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.