Regarding updated guidelines..

[scott3x]

I'm glad that the guidelines are under a little scrutiny. I would like to make a point, however. In the guidelines, you state:
"NO TROLLING/CYBERSTALKING/FLAMING this can be repeated over and over again, some people just don't get it."

However, it's not on the list of things that will get you banned. -However-, insulting/flaming a -moderator/admin- is.

I don't think this double standard is a good one.

I also think we should hammer out -what- constitutes an insult/flame. I personally favor starting out with a list of insults that would qualify. This list can, ofcourse, be added to and simply because a word isn't on the list certainly shouldn't mean that a moderator wouldn't be able to ban/warn someone because of it. -However-, immediately after a warn/ban is issued, I do believe that the word should be added to the list.

The list I think we should start out with. No one should be allowed to call another the follwing terms:
1- moron
2- stupid
3- idiot
4- imbecile
5- well known swear words (not sure if we should specify these- perhaps if someone is warned/banned for using it, we could specify that particular word)

I'm also not sure if we should include things like:
"that's a moronic/stupid/idiotic/imbecilic argument".

Well, hopefully someone is interested in this little topic .

 

[Stryder]

I'm glad that the guidelines are under a little scrutiny. I would like to make a point, however. In the guidelines, you state:
"NO TROLLING/CYBERSTALKING/FLAMING this can be repeated over and over again, some people just don't get it."

However, it's not on the list of things that will get you banned. -However-, insulting/flaming a -moderator/admin- is.

I don't think this double standard is a good one.

I also think we should hammer out -what- constitutes an insult/flame. I personally favor starting out with a list of insults that would qualify. This list can, ofcourse, be added to and simply because a word isn't on the list certainly shouldn't mean that a moderator wouldn't be able to ban/warn someone because of it. -However-, immediately after a warn/ban is issued, I do believe that the word should be added to the list.

The list I think we should start out with. No one should be allowed to call another the follwing terms:
1- moron
2- stupid
3- idiot
4- imbecile
5- well known swear words (not sure if we should specify these- perhaps if someone is warned/banned for using it, we could specify that particular word)

I'm also not sure if we should include things like:
"that's a moronic/stupid/idiotic/imbecilic argument".

Well, hopefully someone is interested in this little topic .

Well the simplification is purposeful. Since in our intelligent community there are a few that don't read as much as they should or tend to ignore what's written, especially if it's lengthy.

As for Swearing and common Abuse words, to be perfectly honest it would be possible to make a site wide change where such words were Censored. The problem is that most posters here thing they are big, bad and ugly enough to know what's being said and prefer it without the site wide censorship. It is a shame it isn't used but it would lessen any Impartiality that moderators have to offer by being autonomous. (You can't argue with a filter.)

Obviously I can't just ban someone for being a bit fruity with their words, however if they are truly causing a poster duress (or the moderators a headache) they can be permanently vacated, if of course they don't take a warning as serious.

(I'd suggest if someone has a complaint with another poster they should PM me about them, I would say use the REPORT function but to be honest it tends to be quite messy currently.)

 

[scott3x]

Well the simplification is purposeful. Since in our intelligent community there are a few that don't read as much as they should or tend to ignore what's written, especially if it's lengthy.

Yep, sounds about right . I did read the guidelines in the past, but I definitely like the idea of shortening it; there's only so much a person can remember.

As for Swearing and common Abuse words, to be perfectly honest it would be possible to make a site wide change where such words were Censored. The problem is that most posters here think they are big, bad and ugly enough to know what's being said and prefer it without the site wide censorship. It is a shame it isn't used but it would lessen any Impartiality that moderators have to offer by being autonomous. (You can't argue with a filter.)

True. In some cases, however, it may be good to not have the filter; what if someone is quoting some notable who happens to use these words? Wouldn't want to have that censored as well. What's more, the english language is a large one and there are always creative ways of saying what you want to say even with filters. For this reason, I think it makes more sense to have something like a '3 strikes and you're out' rule. As in, someone uses one of the terms I mentioned and then get a strike 1, if they do it again, they get a strike 2 and third strike and they're banned for a bit (or a while, not sure how that'd work best).

