Max Q wrote:

tys777 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I’m curious to know what the average age of the moderators is now ?

Why?

In reality, age doesn't matter. I think we have all met some 18 year olds that have more wisdom and maturity than those double their age. Every age group has their shining examples of both maturity and immaturity.

I’m just interested in an answer to my question

I couldn't tell you the age of the other moderators. We look more for posters who consistently follow the forum rules. I know some are much younger than me and I suspect a few quite older.

However we routinely solicit more moderators. We look into the history of each applicant and people who have repeatedly been nasty to other users we must reject.

We make the decisions on the "rap sheet" (history of the applicant) and they must agree to routinely log on to moderate as well as participate in various online moderator discussions.

I know we are a diverse group just by our different posting styles. We must cover the globe. e.g., Europe/Africa, US, and Asia/Australia.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Max Q wrote:

tys777 wrote:

Why?

In reality, age doesn't matter. I think we have all met some 18 year olds that have more wisdom and maturity than those double their age. Every age group has their shining examples of both maturity and immaturity.

I’m just interested in an answer to my question

I couldn't tell you the age of the other moderators. We look more for posters who consistently follow the forum rules. I know some are much younger than me and I suspect a few quite older.

However we routinely solicit more moderators. We look into the history of each applicant and people who have repeatedly been nasty to other users we must reject.

We make the decisions on the "rap sheet" (history of the applicant) and they must agree to routinely log on to moderate as well as participate in various online moderator discussions.

I know we are a diverse group just by our different posting styles. We must cover the globe. e.g., Europe/Africa, US, and Asia/Australia.

Lightsaber

I’m still interested in knowing the average of A.Net moderators, I would think that would be easy to find out, perhaps you could ask them


Thank you and I look forward to your reply

Max Q wrote:

I’m still interested in knowing the average of A.Net moderators, I would think that would be easy to find out, perhaps you could ask them

Thank you and I look forward to your reply

Respectfully, you are asking for information that is not readily available, yet have not explained why the information is needed.

If you are requesting a Mod poll other mods for information, the request may be more successful if you explained what would be gained from their work.

NameOmitted wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I’m still interested in knowing the average of A.Net moderators, I would think that would be easy to find out, perhaps you could ask them

Thank you and I look forward to your reply

Respectfully, you are asking for information that is not readily available, yet have not explained why the information is needed.

If you are requesting a Mod poll other mods for information, the request may be more successful if you explained what would be gained from their work.

Respectfully, my request was not directed to you, but the information I requested is for my own curiosity, the mod(s) can choose to provide an answer or not to

Max Q wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I’m still interested in knowing the average of A.Net moderators, I would think that would be easy to find out, perhaps you could ask them

Thank you and I look forward to your reply

Respectfully, you are asking for information that is not readily available, yet have not explained why the information is needed.

If you are requesting a Mod poll other mods for information, the request may be more successful if you explained what would be gained from their work.

Respectfully, my request was not directed to you, but the information I requested is for my own curiosity, the mod(s) can choose to provide an answer or not to

I'm in my 30s, and I'm pretty sure I'm one of the younger ones. Not that it should really matter much. None of us are kids if that's what you're after.

I'm in my 40s.

Isn't this discussion drifting heavily off topic ?

Grizzly410 wrote:

Isn't this discussion drifting heavily off topic ?

It is, but it seems we've been repeatedly challenged to prove that we aren't two children stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat pretending to be adults.

atcsundevil wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Isn't this discussion drifting heavily off topic ?

It is, but it seems we've been repeatedly challenged to prove that we aren't two children stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat pretending to be adults.

In all honesty I think there's only one member asking for such info (age), I personally don't care and even have trouble to understand what's the point ? What's the relevance ?

Grizzly410 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Isn't this discussion drifting heavily off topic ?

It is, but it seems we've been repeatedly challenged to prove that we aren't two children stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat pretending to be adults.

In all honesty I think there's only one member asking for such info (age), I personally don't care and even have trouble to understand what's the point ? What's the relevance ?

I’m interested,


No one has to answer if they don’t want to, still curious to see the ages of the other moderators

I appreciate the replies of those who have answered

Max Q wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

It is, but it seems we've been repeatedly challenged to prove that we aren't two children stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat pretending to be adults.

In all honesty I think there's only one member asking for such info (age), I personally don't care and even have trouble to understand what's the point ? What's the relevance ?

