Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
(This post was last modified: May 7, 2018 at 5:37 pm by Huggy Bear.)
That ones not a stereotype bud.
Anyways, is it too much to ask someone one who is accusing you of breaking the rules to explain themselves?
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 8, 2018 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2018 at 3:46 pm by Fidel_Castronaut.)
Speaking in a non-official capacity I would reject anything that made the forum become more ‘safespace.org’
I don’t want any topic to be out of bounds for anyone, ever. And I don’t want to see the staff moderating debating discourses either.
In an official capacity, I think we do our best to ensure some semblance of civility is maintained throughout the forum. Yeah sometimes things slip through the cracks but I think we get it right most of the time. And ya’ll love the banter.
But whatever passes we’ll adapt I guess.
Posts: 19644
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 8, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Bah... Tibs, make the subforum. Make me sole mod of that area and civil will be whatever I deem it to be.
Anyone not acting civil (by my definition of civil, and y'all will have to guess what it is... but I think that professor analogy is very close to it) will get banned from the sub forum for a week.
Second offense gets two weeks.
Third gets three... and so on. Maxes out at one month. I guess that's more than enough.
All properly logged in the staff area.
Running afoul of the remainder of the forum rules leads to standard evaluation of the foul.
Yay or nay?
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 8, 2018 at 7:30 pm
(May 8, 2018 at 7:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Bah... Tibs, make the subforum. Make me sole mod of that area and civil will be whatever I deem it to be.
Anyone not acting civil (by my definition of civil, and y'all will have to guess what it is... but I think that professor analogy is very close to it) will get banned from the sub forum for a week.
Second offense gets two weeks.
Third gets three... and so on. Maxes out at one month. I guess that's more than enough.
All properly logged in the staff area.
Running afoul of the remainder of the forum rules leads to standard evaluation of the foul.
Yay or nay?
I'd support this.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 10, 2018 at 12:55 am
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2018 at 12:56 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
Lets get real for a sec folks...who in their right mind would voluntarily choose to make themselves a target by playing the role of the proposed subforum censor. I can already hear the "why was I banned by X" and "X isn't fair" echoing across AF.
<insert profound quote here>
Posts: 5813
Threads: 86
Joined: November 19, 2017
Reputation:
59
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 10, 2018 at 1:14 am
In response to Neo's thought, it would be best if a violator of the rules was not ever banned from AF.org completely for breaching the rules there, but only banned from posting in the subforum itself.
The whole thing sounds like a headache for the mods, but, in reality, I see it (practically) as an issue that would only need to be taken care of every once in a while.
Posts: 1227
Threads: 6
Joined: September 17, 2017
Reputation:
23
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 10, 2018 at 4:56 am
Please ban me ahead of time from the civility subsection. Thank you.
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 10, 2018 at 4:59 am
(May 10, 2018 at 1:14 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: In response to Neo's thought, it would be best if a violator of the rules was not ever banned from AF.org completely for breaching the rules there, but only banned from posting in the subforum itself.
The whole thing sounds like a headache for the mods, but, in reality, I see it (practically) as an issue that would only need to be taken care of every once in a while.
We already have threadbans, But I thinkI speak for all the staff, that ultimately we are unnecessary forumwise. The reason we exist is due to diverging opinions that sometime someone will feel offended.
In a sciency way "We are doing our best to keep the pH level"
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 10, 2018 at 6:49 pm
(May 8, 2018 at 7:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (May 8, 2018 at 7:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Bah... Tibs, make the subforum. Make me sole mod of that area and civil will be whatever I deem it to be.
Anyone not acting civil (by my definition of civil, and y'all will have to guess what it is... but I think that professor analogy is very close to it) will get banned from the sub forum for a week.
Second offense gets two weeks.
Third gets three... and so on. Maxes out at one month. I guess that's more than enough.
All properly logged in the staff area.
Running afoul of the remainder of the forum rules leads to standard evaluation of the foul.
Yay or nay?
I'd support this.
Me too! Although I've started treating the whole website this way now... "now" being... since today.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 10, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Staff, can we do a trial run of the subforum, since poca volunteered to mod it by himself?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
|