you'll often find if a thread started by a troll is ignored, deletions will happen to ensure they have our attention. Maybe the answer is actually to argue repeatedly with the trolls to keep them busy, so the they don't have the time to report legitimate threads? (Joke, sorta...)
I hope you appreciate Cosmopolis more when you see it again, you may never like it, but you may find the movie has more value that you originally thought. I like Cronenberg's body-horror films, being a nurse the workings of the body, the effect of disease and so forth is truly fascinating (both real and fiction). I have to say though, that I personally find Cronenberg's later work which deal more with the human psyche and have more dialogue than horror, more to my taste. Of course both earlier and later films can deal with both.
Anyway, thank you very much for your input.
It is very specific. We have a pretty good idea of what section of the Twilight fandom that is doing it. We'll get a few troll threads that will make it obvious and then you can guarantee that several legitimate, on-topic threads that do not violate the Terms and Conditions, will be deleted. It's a pattern that we've seen over the years. Most don't engage with trolls, and you'll often find if a thread started by a troll is ignored, deletions will happen to ensure they have our attention. Maybe the answer is actually to argue repeatedly with the trolls to keep them busy, so the they don't have the time to report legitimate threads? (Joke, sorta...)
I hope you appreciate Cosmopolis more when you see it again, you may never like it, but you may find the movie has more value that you originally thought. I like Cronenberg's body-horror films, being a nurse the workings of the body, the effect of disease and so forth is truly fascinating (both real and fiction). I have to say though, that I personally find Cronenberg's later work which deal more with the human psyche and have more dialogue than horror, more to my taste. Of course both earlier and later films can deal with both.
Anyway, thank you very much for your input.
C&P thank you for your thorough research. However, it doesn't offer any solution for the situation on Pattinson's board. Unfortunately for us your suggestions make sense only if an actual person would check the reported thread to verify validity of report but it is not the case. I have seen on-topic threads without any links or a link to some informational website like Wiki being deleted along with threads that contained link(s) to multiple websites. The problem is it doesn't make a difference what is posted in those threads since IMDb employs automated system to respond to reports. It means that no one is actually checking if reported thread is indeed in violation of IMDb posting rules. Thus deletion of any thread is not based on actual violation, it is based on a certain number of reports of a thread. Automated system registers incoming reports, when reports reach a certain number (I am sure trolls know what it is), the thread in question gets flagged and deleted. The trolls are very familiar with this glitch in the system and they abuse it for their own amusement. What they do is in direct violation of IMDb rules, they disrupt normal function of the community and drive regular posters away from the website. Newcomers don't stay with IMDb either because they find dead or troll infested boards. This type of trolling activity is well known and impacts more than one board, and as result it creates a bad rep for IMDb as a troll infested place within other on-line communities. I am sorry IMDb is not taking speedy measures to fix the problem since it's a great site in general. Thought, as we can see it has it's shortcomings. Hopefully, having this new medium for voicing our problems will draw a proper attention of IMDb admins and they would try to resolve the issue in the near future. Thanks again for trying to help us.
It was my pleasure, moviejunkie, despite the occasional ruffled feather :-)
I agree with you that the abuse report system is at least partially automated. So yes, if a troll wishes to run the gauntlet, he/she can have legitimate threads removed, (it has happened to us all at one time or another). However, I disagree that nothing can be done if you post a legitimate, on-topic, breach-free thread topic and it gets reported. As pointed out by BluesmanSF elsewhere in this discussion, should you have a copy of the URL of the thread, (and under the circumstances, I strongly advise this) , you can forward that to the Help Desk for a please explain, whereupon it will be reviewed and appropriate action taken.
Is it a perfect system? No. Is it probably the best that IMDb can come up with, considering the huge numbers of users on its boards? I believe so.
Good luck :-)
I agree with you that the abuse report system is at least partially automated. So yes, if a troll wishes to run the gauntlet, he/she can have legitimate threads removed, (it has happened to us all at one time or another). However, I disagree that nothing can be done if you post a legitimate, on-topic, breach-free thread topic and it gets reported. As pointed out by BluesmanSF elsewhere in this discussion, should you have a copy of the URL of the thread, (and under the circumstances, I strongly advise this) , you can forward that to the Help Desk for a please explain, whereupon it will be reviewed and appropriate action taken.
Is it a perfect system? No. Is it probably the best that IMDb can come up with, considering the huge numbers of users on its boards? I believe so.
Good luck :-)
We used this method of saving url and reporting deletions to help desk last year. What happened to quite a few posters as a result of reporting their report privileges were suspended but it didn't stop thread deletions. The reporting might have slowed it down a bit but didn't eliminated it. Trolls made new false accounts and resumed their activity. This whole process is just a part of the game for them and while they are entertained, the quality of the board suffers, users are leaving, IMDb gets less hits and money.
It seems like with the current reporting system in place regular posters have minimal to no support from administration against trolling since the system deals with every report (malicious or valid) in the same way. Also, the set-up of the system doesn't take into account that trolls have advantage of using multiple sock accounts in comparison to normal posters who have only one account and risk losing their reporting/posting privileges instead of getting any remedy in such situation. It's always better to ignore trolls on individual level but if their activity disrupts the function of the whole community, they shouldn't get free pass. IMDb and any other respected forums have rules against trolling for a good reason.
So the bottom line, the reporting method is less than ideal for regular posters and it doesn't solve the problem of deletion. And I firmly believe IMDb can and should do better. :) It can be a challenge to solve the issue on a technical level but it is a challenge that is interesting and very beneficial to multiple parties.
In the meanwhile, they could incorporate the idea of "Smokejumping" moderators. I think having such mods may even PREVENT a lot of trolling activities if trolls know they'll have no game and lose their multiple accounts in the process. It should make them at least more cautious. Some of them may decide that IMDb is too boring and not safe for trolling and migrate to some other forums where they can troll without restrictions. Stranger things have happened :)
It seems like with the current reporting system in place regular posters have minimal to no support from administration against trolling since the system deals with every report (malicious or valid) in the same way. Also, the set-up of the system doesn't take into account that trolls have advantage of using multiple sock accounts in comparison to normal posters who have only one account and risk losing their reporting/posting privileges instead of getting any remedy in such situation. It's always better to ignore trolls on individual level but if their activity disrupts the function of the whole community, they shouldn't get free pass. IMDb and any other respected forums have rules against trolling for a good reason.