I’m interested,


No one has to answer if they don’t want to, still curious to see the ages of the other moderators

I appreciate the replies of those who have answered

I'll still challanging. Why are you interested? Simply saying "I want to know" isn't enough. I'll give my info, I just want to know why? What's the point? What are we trying to solve? I'm guessing you think that we are a bunch of fetuses running around deleting things on a whim.

Why stop at age? Why not ask marital status? Occupation? Education? Race? Gender? Etc...again, what are you trying to solve for?

For the record, I'm in my mid 30's, married with children.

Because the average age of the moderators is what I’m interested in

Max Q wrote:

Because the average age of the moderators is what I’m interested in

You have your answer — we'll just call it "mid 30s" on average. We really aren't interested in divulging personal information about ourselves, because frankly it's no one's business. Like you, we are entitled to a degree of privacy and anonymity unless we otherwise opt to make that information public. We don't make demands for that kind of information from other users, and those demands shouldn't really be made from us. Ultimately, we're users just like you are, we've just volunteered our time to at least attempt to keep this forum organized and respectful.

Clearly you've been able to ascertain that we aren't children, so let's move on.

I recall in 2013 or so, somebody asked the same question, and the answer was 20 at the low end and mid 40s at the high end. Of course, that most likely has changed in the decade since ‘13.

I’m more interested to know the seniority of the moderators (I.E. only how long they have been a moderator, not the age of their account including when they were a “normal” member.) because the turnover rate of moderation is very telling. I recall that in the period of time that Direct/Demand/whatever Media owned the site, moderation turnover was at an all time high, and since then has been on a steady decline, which is good.

atcsundevil wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Because the average age of the moderators is what I’m interested in

You have your answer — we'll just call it "mid 30s" on average. We really aren't interested in divulging personal information about ourselves, because frankly it's no one's business. Like you, we are entitled to a degree of privacy and anonymity unless we otherwise opt to make that information public. We don't make demands for that kind of information from other users, and those demands shouldn't really be made from us. Ultimately, we're users just like you are, we've just volunteered our time to at least attempt to keep this forum organized and respectful.

Clearly you've been able to ascertain that we aren't children, so let's move on.

I didn’t make any demands and I’ve been nothing but polite and respectful including thanking those who volunteered their age range that includes you



I asked a simple question, replying was optional, revealing your age (which no one actually did) does not reveal your identity

Max Q wrote:

I didn’t make any demands and I’ve been nothing but polite and respectful including thanking those who volunteered their age range that includes you



I asked a simple question, replying was optional, revealing your age (which no one actually did) does not reveal your identity

You asked four times before we finally replied, and posted about it six times in total. We only started answering to make it stop. I would argue that it absolutely came off as demanding.

lpdal wrote:

I recall in 2013 or so, somebody asked the same question, and the answer was 20 at the low end and mid 40s at the high end. Of course, that most likely has changed in the decade since ‘13.

I’m more interested to know the seniority of the moderators (I.E. only how long they have been a moderator, not the age of their account including when they were a “normal” member.) because the turnover rate of moderation is very telling. I recall that in the period of time that Direct/Demand/whatever Media owned the site, moderation turnover was at an all time high, and since then has been on a steady decline, which is good.

Our turnover is low. We've only taken on new mods twice since I joined the team more than five years ago. Of those new mods we took on, I only recall having lost two, both for very different reasons. All that were brought on when I started are still on. I would say that the average time on the team is roughly five years.

atcsundevil wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I didn’t make any demands and I’ve been nothing but polite and respectful including thanking those who volunteered their age range that includes you



I asked a simple question, replying was optional, revealing your age (which no one actually did) does not reveal your identity

You asked four times before we finally replied, and posted about it six times in total. We only started answering to make it stop. I would argue that it absolutely came off as demanding.

lpdal wrote:

I recall in 2013 or so, somebody asked the same question, and the answer was 20 at the low end and mid 40s at the high end. Of course, that most likely has changed in the decade since ‘13.

I’m more interested to know the seniority of the moderators (I.E. only how long they have been a moderator, not the age of their account including when they were a “normal” member.) because the turnover rate of moderation is very telling. I recall that in the period of time that Direct/Demand/whatever Media owned the site, moderation turnover was at an all time high, and since then has been on a steady decline, which is good.

Our turnover is low. We've only taken on new mods twice since I joined the team more than five years ago. Of those new mods we took on, I only recall having lost two, both for very different reasons. All that were brought on when I started are still on. I would say that the average time on the team is roughly five years.

