^From my perspective, it shouldn't even be a rule. Who cares if a few members go off topic for a few minutes in a thread. That's not something that needs to be infracted, otherwise you're basically just giving people a reason not to want to post with their friends which in turn will bring the amount of posts per day way down, and a lot of the enjoyment at this forum would be gone.

And how would you feel about a policy that enforces rules for all members equally and consistently if the short nonsense rule was eradicated?

I don't really think much of it when the rules as they stand seem to be doing a good job at keeping this place as civil as it is. The mods do the dirty work behind the scenes when it comes to drama and posts that really don't serve much purpose to a thread but at the end of the day, people are always going to go off topic in threads that it doesn't belong in. It's human nature. Nothing you can do about it. I don't really see a need to change anything about it. It's like changing something good to hopefully have it be better, but only to find that the better is actually worse.

I think the only deep seeded issusse that we a forum should make an effort to be nicer to eachother .Not talking about horsing around. But like when **** gets real,and we if we can do that we are on the right track.

@ neo dude this isn't the thread to giff. Makes you look like you can't police yourself. Just sayin.

I'm pretty sure I answered this question long ago in this thread, but my answer is that I don't have the same all or nothing perspective on the rules that you do. Yes, I believe that that short/nonsense rule should exist but no I don't believe it should be enforced on every individual instance of a short/nonsense post. It exists because we need a way of addressing the issue of people who have a pattern of posting nonsense constantly, but people doing it occasionally isn't an issue. It's like a city having a noise ordinance on the books. It would be absurd, even detrimental the culture of the city, to have the cops show up every time someone has a party, but you need the rule on the books for people who do it so often that becomes a nuisance.

I too gave my views: perspective and context man. Jansz's use of the smiley and my shycouch, to say nothing of Batty's flowers and dynamite, sorry, candle, are examples of when a one-word/smiley post can be used without derailing the thread and can actually add something to it, if you know the person and what they're trying to say.

I've no issue with "lol" or "wtf" posts, in fact I've no issue with any posts other than spam or openly (openly, not jokingly) offensive posts. "You're a prick" said to someone who knows how it take it is fine. "You're a prick" said to a new member, or someone who can't take a joke or doesn't understand it, is not, and the member posting should be able to make the distinction. F'r instance, there are plenty of people to whom I could post "oh just **** off will you, you know that's not what I mean", and they would not get offended by use of the expletive. But there are some who would get offended, even report me, so to those people I would respond differently.

As I said already, one size does not fit all and a one-word or even nonsense post can be very acceptable in any thread, as can gifs or YouTubes, as long as their intent is understood.

You know my position with the rest of your rules, so I won't repeat myself.

:laughing: I was thinking the exact same thing.

Trollheart, I think you may be missing something. Did you see the question I asked Ki?

The short posts rule is not actually part of my proposition. I'm not against it, but it's not "my" rule.

Hehe, I don't think we see things that differently. The boldened part of your quote is sorta what the proposed system does.

It's not dangerous to get infractions as long as you don't get too many. In other words, you could post nonsense posts now and then. But if you have a "pattern of posting nonsense constantly", you'd get tempbanned.

People insist on taking offense to any infractions at all, but as I've mentioned before, one could instead see it as a measure of freedom. If you've got 8 infractions, you don't have as much freedom and should wait a bit before posting more nonsense. If you have 0 infractions, you can post more nonsense. Just play it smart and try to keep up with the score.

If mods wanted to be more lenient than my initial proposition, you could say breaking the short post rule gives you 1 infraction for 1 week. Then you could break the rule 9 times in a week without real repercussions.

Tore: Since the no vote outweighs the yes is it safe to admit that people are just not that into your idea.
No disrespect but poll hasnt changed. Id say scrap your idea and try a new one.

I don't think it's time yet. I'm not sure if you know what the common development of a discussion is like, but getting to the point where it's actually fruitful and constructive can take a while. I have the patience and determination to get to this point and I basically think we're getting there. This could be the best part.

In my last post, I pointed out to Janszoon that our goals may not be so different. It seems to me we pretty much want the same thing regarding nonsense posts and a misapprehension that this was something we disagreed on may now clear up.

