WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

The rules on thread creation aren't completely comon sense. It's implied that in Serious Discussion you'll be wanting to spark a discussion, but it's not totally clear that simply posting a link doesn't count as a spark. It's something which happens quite routinely as well.

In fairness, offending OPs are typically informed of this requirement in what's always seemed like a reasonable and non-threatening manner for first time offenders. It's really a matter of how much moderator time do you think you could save by laying out the rules in plain text.

 

Seriously no, not everything needs to be spelled out, but you yourself have said the Serious Forum is different to other areas of the forum. Expectations of posters is completely different to GD, as you say. So 1) where's the harm in outlining what those expectations are, for all to see, just as is the case in MP? and 2) it gives an opportunity to avoid or clear up any misunderstanding before it gets out of hand.

Wouldn't "Read the rules " possibly reduce the in-thread spats the OP raised?

Edit: or wot Sloth said

Not sufficiently, obviously, otherwise it wouldn't need moderating

 

^^^This please.

If I could have one thing for Christm..... Oh you get the jist.

It's not too much to ask, really, is it?

 

It might be easier to start with World peace

 

So true, so very true

 

Hasn't before.

The main rule for SD is the same as that for the rest of the forum, easy to understand and relatively easy to adhere to: don't be a dick. That's it. That's all. If everybody sticks to that rule, everything else is negotiable. Just don't be a dick. Simples.

So you'd think. But we have Dwarfer acting like our own Abu Hamza in SD; thehippoz keeps pushing the boundaries with his (homo)sexual schoolboy humour and posting video clips inappropriate for a family forum even though he has been warned several times over. Some people just keep pushing, pushing until the banhammer comes down and then it is all shock and indignant outrage. I think I can safely say that on this 35000+ members forum, 90% of our moderation is of no more than about the same ten members over and over and over.

 

Thanks , I should always proof read my posts but I do let that slip when at work.

+rep

 

Bad Longweight! For the +rep that is, not for letting it slip at work

The problem with that is a dick to you may not be a dick to me, and certainly wouldn't be to thehippoz There may be a general consensus of what comprises "a dick" but that consensus will change to a degree depending on the makeup of those in the general consensus, the subject matter and the "dick" in question

You say they keep pushing boundaries (I agree by the way) but when it comes to - and I'm not attributing these "labels" to the individuals in your example - a right wing bigot or a homophobic closet homosexual it is easier to manage when boundaries are clearly defined .

Mods edit out text in posts, leaving red comments for all to see as which boundary has been crossed, so how is this different to or why is that better than setting out ground rules in advance?

If they behave like children then clear and precise boundaries that you can point to, rather than implementing "mod variations" where personalities play a part or are seen (imaginary or not) to play a part, not only shows them what is acceptable and what is not (after all you're expecting an extremist of one ilk or another to be rational here) but it shows those who would argue against your decision that it's not "personal" and is "consistent". After all, this is a "family forum" with young teens on too, not just mature (young) adults - does that include you btw?

 

The risk of that is that we end up with a massive ammount of rules, much like a EULA, which members don't bother to read as it is, much like a EULA. Do we need a rule to cover every possible permutation of unreasonable or dickish behaviour just because some members can't (or won't) understand when a behaviour is unreasonable or dickish? You argue yes, and I can see your point, but on balance I argue no. The function of this forum is not to teach people how to play nice with others --nursery should have covered that bit in their early childhood. When you go out socialising in a pub or club you do not have to first agree on a lengthy set of behavioural standards --we all kind of know what is acceptable and what is rude. Same common sense and social awareness applies here (I know, I know, this is a geek forum, but still).

This is just my opinion, of course, and I'm happy to defer to the other Mods' opinions on this.

 

I for one like to read serious discussions but rarely join in, now Bit-Tech's primary goal is techie stuff (i assume), dwarfer has started 17 threads to date, 11 seem to be about Religion and Rights, get the feeling someone took a wrong turn looking for a site to play on

 

I'd love to see evidence of my posts 'abusing' other forum members!

In answer to this, it is not intended and must be how I come across.

 

Cool story bro!









Posts like those mate, people create thoughtful and reasoned responses to you, and you act like you couldn't give a toss.

 

Have you not picked up on this in the replies your posts get?