So the bottom line, the reporting method is less than ideal for regular posters and it doesn't solve the problem of deletion. And I firmly believe IMDb can and should do better. :) It can be a challenge to solve the issue on a technical level but it is a challenge that is interesting and very beneficial to multiple parties.
In the meanwhile, they could incorporate the idea of "Smokejumping" moderators. I think having such mods may even PREVENT a lot of trolling activities if trolls know they'll have no game and lose their multiple accounts in the process. It should make them at least more cautious. Some of them may decide that IMDb is too boring and not safe for trolling and migrate to some other forums where they can troll without restrictions. Stranger things have happened :)
That's not true, movie. No one had their reporting privileges suspended.
It did slow things down, but then they would just create new socks and start over again.
It did slow things down, but then they would just create new socks and start over again.
tracy, I speak of what I know. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, it's entirely different matter. Regardless of who's right or wrong, things remain the same. We don't have a solution for the troll problem. And I am truly looking forward to the day we have one.
As far as I'm aware, posting links to outside websites is fine, as long as you're not advertising your own site.
Really, most of your objections are a stretch, at best. I do agree with you about the troll thread, I've said similar myself.
As to the "fluff and guff", well that would be buried amongst the more legitimate threads, if they hadn't been already deleted, time and time again.
At the end of the day, if we had thread after thread discussing how hot Robert Pattinson is (because isn't that all we squeeing fangirls do? We have no interest in his career, as long as he looks nice and all, isn't that so?) If that's all we did? We would still in no way be going against the Terms and Conditions of IMDb, so the deletions would not be justifiable.
Really, most of your objections are a stretch, at best. I do agree with you about the troll thread, I've said similar myself.
As to the "fluff and guff", well that would be buried amongst the more legitimate threads, if they hadn't been already deleted, time and time again.
At the end of the day, if we had thread after thread discussing how hot Robert Pattinson is (because isn't that all we squeeing fangirls do? We have no interest in his career, as long as he looks nice and all, isn't that so?) If that's all we did? We would still in no way be going against the Terms and Conditions of IMDb, so the deletions would not be justifiable.
I am not sure what your point is or if, indeed, you have one, but I took the time to give a synopsis of the first page of the Robert Pattinson message in an effort to assist you in your understanding of site rules and regulations. My findings were neutral and thorough. You can take them or leave them. If you are looking to debate them, well it is with regret that I tell you that is not going to happen.
But you are quoting rules and regulations that aren't listed anywhere.
Where is it listed that we can't post a link to an entertainment website?
Where is it listed that we can't post a link to an entertainment website?
Have a look at site rules and regulations and you will see a number of references to what constitutes 'advertising and spam'. Though this is more commonly understood to individuals promoting their own sites, it also includes employees of websites spamming links to articles, promotions etc, in an effort to generate hits.
In my opinions, with links to 2 particular Robert Pattinson fan sites accounting for at least half of the first 30 threads I linked to, this most definitely breaches site rules and can be justifiably reported, (and deleted), for 'advertising and spam).
In my opinions, with links to 2 particular Robert Pattinson fan sites accounting for at least half of the first 30 threads I linked to, this most definitely breaches site rules and can be justifiably reported, (and deleted), for 'advertising and spam).
I'm not looking for a debate.
I understand the Terms and Conditions, I do disagree with your assessment of them however. How can your findings be thorough really? You just listed the first page of threads, discounting that the problem is DELETED threads, so therefore the current first page is not a true representation of how the board would be if it wasn't for the trolls. If you watched the board for several weeks, then I would say your findings may be thorough... as I don't know you, I can't comment on your neutrality.
It doesn't say within the Terms and Conditions that linking to outside websites is prohibited, so I find your assessment lacking.
I understand the Terms and Conditions, I do disagree with your assessment of them however. How can your findings be thorough really? You just listed the first page of threads, discounting that the problem is DELETED threads, so therefore the current first page is not a true representation of how the board would be if it wasn't for the trolls. If you watched the board for several weeks, then I would say your findings may be thorough... as I don't know you, I can't comment on your neutrality.
It doesn't say within the Terms and Conditions that linking to outside websites is prohibited, so I find your assessment lacking.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Whether it says or not is not the issue. There are definitely many sites IMDb does not want links to out there on the internet. My experience is that if a post is reported for having an inappropriate link, they'd simply delete it. Kind of like the old, "this tastes funny...try it!" Um, you ain't getting me to try it!
Also, the terms mentions that anything offensive violates the terms. So, that leaves a door open. I will be "offended" a lot less than some might be. As I've said, though I think many threads there don't belong, I sure don't see anything I'd ever report.
As to the first page of the thread...um...what's that got to do with it? Do you think an off topic post can be revived, thus kept? Certainly no staffer will ever read a reported posts replies just to see if it wandered onto topic...that was just a weird thing to see in your post.
No one, certainly, is going to go watch a board for several weeks...keep dreaming on that one.
Also, the terms mentions that anything offensive violates the terms. So, that leaves a door open. I will be "offended" a lot less than some might be. As I've said, though I think many threads there don't belong, I sure don't see anything I'd ever report.
As to the first page of the thread...um...what's that got to do with it? Do you think an off topic post can be revived, thus kept? Certainly no staffer will ever read a reported posts replies just to see if it wandered onto topic...that was just a weird thing to see in your post.
No one, certainly, is going to go watch a board for several weeks...keep dreaming on that one.
Firstly, as I stated in my initial post on this thread, many of the threads that are, in my opinion, in breach of site rules, state in their topics that they are being been 're-posted after deletion' (or words to that effect). This gives me an inkling as to what threads have been previously deleted and as such, what threads inhabited the board prior to these deletions. I am not stating that this tells me exactly what the board looked like, but it does not support the argument put forward that only the on topic threads were targetd, thus leaving behind the reportable threads that remain.
Secondly, as to your statement re 'outside websites', I will past what I stated earlier in reply to Tracy G.
""Have a look at site rules and regulations and you will see a number of references to what constitutes 'advertising and spam'. Though this is more commonly understood to individuals promoting their own sites, it also includes employees of websites spamming links to articles, promotions etc, in an effort to generate hits.
