Rules and Moderator information

[Atlanticmike]

Not sure how we can hope to better the forum without at least some rule changes. I mean the whole purpose of this exercise was to get rid of trolls for a variety of reasons. If we don't create rules to that effect then mods are left to just act arbitrarily.

I agree with Kevin. Let’s do exactly what he says. It actually helps me and the threads I start.

[Atlanticmike]

We used to have thread starter rights at the beginning of this board.

My evidence.

There really isn't anything written in the Board Rules regarding starters of threads. As a courtesy, if someone starts a thread, Shades and I will normally consult with that thread originator before splitting a thread to ensure that continuity is intact.

As far as a thread originator asking an individual to leave a thread or not post in it, it is certainly within the thread originator's right to insist that a poster remain on topic. Since we're all adults, we should, out of common decency, abide by that courtesy if asked.

For example, in Harmony's "Ancient" thread in the Terrestrial Forum, I brought up a topic which Harmony felt was unrelated, and asked if I would refrain from continuing a discussion in that particular vein. I respectfully acknowledged her request, and posted further comments more directly on topic.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=1535229

Here is Shades on the issue:

Allow me to clarify: Opposing views are just as allowable now as they ever were. The only difference is that a thread starter may now set down certain parameters for his/her own thread.

In other words, if someone posts his or her testimony of Christ or the divine calling of Joseph Smith, you can't challenge that testimony in the thread itself. You are perfectly free to challenge everything he or she said, but you'll merely have to start a new thread about it in the Terrestrial Forum is all. Title it something like, "Challenge to ___'s testimony in the Celestial Forum" or something like that.

So you're still free to say whatever you want. Thread starters in the Celestial Forum are simply allowed a little more leeway to determine the venue is all.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=4&p=1640329


This is why I called to reinstate thread starter rights earlier in this current situation. It would solve a lot in terms of board etiquette. As I recall, I got no response nor a ruling on that.

Look. Jersey girl and I agree. Please give us thread starter rights. Question. Am I able to remove post I don’t like in my own thread? Would Ajax be able to start a thread and remove post by Kevin or Kishkumen when they are obviously trolling by calling Ajax a racist? If so, please give us that. I’ll recruit a half dozen or so conservatives or “not left leaning retards” and we’ll start meaningful threads that don’t have anything to do with the progressive cult narrative. I fill the board up with common sense threads and teach all the progressives how decent non Cult life actually works. And I’m serious Res & pancakes. Give me power over my threads and I’ll change the dynamics of this board. This is a positive

[Atlanticmike]

Hey jersey please explain thread starter rights to me. Do I get to control who comments on my thread? If not, do I get to remove a post if I don’t find it meaningful?

[honorentheos]

Not sure how we can hope to better the forum without at least some rule changes. I mean the whole purpose of this exercise was to get rid of trolls for a variety of reasons. If we don't create rules to that effect then mods are left to just act arbitrarily.

I'd argue the effect of more rules will not be less need for moderator judgement, but just more moderator work and people being angry when a rule isn't applied exactly as they believe it should be. Because people are like that. We're crap to our moderators. Making more rules will make that worse, not better.

I'd change the aim to be one where the moderators need to act as minimally as possible. All the rules in the world won't make a healthy board.

[Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, according to the link you posted, thread starter rights were very limited:

Not really, since, as Scottie stated, we're only talking about this occurring in ONE forum, the Celestial, and ONLY if a thread originator decides to place Faith Based in the thread title.

The purpose of the rule was to prevent non-believers from derailing topics started by believers in Celestial. Given how tightly we moderate Celestial, we wouldn’t permit that kind of derail to stay in the thread. In other words, the moderation practices have changed in a way that makes the original rule unnecessary.

Was this rule ever expanded to apply beyond what is described in the quote above?

[Marcus]

Here’s a perfect example of how trolling slips around the board rules and why evaluating trolling as intent to disrupt needs to be looked at as a whole, rather than post by post.

In the posts below, Jersey is discussing the history of OPs having certan thread starter rights, followed by a discussion of courtesies. AM follows his by explaining how he could abuse this type of rule to disrupt the conversational process of a standing community:

We used to have thread starter rights at the beginning of this board.

My evidence.

There really isn't anything written in the Board Rules regarding starters of threads. As a courtesy, if someone starts a thread, Shades and I will normally consult with that thread originator before splitting a thread to ensure that continuity is intact.

As far as a thread originator asking an individual to leave a thread or not post in it, it is certainly within the thread originator's right to insist that a poster remain on topic. Since we're all adults, we should, out of common decency, abide by that courtesy if asked.

