Rules and Moderator information

[Res Ipsa]

Of course not, I understand. That's what I meant by a thread being overwhelmed by one person's responses, other people end up getting inadvertently excluded.

Hey Marcus! Including this post I’ve made 10 post today on this thread. You have made 12! Maybe you’re the one that needs to give Res a break!!!!

Please read the title of the thread. Marcus is asking questions about rules and moderation, which I am quite happy to answer. I consider it a worthwhile and productive use of my time.

What will not be a worthwhile and productive use of my time is moving your interruptions and clowning to the other thread.

[Atlanticmike]

Hey Marcus! Including this post I’ve made 10 post today on this thread. You have made 12! Maybe you’re the one that needs to give Res a break!!!!

Please read the title of the thread. Marcus is asking questions about rules and moderation, which I am quite happy to answer. I consider it a worthwhile and productive use of my time.

What will not be a worthwhile and productive use of my time is moving your interruptions and clowning to the other thread.

I read the title. Marcus was complaining about me taking up your precious time, I was pointing out he made more post than me yesterday. Give me a break Res! His post asking for a separate thread where binger and I can’t post was trolling!! He knows that and I find it hard to believe you couldn’t tell it was him trolling.

[Res Ipsa]

Don’t be trolled.

[Binger]

Don’t be trolled.

FIFY

[Kishkumen]

There is a bit of an echo chamber. It isn't because the posters are all progressive and not conservative, though. It's just vacuous so the thin propaganda broadcasts and soundbites that pass for discourse only get backfilled with more of the same.

Indeed.

Your behavior (note, it's that and not you nor is it your ideology) demands moderator action. And if anyone has turned on their friend Shades it is this immediate attempt to get yourself in trouble with the mods so you can imagine you proved a point. Congrats.

The problem begins with the definition of "friend." I am sure there are a number of people here who do not consider Shades a friend, and yet they are generally constructive members of the community. AM is insidious in his false misuse of friendship as a wedge in a way that is actually targeted at making people, especially Shades, feel bad for no reason. AM is not Shades' friend, and he has proven it here repeatedly in the way he behaves. But that is not the problem. The problem is how he has weaponized everything, including friendship, to destroy the community that exists here.

Community is not dependent on friendship as much as it is dependent on a certain base level of good will and desire to get along. AM's behavior strikes at the heart of community, and his twisted use of the idea of friendship is grotesque.

As for the mods, I imagine that one will be for banning outright. Another will be for a suspension and then banning on a next infraction.

I would go for the latter, if only to protect us all from summary action in the future. How we treat AM, regardless of his deserts, should be viewed as setting up the conditions for how each of us might be treated by others in the future. Beware of the weapons of security forged for others, as they can be used on us too. That said, he is a toxic bad actor with no genuine contribution to the board, and, it seems, destructive designs or at least feckless disregard for community.

[K Graham]

Here are just some ideas of mine, and feel free to agree, disagree or expand on them.

1. The existing rule #4 "Do not derail threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post" has never been enforced. Let's start doing that.

2. People who abuse their posting privileges by spamming the board with one thread after another with no apparent intention to engage the subject beyond posting a hyperlink, should be immediately reprimanded.

3. First time offenders are put on temporary leave for 48 hrs, second time offenders for a week, and third time offenders are banned permanently.

There are probably a half dozen more that I thought about over the years that don't come to mind right now, but I just woke up so maybe they'll come to me later. In the meantime, feel free to provide more suggestions.

[Kishkumen]

That's pretty ambitious, K. I mean, I have to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to derailing threads according to the definitions of some people. And some people have a very idiosyncratic definition of what it means to derail a thread. I have been taken to task by one person in particular repeatedly for derailing, and what I interpret that to mean is "how dare you depart from the narrow purpose I envisioned when I typed my OP!" And this is even when my comments are generally on the same topic.

I applaud your thought and desire to make this place better. I only worry about the possibly broad interpretation of the word derail.

[K Graham]

That's pretty ambitious, K. I mean, I have to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to derailing threads according to the definitions of some people.

Naturally any meaningful discussion is going to result in tangents, but I think we all know when someone is deliberately trying to derail. I think this issue could easily be resolved by allowing the poster who starts the thread have the final say as to whether or not someone is trying to derail it. Mods won't need to act unless the OP reports the issue to them.

[Some Schmo]

Here are just some ideas of mine, and feel free to agree, disagree or expand on them.

1. The existing rule #4 "Do not derail threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post" has never been enforced. Let's start doing that.

This one is very tricky, and requires sage-like wisdom to enforce. Some derails are intended to actually distract people from the subject at hand, but some can become very entertaining/informative. I suspect this rule has never really been enforced for those reasons.

2. People who abuse their posting privileged by spamming the board with one thread after another with no apparent intention to engage the subject beyond posting a hyperlink, should be immediately reprimanded.

No doubt.

3. First time offenders are put on temporary leave for 48 hrs, second time offenders for a week, and third time offenders are banned permanently.

That might be a bit harsh. I think a new poster should get at least a couple warnings before any disciplinary action takes place. This rule could apply to everyone who is currently registered, but newbs need a chance to get to know the board's culture.

I also don't think a permanent ban should happen to anyone who's broken any rule three times. A permanent ban should only happen if the breaking of the rules is flagrant and serious. Somebody who derails three different threads, for instance, does not deserve to be permanently banned. If #3 was referring to breaking #2 three times, then I might be inclined to agree, but I'm resistant to permanent bans. A year seems like a pretty decent punishment for serious infractions.

I don't know that we need a lot of new rules or rule changes (I'll reserve comment on #12). We just need to stop the idiotic spam we've been getting lately.

[K Graham]

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.