In my opinions, with links to 2 particular Robert Pattinson fan sites accounting for at least half of the first 30 threads I linked to, this most definitely breaches site rules and can be justifiably reported, (and deleted), for 'advertising and spam).""
Secondly, as to your statement re 'outside websites', I will past what I stated earlier in reply to Tracy G.
""Have a look at site rules and regulations and you will see a number of references to what constitutes 'advertising and spam'. Though this is more commonly understood to individuals promoting their own sites, it also includes employees of websites spamming links to articles, promotions etc, in an effort to generate hits.
In my opinions, with links to 2 particular Robert Pattinson fan sites accounting for at least half of the first 30 threads I linked to, this most definitely breaches site rules and can be justifiably reported, (and deleted), for 'advertising and spam).""
Shall we report the same at other boards, because, from what I see this is common practice on IMDB and is what fans discuss on the boards. What would IMDB like to be? Right now it is populated by people who are fans of a film or individual and discuss things as related. This is pretty petty and a way not to deal with the problem IMO.
"In my opinions, with links to 2 particular Robert Pattinson fan sites accounting for at least half of the first 30 threads I linked to, this most definitely breaches site rules and can be justifiably reported, (and deleted), for 'advertising and spam)."""
And I disagree. It's a real stretch. A Robert Pattinson board referencing a Robert Pattinson fansite? Come on now.
Trolls are maliciously reporting threads for deletion. That is the real story here.
And I disagree. It's a real stretch. A Robert Pattinson board referencing a Robert Pattinson fansite? Come on now.
Trolls are maliciously reporting threads for deletion. That is the real story here.
I am telling you, in my opinion, the means by which you are allowing these 'trolls' to target the forum for mass-deletions. If you do not agree with my advice, so be it. But the validity of the advice remains.
If we need to spread out the links to various sources, that's not a biggie. It can be done that way.
Generally we link to the fan sites because they are not-for-profit and non-commercial, therefore--in our thinking--would be less offensive than listing links that could potentially be seen as driving traffic to a for-profit website.
But I disagree that links aren't allowed. I just don't understand it. IMDb's own forum has a helpful "link" option on the top of every post to help with the URL coding.
Generally we link to the fan sites because they are not-for-profit and non-commercial, therefore--in our thinking--would be less offensive than listing links that could potentially be seen as driving traffic to a for-profit website.
But I disagree that links aren't allowed. I just don't understand it. IMDb's own forum has a helpful "link" option on the top of every post to help with the URL coding.
Okay. Believe what you want to believe. I just tried to help. If you prefer to ignore that help, so be it.
bluesmanSF, Champion
That's for linking to the IMDb page you're talking about. If I say, I watched Titanic yesterday, people might not know which one I am talking about. Or if someone says, where are the Terms and Conditions of the site, I could link it instead of describing how to get there. Also, links to other places, in general are not forbidden. However as was mentioned in other places in this thread, if reported, staff won't follow the link. They'll assume the reporter is right and just delete it. There are many places links are helpful, like the I Need To Know board where a link can be given to prove an answer is correct. Links are allowed and can be helpful. But, if reported, staff will delete them. No one has said that links, in general, are not allowed.
You make no sense. Nowhere in IMDb's terms of service does it say that linking to an entertainment website is grounds for deletion.
IMDb itself links to alternative entertainment sites all the time. In fact, those links are on every single actor's and film's webpage.
You act as if the "alternate entertainment website" is one link to the same thing over and over again. It is not. It is various and assundry stories of all types and discussing all manners of stories. If you had bothered to click a link you would know. There are stacks of Robert Pattinson fansites and they do an amazing job gathering up articles and posting them.
The reasons for reporting a thread for deletion are the following, according to their own rules:
Threats of violence
All Caps
Long lines and banners
Flooding (I include the definition since you seem to think that using a website more than once is flooding...it's not)
Reposting the same message multiple times in the same board or in different boards and/or posting many messages for the sole purpose of generating traffic and disrupting the flow of the conversation constitutes flooding and will result in the removal of your posts and/or the loss of your posting privileges.
Bumping posts
Sockpuppets
Astroturfing
Unannounced Spoilers
Celebrity/film bashing
Off-topic posts
Posting games
Offensive or copycat usernames
Offensive profiles or signatures
Privacy issues
Spam & Chain Letters
"Rick-rolling" & Co.
In addition, in their reporting link they offer these options:
hate speech
swearing or foul language
libellous or unlawful
obscene/pornographic/indecent
contains a link to pornography
promotes pirated DVDs/illegal downloads
contains advertising/spam
poster is flooding the board with the same message
post contains a free ipod link
chain letter
poster using a copycat username/impersonating someone else
poster is a troll
poster violates the terms and conditions in some other way
poster sent me an abusive pm
post contains a spoiler
this poster was mean to me
....and the elusive "other"
I understand your issues with several of the threads (polls, ot movies, troll thread etc), but it is ridiculous to say that we cannot link to an article about an actor and discuss that actor on his or her board. And the threads you issue as being problems are not generally the ones being targeted.
The threads being targeted are threads about Robert Pattinson's career because these trolls know that it pisses us off the most.
Again, you are trying to turn this on us as if we are doing something wrong to somehow deserve stacks of malicious reports. We do nothing on this board that isn't being done on 99.9% of the boards on IMDb.
If you were on ANY board where 20 to 30 on-topic threads a WEEK were being targeted for deletion, would you not know there was an issue?
I sure as hell do.
IMDb itself links to alternative entertainment sites all the time. In fact, those links are on every single actor's and film's webpage.
You act as if the "alternate entertainment website" is one link to the same thing over and over again. It is not. It is various and assundry stories of all types and discussing all manners of stories. If you had bothered to click a link you would know. There are stacks of Robert Pattinson fansites and they do an amazing job gathering up articles and posting them.
The reasons for reporting a thread for deletion are the following, according to their own rules:
Threats of violence
All Caps
Long lines and banners
Flooding (I include the definition since you seem to think that using a website more than once is flooding...it's not)
Reposting the same message multiple times in the same board or in different boards and/or posting many messages for the sole purpose of generating traffic and disrupting the flow of the conversation constitutes flooding and will result in the removal of your posts and/or the loss of your posting privileges.