For example, in Harmony's "Ancient" thread in the Terrestrial Forum, I brought up a topic which Harmony felt was unrelated, and asked if I would refrain from continuing a discussion in that particular vein. I respectfully acknowledged her request, and posted further comments more directly on topic.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=1535229

Here is Shades on the issue:

Allow me to clarify: Opposing views are just as allowable now as they ever were. The only difference is that a thread starter may now set down certain parameters for his/her own thread.

In other words, if someone posts his or her testimony of Christ or the divine calling of Joseph Smith, you can't challenge that testimony in the thread itself. You are perfectly free to challenge everything he or she said, but you'll merely have to start a new thread about it in the Terrestrial Forum is all. Title it something like, "Challenge to ___'s testimony in the Celestial Forum" or something like that.

So you're still free to say whatever you want. Thread starters in the Celestial Forum are simply allowed a little more leeway to determine the venue is all.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=4&p=1640329

This is why I called to reinstate thread starter rights earlier in this current situation. It would solve a lot in terms of board etiquette. As I recall, I got no response nor a ruling on that.

Look. Jersey girl and I agree. Please give us thread starter rights. Question. Am I able to remove post I don’t like in my own thread? Would Ajax be able to start a thread and remove post by Kevin or Kishkumen when they are obviously trolling by calling Ajax a racist? If so, please give us that. I’ll recruit a half dozen or so conservatives or “not left leaning retards” and we’ll start meaningful threads that don’t have anything to do with the progressive cult narrative. I fill the board up with common sense threads and teach all the progressives how decent non Cult life actually works. And I’m serious Res & pancakes. Give me power over my threads and I’ll change the dynamics of this board. This is a positive

His intent is clear, to disrupt conversations within a community by skirting the spirit of a rule while technically following the letter of the rule.

I don’t think we need more rules, just solid enforcement of the ones we have.

[Marcus]

AM’s posts are a clinic in how trolling as intent to disrupt is accomplished in a forum. Another statement of intent:

But go ahead and change the rules, i’m a chameleon and I can change my colors overnight. You’re going to have to get rid of me by deleting my account.

We already have a rule against disrupting the smooth operation of the board. It seems that was written regarding a more technical definition of operations, but it would be straightforward enough to expand that to allow operation of the board to include the discussion process within the board’s participants.

[K Graham]

Kevin,

Would you mind if I merged this thread into the Rules and Moderation thread? It would help me if we had all suggestions in a single thread.

Not at all.

[Atlanticmike]

Here’s a perfect example of how trolling slips around the board rules and why evaluating trolling as intent to disrupt needs to be looked at as a whole, rather than post by post.

In the posts below, Jersey is discussing the history of OPs having certan thread starter rights, followed by a discussion of courtesies. AM follows his by explaining how he could abuse this type of rule to disrupt the conversational process of a standing community:

My evidence.



posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=1535229

Here is Shades on the issue:


posting.php?mode=quote&f=4&p=1640329

This is why I called to reinstate thread starter rights earlier in this current situation. It would solve a lot in terms of board etiquette. As I recall, I got no response nor a ruling on that.

Look. Jersey girl and I agree. Please give us thread starter rights. Question. Am I able to remove post I don’t like in my own thread? Would Ajax be able to start a thread and remove post by Kevin or Kishkumen when they are obviously trolling by calling Ajax a racist? If so, please give us that. I’ll recruit a half dozen or so conservatives or “not left leaning retards” and we’ll start meaningful threads that don’t have anything to do with the progressive cult narrative. I fill the board up with common sense threads and teach all the progressives how decent non Cult life actually works. And I’m serious Res & canpakes. Give me power over my threads and I’ll change the dynamics of this board. This is a positive

His intent is clear, to disrupt conversations within a community by skirting the spirit of a rule while technically following the letter of the rule.

I don’t think we need more rules, just solid enforcement of the ones we have.

I have no idea how thread starter rules work. But if you’re telling me I have control over who gets to comment on my threads, i’ll change Spirit prison into one of the most positive forums on the Internet within a couple years. Remember, I voted for no rules a couple months ago I was one of the only ones who actually did. But please give me the ability to moderate my threads and I’ll change Spirit paradise for the better.

[Atlanticmike]

AM’s posts are a clinic in how trolling as intent to disrupt is accomplished in a forum. Another statement of intent:

But go ahead and change the rules, i’m a chameleon and I can change my colors overnight. You’re going to have to get rid of me by deleting my account.

We already have a rule against disrupting the smooth operation of the board. It seems that was written regarding a more technical definition of operations, but it would be straightforward enough to expand that to allow operation of the board to include the discussion process within the board’s participants.

Everything you’re clique has done over the past 8 months was done to get my opinion erased from the board. You want your conservatives more like Ajax. You Don’t want conservatives that are willing to act like asshole whiny progressives. Ajax is a nice conservative. That’s what you want. You no likey me because you can’t controlly me and it drives you insane.