Rules and Moderator information

[Some Schmo]

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. I thought your second rule was vital, and temporary bans need to be back on the table.

I'm only saying that I don't think we need wholesale changes, just the tweaks needed to squash the trolls.

[Marcus]

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. I thought your second rule was vital, and temporary bans need to be back on the table.

I'm only saying that I don't think we need wholesale changes, just the tweaks needed to squash the trolls.

I agree, any rule changes if necessary can take as long as needed to decide and formulate; the immediate issue is really just giving mods some enforcement power with regard to existing rules. Even 10 or 30 day bans given after a warning would work, i think.

In the long run, formulating a rule about trolling, or purposeful disruption of the communication process, as the term is typically used in current research, would certainly help. Even just as a warning, it would help to have that language on the table. Repeatedly, a few have complained that any opinion dissenting from a majority is what is defined as trolling, which is not true. Having that formally noted and 'disruption' clearly defined would hopefully end the interminable arguments over which "side" wants the trolling to stop.

[K Graham]

So then we should just delete rule #4 since we're all in agreement it has absolutely no meaning and can never truly be enforced?

I agree derailing is up to interpretation, but I'm not sure what's so radical or threatening by my proposal to have the OP decide what's "derailing."

A thread on Climate Change could technically "derail" into a debate over Green Energy. That might even be expected, and I doubt anyone would complain.

But a thread dedicated to Tucker Carlson relaying Kremlin Talking Points, immediately turning into a long winded discussion between one troll talking to himself about Progressives wanting to indoctrinate black babies? The OP should decide.

[Some Schmo]

So then we should just delete rule #4 since we're all in agreement it has absolutely no meaning and can never truly be enforced?

I don't necessarily think it's a bad rule. It's just got a wide potential for interpretation is all.

I agree derailing is up to interpretation, but I'm not sure what's so radical or threatening by my proposal to have the OP decide what's "derailing."

I don't think that's radical. I do see a potential for conflict, however, if the mods and the OP disagree on what constitutes a derail in any given thread. If we say the OP gets to decide, everyone becomes a mod of their own thread. That can't be good, can it?

A thread on Climate Change could technically "derail" into a debate over Green Energy. That might even be expected, and I doubt anyone would complain.

Part of the problem inherent in this rule is that someone might speak to the thread's topic, but introduce a new thought, and someone else could respond to the tangential thought which can unintentionally take the discussion away from the OP. It's all part of the natural progression of any conversation.

But a thread dedicated to Tucker Carlson relaying Kremlin Talking Points, immediately turning into a long winded discussion between one troll talking to himself about Progressives wanting to indoctrinate black babies? The OP should decide.

Yeah, that's an obvious disruption and should be easy for the mods to handle.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

We enforce rule 4 all the time.

[K Graham]

I don't think that's radical. I do see a potential for conflict, however, if the mods and the OP disagree on what constitutes a derail in any given thread. If we say the OP gets to decide, everyone becomes a mod of their own thread. That can't be good, can it?

Not sure how it could be bad. If someone is so determined to talk about something else, they can easily start their own thread. Problem solved.

Part of the problem inherent in this rule is that someone might speak to the thread's topic, but introduce a new thought, and someone else could respond to the tangential thought which can unintentionally take the discussion away from the OP. It's all part of the natural progression of any conversation.

Agreed, which is why I doubt this rule would ever apply or be enforced except in rare occasions when notorious trolls are trying to derail.

But I've been on forums before where the OP had control over his own thread. It didn't cause any issues, but made things far more pleasant and organized. If some idiot wants to rant about something else, he can start a thread about that subject. Usually it ended up being a thread that would quickly die because no one else wanted to discuss it. But when injected in someone else's thread, people have little choice but to deal with its presence.

[Dr Exiled]

It would be great to hear from the moderators, I agree. And I add my thanks too for all Shades has done. Hopefully our board can return to a place to communicate without the disruptions of trolls so our community can continue.