Similarly, Ki and Trollheart have treated this discussion as if the suggestion includes punishing all friendly banter through the no nonsense posts rule, but that is not necessarily so. I've now pointed out that if there was no rule against nonsense posts, there would be little reason to punish nonsense. Perhaps this information will make them change perspective? Also, I believe they've yet to acknowledge or consider that even with that rule in place, getting infractions for breaking it may not be a big deal as it could require repeated rule breakage in a short time span to really get punished. This is another point I made in my last post and also one I am hoping they will pick up on.

So, in other words, I think this discussion is still progressing along nicely if not better than ever.

Edit : I think the overall tone is improving too.

Smh.But honey people still don't like it ,I didn't say quit I said back to the drawing board.

But for the sake of not brow beating folks into submission why not try and change your idea like over haul not tweak it.Thats true compromise, not just tweaking and retweaking the same shot down idea over and over.

You've persistently asked me to quit several times now. I hope it's alright that I ask you to quit asking me to quit. I'm sorry, but I still think we could be headed in a direction that could really benefit this site and that's more important to me than your wish for me to quit.

The infractions system is not something from my drawing board either. It's really something the developers of vbulletin came up with. Even if I went back to the drawing board, I can't feasibly develop new features for this forum and so it's probably better to really utilize the options we got here.

So basically, until everybody agrees with you about your proposal, you're not going to drop it and move on. That's pretty much exactly what I expected. It's also evident from your "new poll" in the other thread that you're just going to keep trying to shove your ideals for a "perfect forum" down people's throats until they either agree or leave.

I'm honestly surprised that this has even been allowed to go on for this long. I'd have thought somebody would have pulled the plug on it and discussed things with you via PM, but obviously that hasn't been the case.

I'm also curious as to why a member like you, whom really hasn't been very active in the past year or so, feels the need to suddenly come back to the forum, only to try to push the idea of new rules. If what you want goes through, would you be a more active member? Or would you just leave us all the the dust to fend for ourselves with the new system that you'd get implemented?

Well, let's get that new poll up with the two week time limit. If it fails, then the discussion will be over. Or we find tore and kick his ass.

No, not quite. I want to try and make people understand the proposal and what it could mean for musicbanter. If someone understands it and they're of the opinion that it's a bad idea, then that's fine. I can respect that opinion. However, if am presented with a problem, I might suggest a solution. If I am confronted with fiction, I might point out the facts. Basically, I like discussing things.

As a side note - if you wanna kill this thread, you should just stop contributing to it.

The new poll was actually Freebase Dali's idea (and a good one too). He's been kind enough to offer constructive feedback, some of which I have agreed with and followed up on.


I'm just doing Lord Cthu... I mean, I missed some of the discussions on MB, particularly the philosophical, moral, sciency ones, so I came back. Pushing new rules is not the only thing I've done, but I guess it is typical of me. I do have a fair share of threads suggesting new features, policies and so on. People who know me are probably not surprised.

If the proposed system was adopted, or more likely one of the compromise solutions, I assume I would generally become more active. Perhaps I could get the prog & fusion album club or a journal going again.

Right, tore has accused me --- well, accused is probably too strong a word: he's intimated that I do nothing but complain and find fault with his rules, but come up with none of my own. So I've thought about it and this is what I've come up with. It's based on the infraction system used in football (Disclaimer: when I say football here I'm referring to real football, not the type you Americans wear suits of armour to play! And no, I will not call it soccer!) ;) and works like this:

During a game there are many things a player can do to find himself in the referee's notebook but, and this is important, this does not always happen. In order for the game to flow and for people to feel comfortable about making tackles, winning the ball etc there is some leeway, so whereas a bad tackle might be frowned upon, it may not necessarily be punished. When it is, a player is handed a Yellow Card. This means he is on licence; do it again and he's off. Two yellow cards equals one Red, after which the player is dismissed from the field and cannot take part in any more games for usually three matches.

In order that nobody goes mad throwing about Yellow Cards and half the teams are off the field, refs use their judgement. They, or the linesmen at the side, will note if something illegal or unwanted is done, and the player may be warned, or jut get the eye from the ref. He knows he has been spotted, and had better watch himself. After usually one warning, maybe two, or if he does something that cannot be excused, he gets a Yellow. If it's really bad he can get a straight Red, which effects his immediate expulsion from the pitch.

