> I'm going to institute my own policy.

> 1) Do not reply to abusive posters.
> 2) Report all abusive posts immediately and continuously.
> 3) If they really really really upset me, see rule #1

> On May 3, 9:32 am, dockarl wrote:

> > Hmm.. I think I might have thought of a workable solution..

> > What about delayed posting?

> > You could handle these people that deliberately take posts off topic
> > by delaying their posts - by, say for instance, 18 hours.

> > This would be algorithmically easy to implement and would still allow
> > them to have their say - I mean, I have problems with an outright ban
> > too.. everyone has a right to voice their opinion - just not if they
> > tend to regularly go beyond what is fair and objective and tilt
> > towards abusive behaviour.

> > This, in concert with tighter 'play nice' rules (as suggested by
> > icegiant) and turning off their ability to have replies bring posts
> > back from the dead, could be very effective at eliminating the flame
> > wars that these people start.

> > doc

> > On May 3, 10:06 pm, JLH wrote:

> > > I like helping people, so I'll always come back, but the lack of
> > > Googler input has really upset me, I've been told its going to get
> > > back up to par, but that hasn't happened yet.  Though props to
> > > Jonathon Simon for stepping up to the plate as of late.

> > > As far a gohde goes, if what he said made sense half the time I'd be
> > > worried, but I'm pretty sure anyone with common sense can figure him
> > > out in a post or two.  If they do moderate him, he'll just create
> > > another identity and continue on, so perhaps a sticky that says not to
> > > respond to him would do more, he'll get bored and move on to torture
> > > vending machine repairmen or some other newsgroup.

> > > On May 3, 6:43 am, IceGiant wrote:

> > > > > is it any wonder that participation in this forum by
> > > > > the people who used to contribute the most has dropped significantly?

> > > > There does seem to have been a rather drastic reduction in not only
> > > > the number of 'regulars' who hang around there during the last few
> > > > months, but also the level of participation of some of those who
> > > > remain.

> > > > Since I'm not the world's most constant poster myself, I'd previously
> > > > put this down to work-commitments on the part of others. It would
> > > > appear though that quite a few have taken flight simply because this
> > > > place no longer has the feelgood factor it used to and has instead
> > > > become something of a sporadic battleground.

> > > > There have to be some enforcable rules of conduct, not only for the
> > > > sake of regular contributors but also the unseen masses who arrive
> > > > here asking simple (also oftentimes complicated and frequently inane
> > > > or silly) questions about their sites before disappearing, never to
> > > > return, once their query has been answered or they have been suitably
> > > > alienated.

> > > > This place has a phenomenal visitor turnover... If it turns into
> > > > mudslinging central, word about Google Webmaster Help being nothing
> > > > but a war zone will get around the web at the speed of thought.

> > > > There will always be disagreements in places like this, but by (insert
> > > > deity here), there needs to be a way to ensure these stay civilised
> > > > and don't get out of hand.

> > > > I've seen things go to bits before, albeit only with a Star Wars fan-
> > > > club, not with a Google group...
> > > > There's madness down that road, as I said in a post in another thread
> > > > a few days ago.

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-chit-chat/browse...

> > > > So yes, I think the matter of everyone here having to stick to the
> > > > same set of 'play nicely' rules is becoming a matter of some urgency.

> > > > Sasch

> > > > On May 3, 9:34 am, cass-hacks wrote:

> > > > > Since N-H-P/John H. Gohde's  promise to "poke fun at" the people who
> > > > > contribute the most in the Google Webmaster Help forum seems to have
> > > > > more so turned into a threat with his idea of "poking fun" being to
> > > > > defame people, is it any wonder that participation in this forum by
> > > > > the people who used to contribute the most has dropped significantly?

> > > > > Craig

> > > > > On May 2, 9:04 pm, dockarl wrote:

> > > > > > Hi everyone - I don't want to start another ranting Gohde thread, but
> > > > > > I think that the time has about come for something to be done to make
> > > > > > him realise this is no game, this isn't a place for him to come to
> > > > > > abuse people.

> > > > > > John has today crossed an important line. He's prgressed from personal
> > > > > > attacks to outright defamation. That's a line at which I abruptly lose
> > > > > > my sense of humour.

> > > > > > Please seehttp://groups.google.com.au/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-chit-chat/bro...

> > > > > > W.R.T. the 'half naked graphics', I think he's referring to the
> > > > > > website of a lingerie company I direct - I don't care about that.

> > > > > > What really concerns me is that John has implied that he thinks that
> > > > > > I'm reponsible forhttp://www.naturalhealthperspective.net. He's
> > > > > > implied the same various times, but never directly until now .

> > > > > > At first, I laughed it off and told him to pull his head in, but then
> > > > > > I thought about his post for a few minutes - these are public forums.
> > > > > > I don't want searchable, public records painting me as someone that
> > > > > > would devote myself to writing a hate blog.

> > > > > > I explained to John that these days potential employers / business
> > > > > > partners etc often do background searches on people prior to forming
> > > > > > partnerships with them - I've even done it. I explained to John that I
> > > > > > don't want to be known as the type of person that would write a hate
> > > > > > blog about another person - it's just not who I am - as a person I
> > > > > > aspire to tolerance. It's a central tenet of who I am, it's central to
> > > > > > my being - that's why I've butted heads with him previously when he's
> > > > > > used these forums for xenophobic and racist monologues.

> > > > > > Regardless of the fact that I think the very fact that someone has
> > > > > > devoted a hate blog to him speaks volumes, I will not idly stand by
> > > > > > and let him progress from just being a pest to using these forums as a
> > > > > > platform for overtly defamatory / slanderous comments.

> > > > > > I've given him a chance to recant his allegation, and he has not only
> > > > > > failed to do so, he's taken it up a notch. Enough is enough.

> > > > > > I formally and very seriously request that the following actions be
> > > > > > taken:-

> > > > > > 1. The posts in question be expunged.
> > > > > > 2. John be placed on permanent moderation or banned from these groups
> > > > > > entirely.

> > > > > > John has crossed a line, his statements are very clearly defamatory -
> > > > > > and would not be tolerated in the real world - why should they be
> > > > > > tolerated in this, a real world forum? He obviously thinks this is
> > > > > > some sort of game.

> > > > > > I am no longer amused.

> > > > > > Matthew James (dockarl)

> > > > > > On May 2, 5:55 am, Volvox777 wrote:

> > > > > > > NHP wrote in response to my comment that the NHP.net site is not run
> > > > > > > by me

> > > > > > I miss read that post. :(

> > > > > > You are NOT the hate blogger, because he is NOT mentally unstable:
> > > > > > unlike you.

> > > > > > I would say that dockarl  is the most likely person.  Since both have
> > > > > > displayed a marked preference for semi-naked female graphics.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -