Reminded of this today - party because it came up when I searched the forum for " 4th Mar" because it was an otherwise quiet day. 

There is an irony in this coming up now.  Over the weekend, I answered a social media post that was burning bright with plenty of fuel being added by keyboard warriors ... not my ward, not my specialist subject, but over 40 posts in 12 hours and not a single other councillor nor staff member had jumped in.  Public loved my answer (and it straightened a lot of things) ... fellow councillors with the Conservatives and Lib Dems, and one of their mothers, suggested that I was being critical and unreasonable in hoping for a faster input from someone who has inside information about what's going on.  Sad really, but then everyone's batting hard to up their profile appearing in the local paper on all sorts of pretexts, some relating to projects they're little involved in.   Must be coming towards the end of the current council and we all have just a year to win the popularity stakes again - May '25 elections.

Thank you for being a WONDERFUL group of members here on the Coffee Shop.  We have issues with railways and transport and different views between ourselves but - worlds apart!

 

You could save yourself a bit of trouble by using a noun with the same singular and plural form.

"Vexatious Sheep" doesn't really work, but "swine" might, though.

 

Hmmm ... I'm in complete agreement that "interactor" is naff.  However, user / member / poster are all terms which could be argued by a vexatious person - "I don't consider myself to be a poster any longer because my account is locked - so you can't designate me as a vexatious poster".

I am tempted to go for "Vexatious person", and add a note that for the purpose of this paragraph, "person" also includes a group of people.

 
Both of those sound much better than "interactor".

What about "vexatious use occurs when a member ..."?

 
Sorry, I was looking for the pedantry section (or should it be thread?) but I ended up here...

 
Member?  In that they have to sign up to PM, notify, post etc...

 
Vexatious user.

 

You may ... and we considered that. However, we're also catching people who sign up to "bomb" people via p.m.s, notifys, etc - so we were looking for a more general term.   Suggestions for something better that "interacter" that gives the wide coverage are welcomed - it's not "poster", not really "contributor" either, but it could be something else.

 
Can I suggest you change 'Interacter' to 'Poster'? It requires a bit less explanation!

 

Hi, TJ ... thanks ... better to get it accurate and we'll update it [within 24 hours?].   I'll be gobsmacked if anyone falls foul of it more than once in every five blue moons;  now's a good time to put in the safety net as there's nothing even on the horizon that might use it.

 
At the risk of falling foul of the new rule, I feel obliged to point out that there is no agent noun for the verb "interact"; therefore "interacter" isn't a real word.

And even if it was, it would probably be spelt "interactor"...

 
The forum agreement (what you agree to when you join) has been amended, adding an extra paragraph which describes how we will handle a poster (or other party) who sets out to waste the moderators' and / or admins' time in the future.  We have no such cases ongoing at present (in fact I can only think of one or possibly two times it would have been considered in the past 7 years), but the subject came up when I was reviewing terms for another (new) interactive site I'm advising on, and I've learned the practise from the BBC and Local Ombudsman sites.

* See {here} for the modified agreement

* See {here} for a longer background on agreement changes from the standard (via my blog archive)

* This amendment comes into immediate effect for new registrants for the forum, and in 7 days from now (08:00 on 4th March 2013) for existing members.

For quick reference, here's the new paragraph.   Long may it remain unused!