Changes to Rule Enforcement

Guybrush · 06-04-2015, 06:18 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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.

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.

**Janszoon** · 06-04-2015, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

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.

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.

Trollheart · 06-04-2015, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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.

Trollheart · 06-04-2015, 12:27 PM

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

Its no winning with some of you. Its either YOUR way or the high road. Tore has been very open and cooperative this entire time.

I am not what else you people want....really.

This is sad.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I am confused.

So your saying you agree with some of the suggestions but not ALL?

I don't see why you would cast a vote if you agree with some things.

It makes more sense to express what you agree or disagree with versus casting a all or nothing vote.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiddler

The thing is you're doing exactly that. I've been up to date on the entire thread and I can honestly say that there's nobody claiming the conversation never happened. It's not about what the poll is asking, but how it's being asked. My way or the highway doesn't work in a community like this. It's the iceburg that sinks the ship. Might not be a problem to start with, but water surely fills the cavities. And the last time I checked, ships filled to the brim with water don't float.

And I'm pretty sure you ignored/blocked me, which is just fine by me. I think it's a cowardly move but it is your choice to do so. Instead of responding to what I've said directly to you, you can just block anyone whose responses you simply don't want to see.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

You lied and said he did not agree when he did agree with Tore.

Also, he said its up to the mod and the community (collaborative effort) not just the community.

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"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolverinewolfweiselpigeon

This is why we can't have nice things.

Apart from yourself of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I am done with my points.

Yac agreed with the points Tore suggested but insisted that there should be a (middle ground) meaning the rules should not be strict but rules should be enforced.

In addition he suggested there should be a collaborative effort between the moderators and the members implying there should be no dictatorship (moderators) creating all the rules without collaborating with the community.

Tore has done that, period. This ain't rocket science, always want to start drama for no reason.

Says the chief drama queen.

For more, read on:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

But your suppose to be a MOD though talking like this?

First rule in cleaning this place up is getting rid of you off the team.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I hope everyone see's that KI is the one that bothers and instigates drama with me...I am minding my business and here he come, he cant help himself lol

How can you be minding your own business if you have just insulted a mod and told him he needs to be fired????

**Janszoon** · 06-04-2015, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Jansz are you talking to me?

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

Guybrush · 06-04-2015, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

we need a way of addressing the issue of people who have a pattern of posting nonsense constantly

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 :

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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.

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

So I wanted to wait a little bit and see if I could get some community green lights for the current poll proposition.

**Janszoon** · 06-04-2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

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.

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.

Guybrush · 06-04-2015, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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'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?

**Janszoon** · 06-04-2015, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

[/B]
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?

You asked for feedback on your comment that “the short nonsense posts rule should either be enforced or it should go”.
I responded that there is good reason for the rule to exist but only be enforced in specific, extreme cases.
You replied that, in essence, that’s what your proposal would do.
So I responded that, if that’s the case, I didn’t see the point of your proposal since it would involve a lot more effort and a lot more intrusion to do essentially the same thing we’re already doing.

**Exo** · 06-04-2015, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

You asked for feedback on your comment that “the short nonsense posts rule should either be enforced or it should go”.
I responded that there is good reason for the rule to exist but only be enforced in specific, extreme cases.
You replied that, in essence, that’s what your proposal would do.
So I responded that, if that’s the case, I didn’t see the point of your proposal since it would involve a lot more effort and a lot more intrusion to do essentially the same thing we’re already doing.

Your logic is not welcome here dude.