Bumping posts
Sockpuppets
Astroturfing
Unannounced Spoilers
Celebrity/film bashing
Off-topic posts
Posting games
Offensive or copycat usernames
Offensive profiles or signatures
Privacy issues
Spam & Chain Letters
"Rick-rolling" & Co.
In addition, in their reporting link they offer these options:
hate speech
swearing or foul language
libellous or unlawful
obscene/pornographic/indecent
contains a link to pornography
promotes pirated DVDs/illegal downloads
contains advertising/spam
poster is flooding the board with the same message
post contains a free ipod link
chain letter
poster using a copycat username/impersonating someone else
poster is a troll
poster violates the terms and conditions in some other way
poster sent me an abusive pm
post contains a spoiler
this poster was mean to me
....and the elusive "other"
I understand your issues with several of the threads (polls, ot movies, troll thread etc), but it is ridiculous to say that we cannot link to an article about an actor and discuss that actor on his or her board. And the threads you issue as being problems are not generally the ones being targeted.
The threads being targeted are threads about Robert Pattinson's career because these trolls know that it pisses us off the most.
Again, you are trying to turn this on us as if we are doing something wrong to somehow deserve stacks of malicious reports. We do nothing on this board that isn't being done on 99.9% of the boards on IMDb.
If you were on ANY board where 20 to 30 on-topic threads a WEEK were being targeted for deletion, would you not know there was an issue?
I sure as hell do.
From IMDB:
""This post contains advertising/spam
Our Terms & Conditions of use specifically prohibit unsolicited promotions, advertising or solicitations for funds, goods or services, including junk mail and spam. Our boards are not meant to be used to sell used DVDs or any other products, to solicit responses to petitions, to promote websites or to draw traffic to your short film posted on YouTube.""
It am sure that covers the mass linkage to the 2 Robert Pattinson fansites featured in almost half the thread topics on the Robert Pattinson board.
""This post contains advertising/spam
Our Terms & Conditions of use specifically prohibit unsolicited promotions, advertising or solicitations for funds, goods or services, including junk mail and spam. Our boards are not meant to be used to sell used DVDs or any other products, to solicit responses to petitions, to promote websites or to draw traffic to your short film posted on YouTube.""
It am sure that covers the mass linkage to the 2 Robert Pattinson fansites featured in almost half the thread topics on the Robert Pattinson board.
I am quite sure it does not. In fact, thank you for providing this further definition as it helps me understand that we're are doing nothing like that.
The sites we link to a lot are not even commercial websites. They make no money, although a couple of them have a smattering of blog-type web ads to help pay their yearly fees.
The sites we link to a lot are not even commercial websites. They make no money, although a couple of them have a smattering of blog-type web ads to help pay their yearly fees.
Regardless, the fact almost half the threads on the Robert Pattinson IMDb board are dedicated to articles/pics/gifs etc, linked to the 2 sites in question constitutes clear 'promotion' of those 2 sites.
With enough hits, a fan site can become a commercial site in a very short space of time.
If you cannot see what I am saying to be relevant and helpful, then quite simply you are beyond help.
With enough hits, a fan site can become a commercial site in a very short space of time.
If you cannot see what I am saying to be relevant and helpful, then quite simply you are beyond help.
I don't see how linking to fan site is detrimental to IMDB. It actually helps IMDB because it brings the discussion to an IMDB board instead of staying on the fan site. I used to just google info about Rob Pattinson until I found his IMDB board. I preferred to look for info about Rob here because the posters bring info from various sources and I don't have to go looking for it myself.
It works both ways. Why would a user stay on IMDb when they could go to an oft linked fansite?
It is why it is against the site rules, (as I understand them).
It is why it is against the site rules, (as I understand them).
I go back to IMDB after checking the fansite to get info from various other sources and not be limited to just one particular fansite. I'm sure that other posters/lurkers do. Otherwise, Rob's board would not be active as it is.
You go back. Many others might not. Again, I am positive IMDb would prefer the users stay on IMDb.
There would be nothing much to discuss if the posters just rely on what can be found in IMDB. IMDB news is old and we've found,sometimes inaccurate. In their related news section, they provide links to tabloids such as Hollywood Life and Pop Sugar. Rob's board posters don't use those sites for Rob news because we know from experience, they just make up stories. So, if IMDB itself can link to Hollywood Life, we should be able to link to a NY Mag article or The Hollywood Reporter, correct?
"Christian and proud" , do you realize how many times you quote these so called terms and regs. and then right after it put "In my opinion"... it is a contradiction. this whole discussion about whether or not a post should be deleted is no different than one of the troll fights on the board in question. Its very simple. if a thread is off topic, like the poll thing, then let IMDB handle it. I would hope that you' "Christian and proud "' are not one of the one reporting these threads. If so, you are just one of the trolls these guys are talking about.
It is my interpretation of the site rules and from all evidence, my interpretation was correct, (as the regular posters on the board in question adhered to my advice and the deletions apparently stopped).
I am not reporting any posts on the Robert Pattinson board and have not reported a post on IMDb for a number of weeks.
I hope this settles any doubts or questions you might have.
I am not reporting any posts on the Robert Pattinson board and have not reported a post on IMDb for a number of weeks.
I hope this settles any doubts or questions you might have.
Emperor, Champion
It's a new & incognito method of trolling a board who's members you don't like.
Indeed, my only contention would be that it isn't new - I'm pretty sure this thing has been happening since the report systems were put in place. It is pretty much the most obvious way to game the system to your advantage and is what determined trolls or naysayers/haters move onto after first flooding a forum with negative/abusive threads only to see them removed. As the system is semi-automated it'd be easy for a determined group of people or a sociopath with far too much time on their hands (and a dozen sock puppet accounts) to get what they want deleted.
The question is: if this is so obvious and has happened before (I'm pretty sure this kind of thing has been reported a few times on here), why is there no way to deal with this - report/ignore is useless in this case (as they are the ones on the wrong end of the reporting). Of course, staff don't want to get into a "he said, she said" situation trying to mediate claim and counter-claim (and counter-counter-claim) but there should be a way to report problematic deletions in a way that'd allow staff to check the threads - it should be obvious if malicious sanctions are being used to disrupt forum activity and then sanctions can be applied to the reporters, not the reportees. BluesmanSF's suggestion is, to the best of my knowledge, the best way of achieving this, so do make sure you try this.