That is not correct,


I asked my original question once, then I replied to posts about it from different individuals including yourself.


That is not ‘demanding’ anything, in fact it showed my own willingness to reply to questions myself


it’s unfortunate you chose to interpret my motives in such a defensive manner, implying that revealing ones age also shows ones identity was incorrect as well


Several mods did volunteer their age range, including yourself. As stated, answering the question was optional. Another poster pointed out the same question was asked in 2013 and it was answered without a reaction like this


If I asked the average age of an A.Net member I doubt It would generate this hostility, in fact I think most members wouldn’t mind answering

Max Q wrote:

That is not correct,


I asked my original question once, then I replied to posts about it from different individuals including yourself.


That is not ‘demanding’ anything, in fact it showed my own willingness to reply to questions myself


it’s unfortunate you chose to interpret my motives in such a defensive manner, implying that revealing ones age also shows ones identity was incorrect as well


Several mods did volunteer their age range, including yourself. As stated, answering the question was optional. Another poster pointed out the same question was asked in 2013 and it was answered without a reaction like this


If I asked the average age of an A.Net member I doubt It would generate this hostility, in fact I think most members wouldn’t mind answering

That's your opinion, which clearly isn't shared by my colleagues who have responded. It seems telling to me that we're all responding to your request with the same level of skepticism, so perhaps the way you've gone about this wasn't as respectful or benign as you're attempting to indicate. Something to consider. Anyway, let's get this thread back on topic. Your request is unrelated to the purpose of the thread.

As It is yours


Actually, not all of the mods responded in a hostile fashion


Some just took the question at face value and in the manner in which it was intended so that’s incorrect as well


I must be missing something, you say ‘the manner in which I’ve gone about this isn’t as respectful or benign as I’m attempting to indicate’


I’d very much appreciate you showing me in which post I put forward such a message ?


It’s all relevant and something for you to consider

Hi,

Not sure if it is correct to post here, please do point teach. I had my post deleted cause I have used data or quoted sources from planespotters.net. As far as I could remember, based on the forum rules, we are to quote our sources for data or facts that we presented. I am unaware planespotters.net is a competing website, was this included recently? Does anyone has a list of websites we are prohibited from using? Airliners.net does not have a fleet tracking page hence I have used them as a source.

Appreciate any help. Thanks!

planepotters.net is being considered a competing website for more than a few years.

SQ22 wrote:

planepotters.net is being considered a competing website for more than a few years.

Thank you for your reply SQ22. Noted, is there a list of prohibited website which we can refer to? I have been trying to search for it, but it was futile. Just to be be safe and not getting another warning.

I cannot provide you with a list, planespotters.net is often used because of their airline database, but they are considered a competitor because of their photo database. So I would recommend to avoid sites which are similar.

Same aplies to sites which are having their own forum.

SQ22 wrote:

I cannot provide you with a list, planespotters.net is often used because of their airline database, but they are considered a competitor because of their photo database. So I would recommend to avoid sites which are similar.

Same aplies to sites which are having their own forum.

Noted with thanks! Thanks for your help.

SQ22 wrote:

planepotters.net is being considered a competing website for more than a few years.

Eh not really, considering planespotters.net has no forum, and provides a history/current database of specific aircraft and airlines fleets. As far as I can tell as a new member, a.net has no such thing, although I'd like to be proven wrong.

Do you consider FlyerTalk as a competing website?

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

planepotters.net is being considered a competing website for more than a few years.

Eh not really, considering planespotters.net has no forum, and provides a history/current database of specific aircraft and airlines fleets. As far as I can tell as a new member, a.net has no such thing, although I'd like to be proven wrong.

Do you consider FlyerTalk as a competing website?

Plane spotters and flyer talk have been considered “competitors” ever since I joined.
Plane spotters enforced more so than flyer talk.

My considered opinion is currently.... the site is not over moderated, but the moderators aren't provided the tools they need to do things that we might expect from a modern site. They are left as the public face of the site with not all that much support from the owners other then "this is how things are, get on with it".

Any time I think a mod might have been heavy handed I remind myself how things were 15 years ago or so, when there were some true "I am God" types running the show here.

Virtual737 wrote:

My considered opinion is currently.... the site is not over moderated, but the moderators aren't provided the tools they need to do things that we might expect from a modern site. They are left as the public face of the site with not all that much support from the owners other then "this is how things are, get on with it".

Any time I think a mod might have been heavy handed I remind myself how things were 15 years ago or so, when there were some true "I am God" types running the show here.

