Soulflower

I am confused?


Didn't you say you were going to ignore me a month ago?

But here you are harassing me still?


Yo for real what is your problem?

Key

^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.

Guybrush

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

__________________
Something Completely Different

Key

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.

RoxyRollah

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.

__________________

RoxyRollah

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

__________________

RoxyRollah

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.

__________________

Guybrush

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.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Trollheart

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?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

VEGANGELICA

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!

__________________