I learned of this when I logged in just now. It’s both unexpected and disheartening. I’m sure you’ll be hearing from us after we’ve huddled and agreed upon any changes we make regarding the rules or how they are enforced.

Whatever you decide on Res, I hope you continue to allow respectful opposing opinions. Let's regulate tone rather than content. I'm for a certain decorum where an opinion can be expressed by the least of us without the danger of being ridiculed for being inarticulate or for engaging in wrongthink. However, all need to express themselves as adults would. Courts require respectful dialogue and in Congress the level of dialogue is wider. However, there are still rules of decorum.

We live in a world where Twitter and Facebook selectively edit out opposing opinion because it doesn't fit the controlled narrative. MD&D does the same regarding Mormonism. I'd hate this board to become an MD&D based on a different line of thought. Let's have a place where anyone can at least express themselves and not fear personal attacks and where the positions are debated.

[Some Schmo]

But I've been on forums before where the OP had control over his own thread. It didn't cause any issues, but made things far more pleasant and organized. If some idiot wants to rant about something else, he can start a thread about that subject. Usually it ended up being a thread that would quickly die because no one else wanted to discuss it. But when injected in someone else's thread, people have little choice but to deal with its presence.

Well, it's certainly not a hill I'm willing to die on. I wouldn't be opposed to testing it out, if we were voting on it.

[Res Ipsa]

I learned of this when I logged in just now. It’s both unexpected and disheartening. I’m sure you’ll be hearing from us after we’ve huddled and agreed upon any changes we make regarding the rules or how they are enforced.

Whatever you decide on Res, I hope you continue to allow respectful opposing opinions. Let's regulate tone rather than content. I'm for a certain decorum where an opinion can be expressed by the least of us without the danger of being ridiculed for being inarticulate or for engaging in wrongthink. However, all need to express themselves as adults would. Courts require respectful dialogue and in Congress the level of dialogue is wider. However, there are still rules of decorum.

We live in a world where Twitter and Facebook selectively edit out opposing opinion because it doesn't fit the controlled narrative. MD&D does the same regarding Mormonism. I'd hate this board to become an MD&D based on a different line of thought. Let's have a place where anyone can at least express themselves and not fear personal attacks and where the positions are debated.

I pretty much think of our role here as similar to the way the Supreme Court interprets the right to political or religious speech: reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. Minimal regulation of the substantive content of speech. In terms of respectful communication, the kingdom structure addresses that issue in what I think is an elegant manner. If one wants a completely respectful and focused discussion, we have Celestial and Super Spirit Paradise. If one wants a less focussed, less respectful kind of discussion, we have Terrestial and Paradise. And if one wants a knock down drag out fight, we have Telestial and Prison.

I think you raise a difficult idea when it comes to ridicule or mockery. I'm inclined to draw a distinction between mocking a person and mocking an idea. However, that breaks down when someone has internalized an idea as a part of who they are. So, I think we're always going to be doing a bit of fumbling around on that score. Mockery of a person is Telestial/Prison territory. Mockery of ideas I'm less sure about.

[Gadianton]

my suggestions are:

1) If Binger isn't banned already, he needs to be permanently banned.

2) A-Mike is simply going to play the troll war by whatever means he has at his disposal. If he can't get away with sexual insults, name-calling, profanity etc., then he's going to start as many "hit-and-run" threads where he provides no discussion as possible. Such as his latest Hannity thread.

If there is a way to prevent him from posting opening posts and/or limit the number of posts a day from from a moderator standpoing, then do so. I can help research the technical feasibility if needed. That is, if the mods don't want to ban him also, then at least perma-Q him like faqs.

Here's what's going to happen. The board is a little slow right now, there might be 2 or 3 ongoing threads. All A-Mike has to do is post one hit-and-run youtube video proclaiming victory with no discussion a day and the normal topics are floating in a sea of his filth, which is his only objective.

If you don't deal with him, people are going to keep these crisis threads going that they want to quit the board because of him so might as well just get together and do a proper job of restraining him. He's been given endless, endless chances. whatever errors on the side of harsh justice can't be wrong.