The mods in those days were also pretty inconsistent compared to now - there were some real characters who got away with a lot because they were on good terms with one or two mods. I think the team does a good job considering the limited resources. Reports are followed up on in a reliable and timely manner, and that's half the battle right there.

Virtual737 wrote:

My considered opinion is currently.... the site is not over moderated.

It is. Mods jumping in and locking threads in the middle of ongoing, perfectly civil discussion is beyond ridiculous. And then they moan how overworked they are.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

My considered opinion is currently.... the site is not over moderated.

It is. Mods jumping in and locking threads in the middle of ongoing, perfectly civil discussion is beyond ridiculous. And then they moan how overworked they are.

You've written that almost immediately after causing a thread to be locked due to continuing an off topic conversation directly (the very next post just minutes later) after SQ22 asked you to stay on topic. Then you come here to say the mods are over-moderating and causing their own workload.

How about starting a new thread to continue your "discussion" (it was an argument and was also getting personal). rather than continuing to be off-topic and causing the thread to be locked? Simples.

It was OA260's thread and (s)he would have every right to be peeved.

Virtual737 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

My considered opinion is currently.... the site is not over moderated.

It is. Mods jumping in and locking threads in the middle of ongoing, perfectly civil discussion is beyond ridiculous. And then they moan how overworked they are.

You've written that almost immediately after causing a thread to be locked due to continuing an off topic conversation directly (the very next post just minutes later) after SQ22 asked you to stay on topic. Then you come here to say the mods are over-moderating and causing their own workload.

How about starting a new thread to continue your "discussion" (it was an argument and was also getting personal). rather than continuing to be off-topic and causing the thread to be locked? Simples.

It was OA260's thread and (s)he would have every right to be peeved.

It's also non-aviation. We spend a disproportionate amount of time on the parts of the forum that have absolutely nothing to do with aviation. The amount of non-civil, off topic posting that happens there is beyond ridiculous, especially when it comes to politics. However, people won't see what we've deleted, so they like to think we are "over-reacting". We try to give people space to discuss it, bit inevitably it almost always devolves into off topic posts or personal attacks.

So, why not hire a couple of strictly non-av mods? If it takes so much time away from everyone do a concentrated policing.

TVNWZ wrote:

So, why not hire a couple of strictly non-av mods? If it takes so much time away from everyone do a concentrated policing.

We don't "hire" mods, we take on new volunteers. Finding people to volunteer who are also well qualified to serve in the role isn't an easy task. We need users who are well enough established on the site to determine a track record (most importantly that they lack any significant issues in their posting history), and they're able to contribute enough of their time to make a difference. Ticking both of those boxes is a challenge. Aside from that, people who care enough about this site to volunteer are applying because they're primarily interested in aviation, so they wouldn't exactly be thrilled to be banished to moderating Non Av.

It isn't that your idea is off base, it's just that given the difficulty we've had bringing in new qualified moderators, it makes it impractical.

You could let it just go as some websites do, and you opt into certain forums knowing that is a free-for-all. It does reach critical mass, then it tapers back down.

Being a moderator isn't a popularity contest, but there should be a way to make the crew accountable for their actions.

But when I think things are going for the better, a whole slew of posts disappear. I am certain it did not violate any of the rules, but it disappeared. I think that moderators should not moderate in threads they are posting in as participants to the discussion. Conflict of interest type of thing.

extender wrote:

You could let it just go as some websites do, and you opt into certain forums knowing that is a free-for-all. It does reach critical mass, then it tapers back down.

Being a moderator isn't a popularity contest, but there should be a way to make the crew accountable for their actions.

The thing is, we are accountable. Moderators has been removed from their positions before due to their actions. We are held to a higher standard in all our postings. We get far from a free pass.

extender wrote:

But when I think things are going for the better, a whole slew of posts disappear. I am certain it did not violate any of the rules, but it disappeared. I think that moderators should not moderate in threads they are posting in as participants to the discussion. Conflict of interest type of thing.

One thing to remember is that while your post may not violate rules, if you are quoting a post that does, both will be removed. We don't edit posts to remove quoted posts that violate guidelines. Unfortunately this does lead to some really good posts being deleted. However, us not editing posts help alleviate accusations that we are editing someone's posts.

tys777 wrote:

extender wrote:

But when I think things are going for the better, a whole slew of posts disappear. I am certain it did not violate any of the rules, but it disappeared. I think that moderators should not moderate in threads they are posting in as participants to the discussion. Conflict of interest type of thing.

