Changes to Rule Enforcement

VEGANGELICA · 06-02-2015, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yac

[...] So here's my take on this: I don't think a slightly stricter approach to rules would hurt. It wouldn't muzzle the forum at all. In fact I'm sure many folks would find it refreshing that they can actually discuss some topics in detail without having to deal with "funny" comments from members that couldn't care less and only came into the thread to mock it. Rules need to be applied to everybody equally, regardless whether he or she has 3 or 3000 posts, regardless who they are friends with. Additionally repeated rules violations should be treated seriously. We're all humans, we all make mistakes. We all sometimes get carried away. But when someone is hijacking a thread with his drivel again and again... maybe he should enjoy a week away from the forum. If he or she won't listen to reason, only a stronger punishment can potentially convince him to start acting properly. [...]

Yac.

Thank you, Yac, for offering your opinion that MB would benefit from a more consistent, slightly stricter approach to rule enforcement, one that would still allow people to enjoy off-topic banter and sharing honest opinions about each other, but would put a firmer limit on how much off-topic posting and bickering is allowed.

I feel that you, especially with your perspective as a super moderator, give very good reasons for changing rule enforcement at MB so that the limits are clearer and enforcement more consistent. I agree with you.

And thank you, Tore, and also a thank you to the moderators, for agreeing to create a poll so that we can vote on what we feel is best for MB after reading about and discussing the issue:

http://www.musicbanter.com/announcem...ml#post1597333

I agree with you, Tore, when you write: "The current and long-lasting state of affairs is driving people who want better behaved forums away from the site and so if the current environment is allowed to continue, support for this [proposed change in rule enforcement] would only dwindle in the future."