My idea reflects that. Say someone starts acting up. A mod can say “stop it, we're watching you” or similar, in the thread, to that member. If he or she does not stop, or does something else, then a Yellow Card is issued. Now, this is issued within the thread, in the open, not by PM, so that all can see it. Everyone now knows that Member A is on probation. If he or she steps out of line again, or fails to heed the warning, he or she gets a Red. This then would probably mean a week's ban.

How does this differ from our current system of infractions? Not that much, but the important part is that it's all done out in the open, where everyone can see, so not only has Member A got the message, and can't say he or she was not warned, but everyone else has seen him or her get it, so any complaining or whining later that it wasn't fair will be greeted with derision. We've all seen him or her ride the limits, be told to stop. We've seen him or her get the Yellow, so there can be no doubt they knew they were on a serious warning. In extreme cases, two Reds could make a Black Card (I think they do this in rugby?) which might then mean a month's ban for really bad or repeated behaviour that flouts the rules.

This may be seen as more work for mods, I don't know, but is it any more work than PMing everyone who needs an infraction? You're in the thread, you see the problem, you can deal with it there and then. It's in the open, there are no closed doors or kangaroo courts, nobody can be accused of having a vendetta against anyone, it's all there to see. In football, Red cards can also be appealed if the person feels they were given it unfairly, and this would be up to the mods to decide (if this system were adopted) but an appeal tribunal could be held, where the mods, in concert maybe with Member A and maybe anyone he or she offended or affected with his or her behaviour, could decide whether it should stand or be rescinded.

Look, I don't know: I'm doing this on the fly. But it seems on its face a fairer and more equitable system. If I go over the top and someone hits me with a Yellow card (even if I think I should not have got that card) and continue in that behaviour and then get a Red, what protest can I raise? And who will support that, seeing what happened? I think it 's better than someone disappearing off the board and everyone wondering where they went, and why they were banned. It also, to return to the football analogy, allows everyone not only to play nice but to play rough if they want, aware they are being watched and not to push it too far. Nobody's afraid to slide in with a tackle, but by the same token everyone knows that an elbow in the face will not be tolerated. This would of course apply to all members, as on the pitch the captain can be as easily carded as a defender, and the player costing seventy million can go just as can the one costing ten. And as in football, if the ref (mod) does not see the infraction then it can be brought to his or her attention by way of reporting. The mod can then investigate and see if the card is merited.

If this were to be implemented, I wonder if a yellow card/red card symbol could be added to the member's panel, like their post count, join date etc, just on a temporary basis, until the card has been worked off? Well anyway...

An embyronic idea, certainly, but on the face of it, what do you guys think? Would it work? Have I forgotten anything? Does anyone have questions, want to challenge it? What does tore think? What about the other mods?

All it sound like you're saying here it that you want to institute a much more laborious and intrusive system to do what it already being done. I don't see the point.

Jansz are you talking to me? If so, then maybe yes, but I think the point of the infractions, if they need to be served as it were, are out in the open where everyone can see is a better idea.

Or just keep the current system. I've already said I'm happy with it. I just wanted to show you all that I'm not just bashing every suggestion without trying to come up with an alternative.

Note: If I'm responding to old posts that have already been addressed, forgive me but remember the time difference. Also, I tried to address these before I went out to do the shopping today, but I couldn't, and I didn't want to rush it so I'm only getting to them now. Hope everyone understands.

Oh, and as most of this refers to Soulflower I'm sure it will be ignored by her, but for the benefit of anyone who is interested...

As others have said, you're doing the very same. And I have no idea where you got that idea, but that doesn't surprise me.
Because there was only one voting option, yes or no, and in the case where you feel mostly negative about something you go with the majority of your feelings and vote no.