One thing to remember is that while your post may not violate rules, if you are quoting a post that does, both will be removed. We don't edit posts to remove quoted posts that violate guidelines. Unfortunately this does lead to some really good posts being deleted. However, us not editing posts help alleviate accusations that we are editing someone's posts.

I get all that, and agree with you. When it is a standalone post, that is when the confusion sets in.

extender wrote:

tys777 wrote:

extender wrote:

But when I think things are going for the better, a whole slew of posts disappear. I am certain it did not violate any of the rules, but it disappeared. I think that moderators should not moderate in threads they are posting in as participants to the discussion. Conflict of interest type of thing.

One thing to remember is that while your post may not violate rules, if you are quoting a post that does, both will be removed. We don't edit posts to remove quoted posts that violate guidelines. Unfortunately this does lead to some really good posts being deleted. However, us not editing posts help alleviate accusations that we are editing someone's posts.

I get all that, and agree with you. When it is a standalone post, that is when the confusion sets in.

That makes sense as we don't give deletion notices, but you are always free to email us and inquire on why something was deleted. May take us a bit to answer, but we are happy to.

tys777 wrote:

but you are always free to email us and inquire on why something was deleted. May take us a bit to answer, but we are happy to.

I think that's where some of the frustration still lies. If I emailed about a deleted topic then it gives you work to do and only lets 1 person know. If 10 people wanted to know, they would all have to email you and you'd have to do the work ten times.

For a forum to thrive, it almost certainly needs to support some kind of "off-topic" discussion, which is where the non-av section comes in to play. If that section is seen as a pain in the butt rather than a necessary evil, then I wouldn't expect even the best mod ever to not have some kind of subconscious bias.

A recent example is the Britney Spears conservatorship thread that disappeared a few days ago. It might have become a slanging match, it might have been subject to a "this was a hit and run thread" complaint or something else. I have no idea.

At the end of the day it's not the end of the world, but I can see how it can frustrate.

Virtual737 wrote:

I think that's where some of the frustration still lies. If I emailed about a deleted topic then it gives you work to do and only lets 1 person know. If 10 people wanted to know, they would all have to email you and you'd have to do the work ten times.

For a forum to thrive, it almost certainly needs to support some kind of "off-topic" discussion, which is where the non-av section comes in to play. If that section is seen as a pain in the butt rather than a necessary evil, then I wouldn't expect even the best mod ever to not have some kind of subconscious bias.

A recent example is the Britney Spears conservatorship thread that disappeared a few days ago. It might have become a slanging match, it might have been subject to a "this was a hit and run thread" complaint or something else. I have no idea.

At the end of the day it's not the end of the world, but I can see how it can frustrate.

The only reason for deletion of the respective thread was, that you were discussing facts without providing any sources. Besides that this is a rule stated in the forum rules, please do not espect that everyone outside as well as inside the US is familiar with the subject of discussion.

You are free to re-post the thread accordingly.

And it keeps on happening. It would appear that there is bias in which posts get deleted. Not specifically identifying any thread to avoid rule violations, a post that was made earlier, which does NOT violate any rule, was deleted. If anyone wants to see what it was, I have the screenshot.

Same thing goes for any thread critical of the left, has the half life of Gallium-68. Yet any thread about the right, GoP, Trump, are a dime a dozen? Inquiring minds want to know.

extender wrote:

And it keeps on happening. It would appear that there is bias in which posts get deleted. Not specifically identifying any thread to avoid rule violations, a post that was made earlier, which does NOT violate any rule, was deleted. If anyone wants to see what it was, I have the screenshot.

Same thing goes for any thread critical of the left, has the half life of Gallium-68. Yet any thread about the right, GoP, Trump, are a dime a dozen? Inquiring minds want to know.

If you are referring to a certain thread where you mentioned the Clintons, this has been deleted for being off topic. The thread is not about the Clintons.

The Clintons and their connections made lots of money in Haiti, yet the Haitian people have nothing to show for it. People that cross the Clintions have a way of becoming un-alive under mysterious circumstances. Did Moïse have any dealings in which a hit team hiding under a "DEA Operation?" Off topic? maybe, maybe not. Since you as SQ22 brought up the off-topic deletion, I am replying. No connection, whatsoever, right? Tell me this I can go through any thread regarding Trump, and find off-topic in every one. Yet you insist there is no bias.

extender wrote:

The Clintons and their connections made lots of money in Haiti, yet the Haitian people have nothing to show for it. People that cross the Clintions have a way of becoming un-alive under mysterious circumstances. Did Moïse have any dealings in which a hit team hiding under a "DEA Operation?" Off topic? maybe, maybe not. Since you as SQ22 brought up the off-topic deletion, I am replying. No connection, whatsoever, right? Tell me this I can go through any thread regarding Trump, and find off-topic in every one. Yet you insist there is no bias.