Like driving points here in Ontario, Canada, I think that after a while, if they have 1 or 2 strikes, the strikes could slowly get reduced. Perhaps 1 strike could be reduced per month? That way people could essentially mess up once a month but if they do it more often then that, soon enough they'd find their account suspended for a bit atleast.

Obviously I can't just ban someone for being a bit fruity with their words, however if they are truly causing a poster duress (or the moderators a headache) they can be permanently vacated, if of course they don't take a warning as serious.

(I'd suggest if someone has a complaint with another poster they should PM me about them, I would say use the REPORT function but to be honest it tends to be quite messy currently.)

Ok, sounds but. -However- I would like to know what you think of the ideas I have presented in these threads- as in the words that I think should be blacklisted (when used against a poster instead of just quoting something in the news or what not) as well as the strikes idea.

This would accomplish 2 things:
1- people would know what is report worthy
2- people would know the consequences of breaking the rule.

 

[Stryder]

Ok, sounds but. -However- I would like to know what you think of the ideas I have presented in these threads- as in the words that I think should be blacklisted (when used against a poster instead of just quoting something in the news or what not) as well as the strikes idea.

This would accomplish 2 things:
1- people would know what is report worthy
2- people would know the consequences of breaking the rule.

Well it's possible future updates to the software at this forum could allow a number of things, however it could change forum radically. For instance using the reputation system. Should someone write a post that is worth posting you could give it rep and when they spam crap, well you get to de-rep for it.

It could be used to shift people through groups based upon their rep level, so some forums might not be available should their rep drop too low and that would be their own doing.

Of course the problem with such system is the "Sockpuppet" method of inflating rep or of course deflating it, obviously it would require certain rules to be developed where such conspiring could cause a permaban to an individual or group of people doing this just for kicks etc. (although saying that I think there is a way to limit the amount of rep a person has to spend each day)

There would still be the ignore feature, should of course people get too much. I will have a greater examination of those methods in my own forum.

I can't say if it would ever be adapted here however, since people seem to like the "simplicity" of this place.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Ok, sounds but. -However- I would like to know what you think of the ideas I have presented in these threads- as in the words that I think should be blacklisted (when used against a poster instead of just quoting something in the news or what not) as well as the strikes idea.

This would accomplish 2 things:
1- people would know what is report worthy
2- people would know the consequences of breaking the rule.

Well it's possible future updates to the software at this forum could allow a number of things, however it could change forum radically. For instance using the reputation system. Should someone write a post that is worth posting you could give it rep and when they spam crap, well you get to de-rep for it.

It could be used to shift people through groups based upon their rep level, so some forums might not be available should their rep drop too low and that would be their own doing.

Of course the problem with such system is the "Sockpuppet" method of inflating rep or of course deflating it, obviously it would require certain rules to be developed where such conspiring could cause a permaban to an individual or group of people doing this just for kicks etc. (although saying that I think there is a way to limit the amount of rep a person has to spend each day)

I think you mean per nick, but as you mention, sock puppets can get around such a restriction. You could, ofcourse, only allow people who have posted 100+ posts, say, to be able to assign rep to others and also have neutral/positive rep themselves. Sock puppets could still do it, but atleast they've have to work at getting those 100 posts and at the same time doing it in a way that makes it so that they don't get negative rep. To tell you the honest truth, I think one of the ways of keeping things honest is that everyone be able to see who gave rep to whom. Perhaps people should be able to give one negative and one positive rep point per day, although one need not be obligated to give either.

There would still be the ignore feature, should of course people get too much.

Yeah, that ignore feature sounds good; I've never used it here, but I have used it in a chat forum.

I will have a greater examination of those methods in my own forum.

I can't say if it would ever be adapted here however, since people seem to like the "simplicity" of this place.

I still maintain that I think some rules should be made as to what constitutes something that should be reported and what actions should take place for a valid report. Anyone else think so? Ofcourse, perhaps many here enjoy the freedom of insulting others