She does that with everyone. She won't enter into debate with you unless you agree with her. You're a racist or a bully or worse if you don't.
You've just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph! Also, don't call people liars. It's not nice. I'd do it, but then I'm a bully remember? ;) What Yac said could be taken as not quite ambivalence, but he certainly did not come down hard on either side. He was, as Grampa Simpson once noted, "A little from column A, a little from column B"...
Apart from yourself of course.
Says the chief drama queen. :rolleyes:

For more, read on:

So someone uses a very light insult, not even an insult, a humourous observation (I don't quite understand it myself but I get the idea) and you want them fired? So how would you react if someone were to call you a bigoted old bitch? Note, I am NOT calling you a bigoted old bitch. I wouldn't do that, even if you were one. That would not be nice and I am a nice person. But if someone (mod or no) did insult you in this way, what would be your reaaction considering how uppity you get about a simple joke made at your expense?
How can you be minding your own business if you have just insulted a mod and told him he needs to be fired????

TH: Like I said, I don't care what she does nor what she thinks of me. I stand by what I said, it's a cowardly move.

No, I was replying to something Tore said to me.

Not what's already being done. What's not being done. You wrote it yourself :

It's not just that, but this seems like one of the reasons you might see a point with.

Yes, it is laborious and that's a valid concern. This is why the mod team would need more mods to pull this through and compromises like rules that allow for leaving the lounge forum more or less as it is would also help make it less of a chore.

edit :

I wanna get it up as soon as possible, but I'm a little worried that if I do it now, someone's gonna complain and ask for a third poll :p: So I wanted to wait a little bit and see if I could get some community green lights for the current poll proposition.

Seems I came back at the right time.

Trollheart, I really appreciate that you are thinking creatively about how you might prefer rule enforcement to work here at MB, using your *soccer* analogy. ;)

I think one problem with your suggested enforcement system, and the current MB system, is that it can become difficult with so many members and posts to keep track of who has been warned verbally in a thread.

In contrast, an infractions system like Tore suggests would quickly keep track of how many warnings a person receives through the system. This helps create a fairer system that "remembers" how often a member has been given warnings.

A second issue with the "yellow flags" idea, I feel, is that frequent verbal warnings in a thread disrupt the flow of the thread, can be misunderstood if the warning is given to people in general rather than specific members, and can easily be ignored by a member or members. I prefer moderation to be done mostly behind the scenes through PMs and an infraction system.

This current thread serves as a good example of how a verbal warning isn't always very effective. Janszoon gave the following verbal warning, asking people to stay on the topic of MB rules and Tore's proposals...

...but then just several pages later (after some posts between Chula and Jans to clarify whom his general warning was meant for), people made around 15 off-topic posts with critical, denigrating comments about Soulflower, culminating with this one, by a mod:

^ None of these off-topic posts that were putting down one of our members subsequent to Janszoon's warning were addressed by a moderator. This is an example of how verbal warnings weren't handed out equally in the thread, and of how a verbal warning to stay on-topic did not stop the thread from going off-topic later.

I agree with Soulflower in wanting moderators to respond professionally rather than put a member down in the threads, especially when it is a member who is upset about that very moderator behavior which makes it hard for me to trust that moderators will enforce rules fairly and courteously.

***

Enforcing rules about off-topic, short, nonsense posts:

I think some off-topic comments of a funny nature are a real asset to MB and our community, as long as they don't take over a thread that has a specific topic for discussion.

For example, my favorite off-topic funny post in this thread was the one by Frownland, which made my inner 13-year-old girl/boy chuckle...

...but when off-topic posts are intended to jab and personally attack other members, then those posts, I feel, should definitely be addressed through an infractions sytem that can keep track of how many times an individual breaks this rule: "While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts or members deliberately provoking another member into committing any of these acts."

Verbal warnings and "yellow flags" in threads are imprecise and hard to quantify, and easier for members and mods, apparently, to ignore. The infactions system that Tore suggests would, I believe, help limit off-topic as well as personal attack posts in non-lounge threads.

EDIT: Welcome back, Terrible Lizard. I like your avatar!

Hmm. Thanks for your comments and taking the time to read it through, Vengealica. I do disagree though. If for instance a flag could be shown beside a user's name then we would all know that he or she was on a warning. If the mods have to pick out a user from a thread and send a PM to them advising of an impending infraction (I do not, heartily do not agree with automatic, computer-assigned bans or even warnings) then I think that is the same amount of work, perhaps more because in the thread you can (or they can I should say) issue the demerit, warning, card, whatever there and then, not have to remember to do it later or remind the member why they were infracted.

