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?

The point is, that in a community such as this, you need, as a new member, to get to know people and how they operate. Batty is a prime example. At first, you'd think he was a dick, the way he goes on, but after a while, if you take the time to talk to him, you come to realise that he is in fact a dick. But he's our dick, and we know how to deal with him. Also, Batty would tend not to (I think) rib newcomers, as he doesn't know how that will be taken. He gives us **** (me mostly) because he knows I understand the context it's made in and I don't mind. Someone new might take offence, under your new rules, report him and the mods would have to infract him. Keep in mind, too, that this may be a member who has no intention of sticking around for long. So why does he get to say what happens instead of just digging in and seeing how the land lies?

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.

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.
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?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Guybrush

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?


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.


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.


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.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Trollheart

Alright, well find fault with my descriptions if that's what makes you feel better tore. These ARE draconian rules; they leave little room for interpretation or leeway, and black is black and white is white.

I'm not going to continue arguing the point with you, as I have far too much to do and you seem not to be really accepting my arguments. But that's ok. I think the biggest argument against your idea is that a very very small minority of people who have posted here have been in favour of it, the majority think things are all right as they are. I believe that speaks volumes, but will leave you trying to convince others. You won't convince me. I am dead against this whole idea. But there I'll leave it.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Chula Vista

Tore, take a break from this and get back to our chess game!

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Guybrush

As I've mentioned several times now, there's still room for context. If breaking a rule costs 3 infractions, just think of that as a general guideline. Depending on context, perhaps the final amount should be more or less. The most important thing is that mods do something so that there is consistent consequence to rule breaking. The point of giving pre-determined values to punitive actions is to make it simpler for mods and more predictable for members.


Alright, will do

__________________
Something Completely Different