As DD has said, this would be a situation where smokejumping moderators might be deployed (so +1 the suggestion if you think it'd help) as disruptive behaviour, apparently over a long period of time is making it impossible for the forum to function - in fact a brainstorming for forums where trouble would flair up would probably have brought up the James Patterson forum on a shortlist.
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Robert Pattinson. The tweeny heart-throb, not the crime/mystery/thriller novelist :-)
"Robert Pattinson. The tweeny heart-throb" Yes, very neutral.
Ah, thank you Christian and proud for finally showing that you are just treating us like mindless fangirls and not adults who happen to like this actor.
No surprise.
No surprise.
Excuse me? I know robert Pattinson for his iconic role as the vampire in the Twilight films. I know he has other films, but I only know him from Twilight. And in my (probably limited), experience, his fans are tweens, (my 13 yr old daughter included)..
Your confrontational attitude and aggressive demeanor is quite telling.
Your confrontational attitude and aggressive demeanor is quite telling.
Your experience is incorrect. In fact, the people that are on his board are--with two exceptions--all adults, to my knowledge.
I find your attitude extremely off putting. You want to start personally insulting the posters there? You are the one that started that.
I find your attitude extremely off putting. You want to start personally insulting the posters there? You are the one that started that.
And your condescending attitude from the very beginning was also very telling.
This is getting very silly. Back to the topic in hand...
This is getting very silly. Back to the topic in hand...
bluesmanSF, Champion
Yeah, I too am seeing why people would mess with you all. Here comes the name calling and tantrums.
Like I said, staff doesn't get into troll/report wars. This is obviously garden variety...
If staff are to react, it's probably going to be both camps hit...
Like I said, staff doesn't get into troll/report wars. This is obviously garden variety...
If staff are to react, it's probably going to be both camps hit...
Well, it is now obvious you do not want real help or advice. You want agreement and support.
The fact you dived upon my light-hearted correction of Emperor's amusing error, to somehow dredge from it a 'personal insult', shows me exactly why some may want to target the message board you frequent, (if that is indeed what is happening).
I spent my time trying to assist you and offer constructive advice and criticism, designed to reduce, (if not entirely eliminate), your apparent deletion issues. Instead of digesting this advice and perhaps looking to yourselves for remedies and results, you are now actively seeking confrontation.
Well, that tells me my time was wasted and your issues unsolvable.
Good day to you.
The fact you dived upon my light-hearted correction of Emperor's amusing error, to somehow dredge from it a 'personal insult', shows me exactly why some may want to target the message board you frequent, (if that is indeed what is happening).
I spent my time trying to assist you and offer constructive advice and criticism, designed to reduce, (if not entirely eliminate), your apparent deletion issues. Instead of digesting this advice and perhaps looking to yourselves for remedies and results, you are now actively seeking confrontation.
Well, that tells me my time was wasted and your issues unsolvable.
Good day to you.
Emperor, Champion
Robert Pattinson. The tweeny heart-throb, not the crime/mystery/thriller novelist :-)
One of them advertises their output on TV, the other doesn't!! I've been at a BBQ all day, so am tired and full of meat - I'm surprised I can type at all.
Although the description is unhelpful, I've only seen him in Cosmopolis, so "the young lead in David Cronenburg's worst film", might have worked better,
LMAO
Enjoy your digestion. Try not to have a heart attack :-D
Enjoy your digestion. Try not to have a heart attack :-D
Emperor, Champion
My innards made a very strange noise just before I read that post - I hope it is the hummus and salad...
Please reply, just so I know you're okay :-)
It would seem Emperor has either fallen asleep due to carnivore exhaustion, or died as a result of carnivore exertion :-/
Emperor, Champion
Or fallen asleep as it was very late.
I know. I was attempting jest.
Please disregard. I am stupidest when I try to be funny
Please disregard. I am stupidest when I try to be funny
Emperor, Champion
I'll be sure to remember that, and then remind you if it at some inopportune moment. ;)
Something to look forward to :-p
bluesmanSF, Champion
The point is...even if they're just reporting it to mess with you, they cannot get in trouble for it if the report is valid (or many of them are). The system tracks accuracy. So, if you're just posting a link to another site, the staff probably won't go so far as to check it out, they'll use the cautious route and just delete it. You've, then, given more power to the reporter. The system sees it as a good call. It dings your good status and empowers them. So, if 7 of every 30 posts could get deleted for good cause, they have the numbers on their side.
I really don't see that you'll agree...but that's the way it is. But, my suggestion would be to follow Christian and Proud's advice.
I've seen boards, by the way, that are 100% on topic. So, I'm calling you on that one.
I wish you well, though.
I really don't see that you'll agree...but that's the way it is. But, my suggestion would be to follow Christian and Proud's advice.
I've seen boards, by the way, that are 100% on topic. So, I'm calling you on that one.
I wish you well, though.
Well, we'll do what we need to do. We don't have to link to those sites. In fact, we can copy/paste the content and discuss it that way if we have to.
We just thought it was rude to do so, as the general guiding principle online is to always link to your source....but you know.
I disagree about your "good cause" (really, you would delete a link called "Robert Pattinson filming Maps to the Stars in LA" because it contained a link?), but I suppose everyone has their quirks.
In all....it is the pattern of behavior that is the issue, not the fact that a single thread someone thought was off topic and reported.
We just thought it was rude to do so, as the general guiding principle online is to always link to your source....but you know.
I disagree about your "good cause" (really, you would delete a link called "Robert Pattinson filming Maps to the Stars in LA" because it contained a link?), but I suppose everyone has their quirks.
In all....it is the pattern of behavior that is the issue, not the fact that a single thread someone thought was off topic and reported.
IMDB should not be so passive. Dealing with a few troublemakers would more beneficial in the long run than allowing paying subscribers to walk away.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Yet...millions of us don't have such problems...
I can't say I'd recommend staff do much more...
I can't say I'd recommend staff do much more...
Great Customer Service on IMDBs part
I agree. IMDb offer excellent customer service to those in the entertainment industry, who use the site to promote themselves and network with others.
I am sure IMDB makes the majority of the revenue that supports its business from those in the Entertainment industry, lol. If that was the case, they would not bother to host the message boards or link to the news sources they do. I am not going to pretend to believe you are that naive, so, please don't insinuate I am.
Where did I say IMDb makes the majority of the revenue from those in the entertainment industry?