As I think I pointed out, but may not have been too clear about it, I would envision it ideally working thus:

Step 1: Member A is talking to Member B and calls him a ***got
A mod says "That's not acceptable language. Knock it off."

Step 2: Member A then uses the word again.
A mod says "I warned you; your're on thin ice buddy" (if he or she wishes to give two warnings: that would be up to the mod. He could if he wanted go on to step 3 immediately after step 1)

Step 3: Member A continues in the same behaviour
A mod says "Ok mister! That's it! You have a Yellow Card!"
(That could be bolded) If possible, as I said, a Yellow flag or something could then appear on Member A somewhere. I really don't know the logistics of it, if it's easy or hard to do, but surely something could be done? Even a spreadsheet with names on it? I don't know, but something)

Step 4: Member A, now Yellow carded, remains the same as he was.
A mod says: "Another yellow for you and that's a Red. Enjoy your week off."

Problem dealt with, again in view of all participating members within the thread. No behind-the-scenes skullduggery or ulterior motives can be claimed or accused.

Also, I would like to take issue with your "I agree with Soulflower". If the mod is at fault for insulting her (and it was only a little one) is she then not also culpable for voicing the opinion that he should be fired? Is this not what tore is trying to bring in, and she an advocate of it: equal and equitable treatment for all, regardless of rank or longevity?

ahhmmm. let me stop you here, and explain to you why for example she don't respond because you guys came at her any old kinda way. In A.A culture ( African American) there are certain un written rules if you kinda adhere to. like you two wouldn't come at me like you do to her because you know I'd turn you into a thether ball. So you guys know how treat me, try treating her the same way and I betcha her attitude changes.

We talked about a lot of things and I attempted and was successful and every single point I made was heard and respected, because I took myself out of one mind set and approached it with another.

I understand that while most of us have people we can relate too, she doesn't, and that being said its easy to understand why she feels and responds like she does. likewise I explained that none of you guys are racist etc, its rather when she makes posts about the plight of the blackman 86% of you understand it intellectually vs empathetically, only because you folks can't relate. I

Huh? I was explaining the purpose of one of our rules, not writing a call for action statement.

Again, I don't see the point of a more time consuming and more intrusive system that does the same thing we're already doing.

I'd just like to point out that the thread meant to get the community involved in discussing ways to make it better is becoming so long-winded that almost nobody wants to read it anymore.

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean you apply the rules equally to all already? And that the mod team tries to react to every instance of rule breaking? Or is it that you're already using the infractions system in a consistent, predictable way so that punitive from one mod wouldn't differ much from a punitive action from another mod given the same situation?

Good points

Not only that... the moderators in this thread once again stood by, observed the attacking and did nothing. (which further supports my opinion that all the current moderators need to go). They address what they want to address and not all the issues pertaining to all the members.

When I go and retaliate against the constant attacking, I am "perceived" as the problem when in reality the moderators are not enforcing the rules on certain members like they should, I wouldn't have to retaliate.

Ironically, this is proving the points that Tore is arguing for.

The current moderators are not fair and do not show equal treatment to all the members. There needs to be new moderators and rules need to be enforced.

The behavior in this thread demonstrates that.

Jen that statement isn't fair.

Your logic is not welcome here dude.

I think it is a fair statement and thanks for your other post by the way!


None of the moderators have disciplined any of the members who have done the attacking in this thread.

One moderator oddly attacked me.

And one mod edited my font in one of my posts in order to appease you (by the way I would have done that anyway) but he didnt think it was as important to reprimand the other users that were attacking me.

*shrugs*

I look at all of that.

I cant make this up

It's also creating arguments and drama, which is something that the advocates of the rules system don't like. This thread is turning into the monster it wishes to defeat.

Chile how the hell am I supposed read the largest font ever through a cracked phone?

x2.

Roxy gurl did you read what I said? lol


I said that I was going to change my font anyway because you asked BUT he changed it before I could.

But I find it odd that he felt the need to immediately edit my post but doesnt feel its important to infract the members that have been attacking me in this thread.


In other words, I am trying to make a point.

All the current moderators, need to go, their corrupt and they show favoritism. All besides Goofle who is fair but thats it, IMHO.