Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I'm awake again! Hel-loooooo world! 
But the thing is, that's like someone coming into, say, an office environment where everyone slags the **** out of each other. Martin over there is a ginger so gets stick, Abdul is a devout muslim so we tease him, Sherry is a bit of a party girl and wears miniskirts so we all make the odd lewd comment. They all understand we are not being crass or racist and they accept and even enjoy this attention. And so on.
Now, into this office comes a new guy, Joe. Joe is not aware of the dynamic in the office. He's on work experience. Without bothering to get to know the people he's working with, Joe decides that everyone here is sexually harassing Sherry, trampling on Abdul's religious freedom and mocking Martin. He reports them all and asks for rules to be set in place so that this does not happen again.
What do you think the boss does? |
A forum is not exactly an office environment. I see drama and inane banter to the point where it's breaking the rules being allowed to spill to various threads here and I find it to be pretty disruptive. If you're here for drama and inane banter, of course that is great. If you're not, it blows. Does that make sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
To be honest, if you're talking about people who can't be bothered to stay around and see how people are, or talk to them if they offend them, then I'd say let them go, but I would not change the whole system for the sake of a minority.
|
I am talking about everyone who might not like it - short term, long term, potential members, new members, old members. I am suggesting a strategy that changes things in the long run. Based on discussions I've had in the past with other members, it is of my opinion that some members have left because they don't like the culture that has developed here (forgive me if I don't give names). So, I think the current environment is turning away people, generally making the community smaller with each passing year.
I've seen it happen to other communities, particularly in one I modded before coming here. In that community, mods and members became too friendly. I finally left after another mod had shared his login with a normal member and that member used the mod account to edit another user's post. I took it up with the mod team at the time, but they thought it was funny. In other words, no punishment and no integrity. While this lax attitude was allowed to continue, "normal" members left over time and the ones left (the loud kids) had a cliquey and often unfriendly tone. The community shrank and became less active while at the same time becoming more exclusive. Today, it is basically dead.
Musicbanter is not that far gone at all, but the above is a common state many forums gravitate towards as they age. I believe MB is also gravitating towards that, even if it would be years in the future. It is not a healthy development and you need some systems in place to prevent it. A good system could even reverse that development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
But you can't have it both ways. What you are proposing is an enforcement of the rules than cannot be described any way other than draconian. It leaves little or no room for judgement and no leeway: the rules are absolute and must be applied. That is going to result in the kind of situation described above.
|
To me, draconian means enforcement of laws that are particularly severe and cruel. I believe that's the general definition. There's nothing out of the ordinary severe or cruel about the system I am proposing. Generally speaking, it is a forgiving system that will give punished members a lot of chances for improvement.
Your persistent use of the word draconian is a misrepresentation, hyperbole or fallacy that you're conveniently using to give power to your argument. It is simple manipulation and I wish you would respect my suggestion enough to not stoop to such cheap tricks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
Well I gave you an example, but if you have to actually see it http://www.musicbanter.com/members-j...ml#post1500511
Now would that be allowed? Because it's in context, used in fun but it is very graphic. Yes, I could have spoilered the pictures but that would be sort of defeating the whole idea of the article (Satan does not use Spoilers!)
or there's my review of "Nazis at the Centre of the Earth", a stupid B-movie but which contains some really graphic gory pictures, one or two of which I used but spoilered. Given that both are integral to the articles, is there leeway within the rules to allow this? Can it be an unwritten rule "no gore or porno unless instrinsic to the writing"? I mean, some of Batty's posts in his comic book journal could technically be said to be porno. So where do you draw the line, and who draws it? |
I think a reworking of the rules should be done in cooperation with admin (or Yac on admin's behalf) and the mod team. If a mod doesn't know where the line should be drawn, he or she could get more input from other mods. Possibly, there should be a thread with various examples of rule breaking and how they should be dealt with for general guidance.
edit :
As I mentioned before, I wouldn't mind helping out with implementation, at least during a transition period to get it up and running. It would entail work such as reworking the rules, informing the community, writing up rules, guidelines and examples and finally enforcing the rules by handing out infractions. Just maybe I also know of another ex-mod who could possibly be persuaded to come back and help.