Again, IMDb offer excellent customer service to those in the entertainment industry, who use the site to promote themselves and network with others.
Just in case you read it wrong the first time :-p
Again, IMDb offer excellent customer service to those in the entertainment industry, who use the site to promote themselves and network with others.
Just in case you read it wrong the first time :-p
Good business involves supporting those that keep you in business. IMDB may provide a platform to those in entertainment, but, the platform wouldn't exist without the real customers. That is where the true 'service' should be focused. If the revenue goes away, the platform will also disappear and those in entertainment will easily find another outlet. Always know the hand that feeds you.
To be blunt with you, the real customers of IMDb don't use the message boards. IE, 99% of the visitors to the site. The people the advertising targets.
Actually it doesn't, because the websites don't have any of that, they are just used as a news source. Nothing more of less.
What are you replying to? If you are replying to a specific reply, use the 'comment' option below it. Otherwise your reply lacks context and as such, makes no sense.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
I was replying to your comment; "It am sure that covers the mass linkage to the 2 Robert Pattinson fansites featured in almost half the thread topics on the Robert Pattinson board." and I did use the comment option, thanks. There was just another reply before me.
You could not have used the comment option, because below my post your comment did not appear. It appeared as a new reply to the topic. But whatever.
And in reply to your reply, (made here as a 'comment'), the fact almost 50% of the thread topics on the Robert Pattinson board contain links to one of two specific Robert Pattinson fansites, (and that most of those threads are posted by one of three users), is textbook 'promotion' of those two fansites. The users doing the posting could be employees. They probably aren't, but their message board etiquette is that of an employee from one of those sites. But, again, if you wish to dismiss my advice, so be it.
And in reply to your reply, (made here as a 'comment'), the fact almost 50% of the thread topics on the Robert Pattinson board contain links to one of two specific Robert Pattinson fansites, (and that most of those threads are posted by one of three users), is textbook 'promotion' of those two fansites. The users doing the posting could be employees. They probably aren't, but their message board etiquette is that of an employee from one of those sites. But, again, if you wish to dismiss my advice, so be it.
And again you are ignoring that the reason why you see two or three people posting those threads is because they are reposts of threads that have been maliciously deleted.
In the same way that people are advised to ignore trolls when they post, we take down information so when the trolls attack and have our threads deleted we can repost and try to continue the conversation.
If you think linking to a couple sites is an issue....fine. We can link to a dozen. There are plenty of sources for information. And then when the deletions continue (and they will...because the reporters care nothing about our links, their objective is to troll the board).... Then what?
You keep telling us what WE are doing wrong. Do you have any actual useful suggestions on how to stop people from maliciously and falsely reporting threads? Because the deletions will continue. This isn't our first time at the rodeo here. This has been happening to varying degrees for years on this board.
In the same way that people are advised to ignore trolls when they post, we take down information so when the trolls attack and have our threads deleted we can repost and try to continue the conversation.
If you think linking to a couple sites is an issue....fine. We can link to a dozen. There are plenty of sources for information. And then when the deletions continue (and they will...because the reporters care nothing about our links, their objective is to troll the board).... Then what?
You keep telling us what WE are doing wrong. Do you have any actual useful suggestions on how to stop people from maliciously and falsely reporting threads? Because the deletions will continue. This isn't our first time at the rodeo here. This has been happening to varying degrees for years on this board.
You request assistance. Are given information that will help. You read the information, cherry pick what you like, and ignore the rest. Then you ask again, if there is any assistance that can be supplied. The very SAME information is supplied, and the cherry picking begins again.
There is not much more I can do for you. Good luck.
There is not much more I can do for you. Good luck.
I think the problem here "C&P" is that very few here agree with your rather anal interpretation of the Terms and Conditions, and you really don't like it. I mean how dare we dismiss your understanding of these rules? Also the problem is that you are choosing to ignore that trolls are mindlessly and maliciously reporting threads, they don't care if they violate the Terms and Conditions or not. They are using a loophole in the system, therefore the computer program that deals with reports and deletions needs to be looked out.
There is no perfect system, maybe IMDb are using the only program that has any effect, however short term. IMDb is relatively anonymous, maybe if IMDb have stricter controls when newcomers sign up. The trouble is, IMDb can take away reporting privileges, even delete accounts entirely, but that individual troll already has several sock accounts lined up, can and will create more.
As I said in an earlier post, I agree that the thread about trolls does not help, neither does fighting with said trolls. However considering the vile threads and posts that trolls create, I also understand why regular posters feel the need to defend themselves and/or Robert Pattinson. I've let it get to me on occasion myself.
There is always a pattern, either something quite big happens in Pattinson's career (like now we have the launch of his Dior campaign) or something within his private life (right now his much publicised split from Kristen Stewart), and it brings in a very specific group of trolls. We have seen this happen time and time again. I'm hoping in time, as Pattinson moves further away from all things Twilight, that it will dissipate.
There is no perfect system, maybe IMDb are using the only program that has any effect, however short term. IMDb is relatively anonymous, maybe if IMDb have stricter controls when newcomers sign up. The trouble is, IMDb can take away reporting privileges, even delete accounts entirely, but that individual troll already has several sock accounts lined up, can and will create more.
As I said in an earlier post, I agree that the thread about trolls does not help, neither does fighting with said trolls. However considering the vile threads and posts that trolls create, I also understand why regular posters feel the need to defend themselves and/or Robert Pattinson. I've let it get to me on occasion myself.
There is always a pattern, either something quite big happens in Pattinson's career (like now we have the launch of his Dior campaign) or something within his private life (right now his much publicised split from Kristen Stewart), and it brings in a very specific group of trolls. We have seen this happen time and time again. I'm hoping in time, as Pattinson moves further away from all things Twilight, that it will dissipate.
When it comes to interpreting rules and regulations, being anal is the only way that it can be done efficiently, (if you want to stay on the right side of said rules and regulations). Whether you agree with me or not bothers me not a whit.
You claim you have a problem. I briefly investigate the situation and point out to you where the threads on the Robert Pattinson board are possibly being targeted by the trolls you mentioned and targeted in a manner which will see them unlikely to be actioned by site administration. You either accept the advice, or you don't. It matters not to me either way.