 

You risk ending up with a massive amount of rules only if you choose to implement a massive amount of rules. Sloth and I were suggesting one guideline to Serious Forum posting so don't exaggerate

And when you go out socialising to a pub or club you know the rules in advance: drinking hours, you might not be served if you're too drunk to stand up to order, you cannot smoke inside, start a fight and you'll be thrown out ..........

 

Uh-huh.

 

Well...

Stuff like that. Although I can appreciate that some of that was frustration about nit-picking on your grammar, in the context of replies like "Cool story, bro!" and your latest thread referring to members as "you drones who believe that..." and just generally blasting anyone who disagrees, it just reads like more of the same.

This is not about your opinions. I disagree with most of them, but I disagree with everybody on occasion and that has never stood in the way of a friendly but thorough debate. It's about how you come across. I'm happy to take your word for it that is not your intention but you let your emotions carry you away.

I'm happy to re-open your last thread (on the desecration of graves in Libya) if it can be rewritten a bit to douse the flames, and if we can keep it a rational and polite debate. I'm willing to do this because I think there is an interesting point in there that merits discussion, for instance:

In our eagerness to overthrow undesirable regimes, are we really helping people fight for the same democratic values we embrace, or are we naively helping opportunist extremists seize power instead? Is the enemy of our enemy always our friend? Are we simply being used? Or are our governments cynically jumping into bed with just anyone who will be willing to do business with them, regardless of their extremist views, as happened in Iraq and post USSR invasion Afghanistan (when Taliban leaders were the esteemed guests of the State of Texas, brokering oil and gas deals)?

I (Dwarfer) am concerned that extremists are exploiting us for their own agenda by dangling the carrot of democracy in front of our noses.

See the difference? Less rant and flame, more powerful argument.

 

The internet can be a nasty place at times but not all those that get labeled as "trolls" are looking to cause offence. It's hard to remember this when the insults and immature put downs start flying, and so many of us find it easy to wade into arguments with the best intentions only to later find we're adding fuel to the fire.

Nobody's immune to this, not even the all powerful mods who I've seen inadvertently fan the flames on many occasions. There's even a wee touch of it in this thread.

When someone says something that you take offence to, be polite as you can and let them know you were offended. And if more forum members back the person causing offence than the person offended, turn your back and walk away.

The "Don't socialise with trolls and other such nasty beasties" option is open to all. If you stay to try and fight it out you're part of the problem.

</Gwen's Contribution>

 

The problem is that the Mods can't walk away. They are expected to deal with things.

This may mean that members may only see the banhammer slam down and think that was the first and only intervention, because they were oblivious to all the subtle, conciliatory approaches, the behind-the-scenes negotiations and the gentle encouragements that may have gone in for weeks but are not so easily spotted. No drama, see?

Sometimes people work towards a tragic outcome; they just don't do authority or they expect that "sooner or later I'll get banned anyway because the world doesn't understand me/has it in for me". No matter what you try, you end up suspending them in the end and that never looks nice.

Bruce Lee may have channeled General Sun Tsu when he said that to win without fighting is the acme of skill, but both knew how to defeat their opponent hard and swift when it was required.

 

One of the problems are that people are to easily offended these days, often to the point of using it with the intent to shut people up, same kind of people will also often resort to policing other people.

Edit:This post was a response to Guineveres.

 

What makes me laugh is people who say 'oh, just ignore his posts if they annoy you'; have you ever tried holding a conversation with a small group of people, and then someone comes along and starts shouting random nonsense into the conversation, or pokes people at random with sharp pencil? Not exactly easy to ignore ( regardless of whether it is the written or spoken word ), and using the ignore posts function is a non-sense as you then miss any insults or abuse aimed at yourselves.

I also know for certain that anyone who posts as much nonsense and abuse ( dailymail > copy & paste ) towards other forum members or entire cultures & continents wouldn't be tolerated & certainly wouldn't be allowed the freedom to continuously express such xenophobic and misguided/misinformed opinions. Freedom of speech does not extend to allowing outwardly racist remarks on a public forum- if dwarfer can insult a few billion people, why can't I insult dwarfer eh? = double standards & hypocrisy.

Ofcourse, if dwarfer wanted to talk about events recently regarding outwardly racist comments made by a black female politician towards white people ( = no one says much because they don't want to be seen accusing a coloured person of being racist ) vs any comment by a white person towards a cultural minority ( = white person is tied to a stake and burnt due to being un-PC ), then we might have a great thread & topic to debate. That'll never happen though...