Feel free to start a dedicated thread about it, in the respective thread it was off topic, hence it has been deleted.

extender wrote:

The Clintons and their connections made lots of money in Haiti, yet the Haitian people have nothing to show for it. People that cross the Clintions have a way of becoming un-alive under mysterious circumstances. Did Moïse have any dealings in which a hit team hiding under a "DEA Operation?" Off topic? maybe, maybe not. Since you as SQ22 brought up the off-topic deletion, I am replying. No connection, whatsoever, right? Tell me this I can go through any thread regarding Trump, and find off-topic in every one. Yet you insist there is no bias.

Also, if you think something is off topic, report it. We rely heavily on user reports as we simply don't have the time to read every post in every thread.

SQ22 wrote:

Feel free to start a dedicated thread about it, in the respective thread it was off topic, hence it has been deleted.

OK, so I follow your instructions, start a thread, and it vanishes. Tell me, what happened?

tys777 wrote:

Also, if you think something is off topic, report it. We rely heavily on user reports as we simply don't have the time to read every post in every thread.

Do know that baiters will use the slightest off topic notion and excuse to use the report button to rack up a user’s deleted post count, leading to an eventual ban. This is what led me to leave Anet back in 2015, the huge amount of baiters attempting to get me banned. I wasn’t going to get banned, and satisfy the trolls, so I departed the site instead.

I would hope that, in the case of suspected “off topic posts”, other than blatantly obvious irrelevant, or flaming content, that a moderator would investigate at least the surrounding posts to determine the necessary context, doing their “due diligence”, so to speak, before taking the axe to the remark.

Is 777ER still a moderator?

Aside from that, I think the “Friend/Foe” ignore feature is really great, but if I can make a suggestion, even if it’s just a pipe dream, is to implement a feature where “blocked” users cannot see the profile or any content posted by that profile by which they were blocked, identical to what Facebook does where, when one is blocked by someone, they essentially “disappear” from view, and the blocked person cannot interact with the blocker, unless they make a new profile.

If anet did that, I would come back, and be a regular fulltime poster in a heartbeat. Sadly enough, though, I can think of about 50 users I would immediately add to the “block list” right off the top of my head.

As for the moderators deleting political posts, I’m going to advocate for the moderation team on this one, and say that I really wish the discussion of politics would be prohibited altogether on Anet (as many other discussion forums, and networking sites have done). Most people are solidly cemented in their political views, and, for this reason, political topics seldom turn out well. There are plenty of other, more appropriate discussion mediums and stages for which to disseminate political viewpoints, rather than an airplane website. I can say with 100% certainty that, given political discussions were wiped from Anet, the burden of moderation would be heavily reduced.

lpdal wrote:

Sadly enough, though, I can think of about 50 users I would immediately add to the “block list” right off the top of my head.

Because I can no longer edit my above post, to clarify this remark, none of the users I referred to above would be moderators or administrators (concurrently, a feature where site operators could not be added to the “block list” would be needed).

One more question, does Anet do IP (internet provider address) bans? It wouldn’t do much to stop determined trolls, but it is something.

lpdal wrote:

tys777 wrote:

Also, if you think something is off topic, report it. We rely heavily on user reports as we simply don't have the time to read every post in every thread.

Do know that baiters will use the slightest off topic notion and excuse to use the report button to rack up a user’s deleted post count, leading to an eventual ban. This is what led me to leave Anet back in 2015, the huge amount of baiters attempting to get me banned. I wasn’t going to get banned, and satisfy the trolls, so I departed the site instead.

I would hope that, in the case of suspected “off topic posts”, other than blatantly obvious irrelevant, or flaming content, that a moderator would investigate at least the surrounding posts to determine the necessary context, doing their “due diligence”, so to speak, before taking the axe to the .

Simply, yes. Just because someone reports a post doesn't mean that we delete it. I also don't know that a count of the users deleted posts factors into a ban. Its more what is the content of those deleted posts? Are they egregious violations? Is the user not heading warnings? A lot goes into factoring a ban/length.