What has been very interesting thus far on this discussion thread, is the continual attempts by you and others to induce me into a personal debate or concoct some sort of cyber-drama. I believe it is a small glimpse into how things must be on the Robert Pattinson board and as such, tells me much about why you are having the problems you claim to have.
As I said to Sammie, do not just look for solutions from IMDb administration. Look for solutions internally. Within the confines of the seemingly tightly knit board regulars. Your attitudes. Treatment of non-board-regular posters. Confrontive habits. Do not try to create enemies from people who otherwise would have been quite pleasant members of the board community.
As I said earlier, as soon as you start fighting trolls, you have already lost.
That is me done. I do not have any more time or energy for this now-circular discussion.
I hope it all works out for you satisfactorily.
You claim you have a problem. I briefly investigate the situation and point out to you where the threads on the Robert Pattinson board are possibly being targeted by the trolls you mentioned and targeted in a manner which will see them unlikely to be actioned by site administration. You either accept the advice, or you don't. It matters not to me either way.
What has been very interesting thus far on this discussion thread, is the continual attempts by you and others to induce me into a personal debate or concoct some sort of cyber-drama. I believe it is a small glimpse into how things must be on the Robert Pattinson board and as such, tells me much about why you are having the problems you claim to have.
As I said to Sammie, do not just look for solutions from IMDb administration. Look for solutions internally. Within the confines of the seemingly tightly knit board regulars. Your attitudes. Treatment of non-board-regular posters. Confrontive habits. Do not try to create enemies from people who otherwise would have been quite pleasant members of the board community.
As I said earlier, as soon as you start fighting trolls, you have already lost.
That is me done. I do not have any more time or energy for this now-circular discussion.
I hope it all works out for you satisfactorily.
I believe you really need to step back and view your own behaviour on this thread. From your very first post you came across as incredibly condescending and progressively got worse. Just because we disagree with your interpretation of the Terms and Conditions. No where does it say that we must not link to fansites or other sites of interest, if they had such a rule they would have included it. They didn't. You can twist and turn the rules all you like, doesn't make it so.
As I said originally, it is all in my opinion. I could be wrong. I often am.
Choose to ignore my advice if you wish. Carry on as you have been.
How long did you say this had been happening? Years, wasn't it?
Hmmmm
Choose to ignore my advice if you wish. Carry on as you have been.
How long did you say this had been happening? Years, wasn't it?
Hmmmm
Do you really believe that most subscribers are in the entertainment industry?
Most subscribers who get value for money.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Where has anyone implied anything remotely close to such a thing? He was getting to the "free" issue (clearly). It helps if you don't just take a few words out of context (and I have no idea where you got "most" as it appears no where in the comment to which you're replying.
You seemingly argue just to argue. Soon you'll be posting the Earth is flat and the sky is not blue...
I recommend dropping all this ridiculousness. You've been advised what your options are. Don't agree with or follow the recommendations. That's up to you. But to keep posting gibberish gets no one anywhere (and certainly makes folks think you've brought some of this on yourself).
You seemingly argue just to argue. Soon you'll be posting the Earth is flat and the sky is not blue...
I recommend dropping all this ridiculousness. You've been advised what your options are. Don't agree with or follow the recommendations. That's up to you. But to keep posting gibberish gets no one anywhere (and certainly makes folks think you've brought some of this on yourself).
The Earth isn't flat?
bluesmanSF, Champion
Not sure about round, but certainly bumpy from what I've seen!
Dang!
All I know is that on topic threads like discussion about Robert's films are continuously deleted even if it was just started with a handful of replies. I have been lurking in this board for the past 5 years and this malicious reporting has gone too long by the same trolls. One of their MO is they will post a hate thread then probably a fellow troll or their sock account will follow up with a comment. If they will be engaged by a Robert fan in an intelligent argument about the reason for their hate or no one would engage them a barrage of deletion of threads will come after. Also, deletion of threads happen every time Robert has a new project coming up and his fans are busy discussing it. The trolls will then start deleting the aforementioned threads. It was obviously done with so much malice, hate and envy and as if they are intending to discourage regular posters to post in the board. In short, they intend to kill the board until such time it will be abandoned by Robert's fans who have had enough of this hate practice and the board will become a haven of trolls and haters.
I hope imdb will find a way to help this board from these relentless haters who have become their mission In life is to report lies with malicious intent to the imdb admin . Robert's board is a board that has lots of intelligent and mature discussions with well educated posters and I personally had acquired new knowledge from various topics for the past 5 yrs.
I hope imdb will find a way to help this board from these relentless haters who have become their mission In life is to report lies with malicious intent to the imdb admin . Robert's board is a board that has lots of intelligent and mature discussions with well educated posters and I personally had acquired new knowledge from various topics for the past 5 yrs.
[facepalm]
Did you read this entire thread or just the topic?
Did you read this entire thread or just the topic?
What I have learned from reading your responses to the problem being brought to your attention is: if a thread has a link to a fan site, or whatever site other than IMDB itself, it's violating IMDB's T&C and therefore technically, it's a valid cause for deletion. Well I for one am disappointed to hear that. I used to "google" Rob Pattinson to get info on him and his career and click on various sites. When I discovered Rob's IMDB board, I stopped "googling" him because I found that the board has the most up to date info on his career. Various posters bring info from various sites but there are 2 fan sites that are fastest in posting the latest info. The info is usually copied/pasted and url is always provided so we can check for ourselves where the info came from. Providing that info however does not drive traffic away from IMDB. In fact it brings traffic back to IMDB because a discussion ensues. As far as relying solely on what's found on IMDB for the latest news or development on an actor, that would mean we won't hear about it until weeks or months after the news has posted elsewhere. It's the fan's who has access to various media, whether it's other fan sites, twitter, Facebook, Subscriptions of Variety or The Hollywood Reporter that bring the latest news on an actor/actress as soon as it's out somewhere. Somebody ought to review IMDB's T&C and make it more realistic.
No matter which way you try and spin it, IMDb will not be condoning numerous and continual threads that link to one or two fansites/alternate entertainment sites, posted on any of it's boards. The reasons for this are very obvious to anybody with a rational and open mind. Perhaps if it was kept to one single thread, you might be able to get away with it. But not when it constitutes 40-50% of the board's threads and posted by a handful of users. IMDb would justifiably see that as promotion of these websites and the possible/probable poaching of IMDb's members/visitors.
