Should there be a stricter vetting process on zoochat? in light of certain people on here bringing the tone of the forum down as well as trolls and other general idiots should there be a vetting process? I know that some would still slip through the net but it might put them off a bit! I was very disappointed to see the thread about Knut being degraded the way that it was, regardless of how people felt about the bear it would have been a good topic of serious conversation, without mocking and down right disrespect! Regardless of disrespect about the bear, the comments about his former keeper were downright low, we are all someway connected with people working in zoos, some of us do work in zoos others enjoy the good work that zoo keepers do so there should certainly be a great deal of respect of a zoo forum for those marvelous people! I think people should refuse to take on any posts like this in future, commenting and getting upset is what they want and gives fuel to their fire, anonymity is a great thing hiding behind a forum. I refuse to take any such person under my notice and i think their threads should be deleted and ignored.
While I agree that there should be more general respect going on, I dont think vetting is the way. One of the great things about this forum is that it is an open and free place to discuss, what has got to be one of the most unusual of hobbies, zoos. Also Another great thing is that it attracts a broad range of people with diverse opinions, i feel that vetting would make the site more exclusive and therefore possibly shunt somee of these people out. This is not excuse to behave terribly. Antagonistic behaviour should be dealt with as swiftly as possible. (I would say the I-love-tigers-thread is a great example of uneeded escalation and how not to behave).
I agree with you Vulpes; and I know well that I'm one of those who has become entangled in many of the hottest threads of late. I also know well that it is the wiser man who gives up first, but then, some people here just have a way of making me forget about all the good things that my parents installed in me. A part of the problem is how limited authority moderators have, especially while SIM is away. There are two Australian moderators; one hasn't been seen in ages (but I know he lives in the area where there were floods so he has more serious things to think of) and the other one has been seen less of late. They both have the authority to ban users, something the two UK mods do not (as was seen in the Zambar/Cheetah Girl case; it took one of the Aussies to help us get rid of her) but all of them can close threads. If the UK mods would have the same authority as the Australian ones (and ideally some of the authority that SIM has, especially while he is away, though as the owner of the site, he must hold the absolute power) we probably wouldn't see again the same scenario as we've been seeing in the past month or so (caused by for instance a popularity addict and a wacky tiger lover; the latter of whom opened at least three accounts in one month, something that could be prevented by blocking the IP number, but only SIM can do that)
That was a perfectly sensible thread ruined for no good reason- Kiang then closed it as the only sensible option. The moderators are aware of these various current problems but we also have to tread a delicate path between censorship and allowing free speech. I am trying to get Sim reinvolved as he really has 'the power' in these issues.
Exactly. There is no problem that is not of our own making here. At any time any member could IGNORE the idiots... most do, some don't. (Look at these threads and you'll see that it is a very few who can't resist or actually enjoy the dumb fights with dumb or insulting posters. The vast majority of Forumers keep out of it or, posting once, school themselves not to reply to fools again) Sadly, If we need to vet out the trouble-makers then we need to vet out those who engage them as well. This stupidity wouldn't occur if only one person tried to stir it up. If stupid threads are so horrible then all who contributed must accept responsibility. You can't keep blaming Tarsius, Sun, IEATTIGERS09877 or whomever for bad discussions. And they cannot ruin your discussion if you ignore their posts. I see no reason for more rules or restrictions or for the moderators to create a police force. If we cannot control ourselves then we do not deserve to have adult conversations.
I agree that closing this thread was the only sensible option; I think that, perhaps, there were a few other threads that got out of control and should have been closed too. It must be hard for the moderators to strike the right balance; generally I think they do a very good job. It is very sad that a few people spoil the site for others by posting nonsense. I wholeheartedly agree that ignoring such posts is the best approach; replying to them only encourages the posters and inflames the situation.
Sadly I think this situation may well get worse as I have seen a get deal of traffic on many other zoo and like-minded sites now being directly targeted by anti-captive groups and individuals. it's very easy to now Goggle a topic and be led right to various forums and the trolls and others love this. I am note surprised that the story about Knutt ended up somewhat wrecked. PETA where making silly comments about this bear even before he was cold and no post-mortem had been performed. Mind you, I did see a comment from a zoo keeper on Facebook (who should know better) saying about Knutt's death: "So so sad, polar bears and captivity are not the best combination". And I just think to myself, let's give up now if a professional colleague actually (who I know has never work with bears) can thinks that. A great shame. Nonetheless, I quite agree not responding is a reasonable option but sometimes you feel obligated when really silly and clearly incorrect statements are made. And, moreover, shouldn't we be able to discuss such things as many who come on the forum may well be zoo fans but actually have little actual understanding of the wild animal husbandry. Vain hope, perhaps. Maybe we need what some of the comment sections in newspapers have such as basic house rules for civility etc.
I agree there are some 'sensible' people who need to look to their laurels and ignore where necessary. And there is an 'ignore' button! Also, if you want to work in the zoo industry you'll usually be under contract to not bring yourself (and therefore your zoo) into disrepute - and that includes getting into public arguments. You can't be doing that in RL with zoo visitors after all, you'll be sacked in 5 minutes. The internet has an awfully long memory and we don't know what the future holds - some need to remember that, because in 2 or 5 years time silly arguments could still be here staring you (and current or potential employers) in the face when you're looking for a new job. This of course isn't aimed at anyone in particular. No really, it's not. It's also a private reminder to myself, even if I'm not attached to a zoo at the moment!
That is the key. Ignoring the poster or stupid posts works- answering them, for whatever reason, only inflames the issue.
One piece of this is that we sometimes get so incensed at a posters idiocy that we want to protest... and we have no way except to reply. I know of other sites where you can give a post a "thumbs down" which is registered with every post the offender makes as a negative count. Perhaps ZooChat could have such a way to let members express opposition without engaging in the garbage. Consider it an aid to self-control
Yeah exactly I think ignoring them is the best option, dont even make reference to their posts! They will soon get bored and bugger off! A sensible conversation can still take place around their idiocy!
This has certainly been my own particular vice in the past - and you can be sure I'll be more inclined to ignore going forward. Probably not with the actual 'ignore' button though - just by disregarding! I quite like this idea (though I wonder if it'd be open to abuse?).
I know of another Forum where posters who are just too obnoxious will get "muted" by Moderators for a few days along with a warning. If on their return they are still anti-social then they get banned.
I agree that ignoring the idiots would be the sensible way BUT I find it hard not to react when someone really pushes my buttons - in all honesty I had to walk away from the original Knut post as I was so incensed I'd have got myself banned! I like the idea of a thumbs down vote but only if it is accompanied by a hand reaching out if the computer and giving the poster a smart slap about the head :O)
May i just say I retract my former post. I was thinking 'vetting' as in preventing certain people joining up with the site in the first place (which i would still refute..if that was the issue at hand...which its not). therefore my post doesnt really make any sense. Isnt there a phrase 'ignorance is bliss'?
Yes, but given the demonstrations of Ignorance we have recently witnessed, I fail to see how those people have any acquaintance with Bliss