Agree with me or don't agree with me. It doesn't matter. what I am saying will still be right.
Agree with me or don't agree with me. It doesn't matter. what I am saying will still be right.
Regretfully, but not surprisingly, 8 of the 30 threads I linked to earlier have been removed by site administration. It should be noted by regulars of the Robert Pattinson board that the threads removed all fall into the 'deletion justifiable' category , which consisted of 23 of the 30 threads listed. Not a coincidence that not a single thread I believed 'on topic' has been removed. That should tell you something and perhaps how you can ensure future threads are not vulnerable to false abuse reports.
Also, before I go, a piece of advice to the user called susie5552003. This thread that you have posted http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo..., is against site terms and conditions, as I understand them. Even though you have posted a topic that seemingly relates to Robert Pattinson's fragrance campaign, it will be rather obvious to any site administrator that cares to look that you are, in fact, reposting the link to the online popularity poll, that site administrators have already seen fit to remove.
Susie, this is how it stands, (as far as I understand the site terms and conditions). Linking IMDb users to an online poll and encouraging them to vote multiple times in an effort to 'game' the results falls into the category of either 'advertising and spam' or perhaps 'chain letter'. Reposting said link after site administration have already removed it, is considered 'flooding'. Should the administrator who originally removed the thread see it again, he/she could action your account more seriously.
I don't believe IMDb sees its forums as a platform from which individuals or groups can mount vote-stacking campaigns. Just a friendly word of advice.
Also, before I go, a piece of advice to the user called susie5552003. This thread that you have posted http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1500155/bo..., is against site terms and conditions, as I understand them. Even though you have posted a topic that seemingly relates to Robert Pattinson's fragrance campaign, it will be rather obvious to any site administrator that cares to look that you are, in fact, reposting the link to the online popularity poll, that site administrators have already seen fit to remove.
Susie, this is how it stands, (as far as I understand the site terms and conditions). Linking IMDb users to an online poll and encouraging them to vote multiple times in an effort to 'game' the results falls into the category of either 'advertising and spam' or perhaps 'chain letter'. Reposting said link after site administration have already removed it, is considered 'flooding'. Should the administrator who originally removed the thread see it again, he/she could action your account more seriously.
I don't believe IMDb sees its forums as a platform from which individuals or groups can mount vote-stacking campaigns. Just a friendly word of advice.
Sigh.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the poll thread, but Mr. I'm So Right (are you CommanderKrill, by the way?) ...you're wrong. So, before you pat yourself in the back too hard and pull a muscle, wait a month. Because threads that even you think are AOK will all be deleted sooner or later.
They always are.
Because they're reporting to troll, not because they are massively offended by our threads.
You fail spectacularly fail to get the point.
And did you happen to notice which users had their threads deleted? Hmmmmm. Dior threads by other users still on the board with no problem. Why is that, I wonder? LOL.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the poll thread, but Mr. I'm So Right (are you CommanderKrill, by the way?) ...you're wrong. So, before you pat yourself in the back too hard and pull a muscle, wait a month. Because threads that even you think are AOK will all be deleted sooner or later.
They always are.
Because they're reporting to troll, not because they are massively offended by our threads.
You fail spectacularly fail to get the point.
And did you happen to notice which users had their threads deleted? Hmmmmm. Dior threads by other users still on the board with no problem. Why is that, I wonder? LOL.
Commander Krill? Is that a code or something?
The reason you call me "Mr. I'm So Right" is because you a begrudgingly acknowledging that what I am saying, for now at least, is correct. Thank you for this.
I have not failed to see any point. I know what is happening. The fact that 8 threads disappeared in the space of 24 hours showcases this. But I cannot stop it and site administration cannot stop it if the threads are in breach of site rules. My advice is:
- stop the dramatics
- stop the habitual board etiquette that sees threads liable to abuse reports and thus justifiably removed
- stop looking for a fight at every opportunity
- stop the fixation with trolls
- start playing smart.
You do all these things and site administration then have cause to act on your behalf, because you have now placed yourself in a position beyond reproach.
I am not your enemy here. You are your enemy, (at this point in time). So, take the spotlight off yourselves and shine it on those who, at the moment, are successfully targeting you from the shadows.
The reason you call me "Mr. I'm So Right" is because you a begrudgingly acknowledging that what I am saying, for now at least, is correct. Thank you for this.
I have not failed to see any point. I know what is happening. The fact that 8 threads disappeared in the space of 24 hours showcases this. But I cannot stop it and site administration cannot stop it if the threads are in breach of site rules. My advice is:
- stop the dramatics
- stop the habitual board etiquette that sees threads liable to abuse reports and thus justifiably removed
- stop looking for a fight at every opportunity
- stop the fixation with trolls
- start playing smart.
You do all these things and site administration then have cause to act on your behalf, because you have now placed yourself in a position beyond reproach.
I am not your enemy here. You are your enemy, (at this point in time). So, take the spotlight off yourselves and shine it on those who, at the moment, are successfully targeting you from the shadows.
First off, it's hard not to be "fixated with trolls" when the trolls are playing games with the board every single day. We're human beings. Occasionally we discuss the problem and how to resolve it. Because its frustrating as hell.
We're not looking for fights. Do you bother reading the threads? We're discussing the topic at hand.
I absolutely agree about playing smart. The automated removal of threads means there's nothing we can do to stop it. Right now. But if changing a few things about how we post means we have an easier time getting them dinged then we'll do it.
Passing this information on to the posters will have to involve a thread and a discussion, though... *gasp*
But I still say that it's a hole in the system and IMDb should think about how to fix it. Because automated deleting IS being abused. And there is no effective way to stop it.
We're not looking for fights. Do you bother reading the threads? We're discussing the topic at hand.
I absolutely agree about playing smart. The automated removal of threads means there's nothing we can do to stop it. Right now. But if changing a few things about how we post means we have an easier time getting them dinged then we'll do it.
Passing this information on to the posters will have to involve a thread and a discussion, though... *gasp*
But I still say that it's a hole in the system and IMDb should think about how to fix it. Because automated deleting IS being abused. And there is no effective way to stop it.
You post according to the site rules and the system works fine.
I am glad to see you are preparing to play smart. Good luck :-)
I am glad to see you are preparing to play smart. Good luck :-)
