Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 22, 2024, 4:50 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rule Change (New Staff Power)
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: An idea I've seen used on another forum, is when someone is doing things to endlessly disrupt a forum but hasn't exactly broken rules per se, the person is only allowed to post in one subforum, and it's usually a subforum that acts as a 'time out' for problem members. There's a time limit, a few weeks, a month, etc. Once that time is up, the person is allowed to post back in the open forum, and then if they eff up again...they're banned forevah. The other members can interact with the person whilst they're in this other subforum, and so can the person, but that's the only place they can interact until they have 'served their time.' Just a thought, it seems to work well. Kind of like having cyber-gallows.  Walk the plank!

That was the point of Thumps sub forum in another group he was in. Two pages back, it's mentioned. Smile
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand. 
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 14, 2016 at 12:47 am)Judi Lynn Wrote:
(January 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: An idea I've seen used on another forum, is when someone is doing things to endlessly disrupt a forum but hasn't exactly broken rules per se, the person is only allowed to post in one subforum, and it's usually a subforum that acts as a 'time out' for problem members. There's a time limit, a few weeks, a month, etc. Once that time is up, the person is allowed to post back in the open forum, and then if they eff up again...they're banned forevah. The other members can interact with the person whilst they're in this other subforum, and so can the person, but that's the only place they can interact until they have 'served their time.' Just a thought, it seems to work well. Kind of like having cyber-gallows.  Walk the plank!

That was the point of Thumps sub forum in another group he was in. Two pages back, it's mentioned. Smile

lol I'll have to go back and see. 

Yea, definitely don't think it's the best choice, but mentioned it because I've seen that type of thing work both positively and negatively, but at the end of the day, maybe someone just needs a temp bad to learn lessons, you know? 

I was a mod for a short time on a religious forum, and honestly didn't like it. I didn't feel like I could just be me, but that people may have treated me differently as a mod. That site too had a strict policy of needing three mod votes based on certain 'reports' that would come in of members' complaints. So, many people might think that mods of forums just whimsically come about their decisions, but it takes a lot to ban someone or even consider it. Which is a good thing, otherwise, there would be an abuse of 'power.' My hat is off to the mods here, and elsewhere, it's not an easy job, sometimes.  Undecided
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 14, 2016 at 12:36 am)Heat Wrote: Seems like a good idea in theory but a bad idea in reality.

I can see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it.

Even in a perfect world where the rule is acted upon exactly as stated there is still a large opportunity for it to be abused in small or large scale, and to that point, any amount that it can be abused even if it's simply a staff member coercing someone to change votes/agree with them, is unfair in my opinion, given the fact that they are already being banned without breaking any rules.


Seeing as this has never even come close to happening in my time on staff, nor anything remotely like it, I don't think you're on the mark here.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 14, 2016 at 12:36 am)Heat Wrote: Seems like a good idea in theory but a bad idea in reality.

I can see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it.

Even in a perfect world where the rule is acted upon exactly as stated there is still a large opportunity for it to be abused in small or large scale, and to that point, any amount that it can be abused even if it's simply a staff member coercing someone to change votes/agree with them, is unfair in my opinion, given the fact that they are already being banned without breaking any rules.

Oh wow. What makes you have such a low opinion of the staff? This doesn't sound remotely close or even plausible. Come on.

It's already been said but I find it quite strange that this new power is announced specifically in the interest of clarity and fairness and yet people start accusing staff of being corrupted.
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 14, 2016 at 1:21 am)Vic Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 12:36 am)Heat Wrote: Seems like a good idea in theory but a bad idea in reality.

I can see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it.

Even in a perfect world where the rule is acted upon exactly as stated there is still a large opportunity for it to be abused in small or large scale, and to that point, any amount that it can be abused even if it's simply a staff member coercing someone to change votes/agree with them, is unfair in my opinion, given the fact that they are already being banned without breaking any rules.

Oh wow. What makes you have such a low opinion of the staff? This doesn't sound remotely close or even plausible. Come on.

It's already been said but I find it quite strange that this new power is announced specifically in the interest of clarity and fairness and yet people start accusing staff of being corrupted.
1. Never said that I had a low opinion of staff

2. Only said there would be a possibility of these things happening, which there is.

3. Never said this would happen, or even remotely said there was a high probability of it happening. I was simply pointing out that it has some flaws that could allow things like this to happen, not that it will allow things like this to happen.

4. Never said staff was corrupt.

5. Stop making assumptions and getting up in arms for no reason about what your own imagination conjured up as representing what I said, when in reality it's no where near it.

6. Sincerely, fuck off.
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?

Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
I'm not getting up in arms. I'm trying to not come off negative. Sorry. I know I do a poor job of it lately.

Maybe I misread you, but your initial post sounded like you were insinuating that the staff is biased and unfair. 'I can see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it', especially.

If that was not your intent then my apologies, honest mistake. Your post seemed to say that to me.
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
My minimum bribe level is a turnip.

But if you want me to vote specifically to have someone banned it will cost you $50 and a bag of m&ms...

... and a turnip.

Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:

"You did WHAT?  With WHO?  WHERE???"
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 14, 2016 at 1:27 am)Heat Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 1:21 am)Vic Wrote: Oh wow. What makes you have such a low opinion of the staff? This doesn't sound remotely close or even plausible. Come on.

It's already been said but I find it quite strange that this new power is announced specifically in the interest of clarity and fairness and yet people start accusing staff of being corrupted.
1. Never said that I had a low opinion of staff
Your entire post belies that. If you think that staff would or does engage in bullying and coercion, that is by definition a low opinion of the staff.

(January 14, 2016 at 1:27 am)Heat Wrote: 2. Only said there would be a possibility of these things happening, which there is.

There is also a possibility of me hitting the 'Purge Spammer' button on the bottom of every single post from every non staff member. With two clicks, I could wipe out any member and every post they ever posted. Any staff member could do that at any time. Wonder why it hasn't happened yet?

(January 14, 2016 at 1:27 am)Heat Wrote: 3. Never said this would happen, or even remotely said there was a high probability of it happening. I was simply pointing out that it has some flaws that could allow things like this to happen, not that it will allow things like this to happen.
What flaws does this power have that any other power doesn't? Are the other staff powers less susceptible to coercion or bullying or favor trading?

(January 14, 2016 at 1:27 am)Heat Wrote: 4. Never said staff was corrupt.

Then what is the problem? If you're not suggesting staff has some corruption, then how could you "see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it." Who on staff could you see doing something like that?

(January 14, 2016 at 1:27 am)Heat Wrote: 5. Stop making assumptions and getting up in arms for no reason about what your own imagination conjured up as representing what I said, when in reality it's no where near it.
Those are your words, no? Please tell me how your words mean something different than what they mean.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 14, 2016 at 1:35 am)Beccs Wrote: My minimum bribe level is a turnip.

But if you want me to vote specifically to have someone banned it will cost you $50 and a bag of m&ms...

... and a turnip.

Only if I get to insert the turnip myself.
You know guys, if one Aussie or Kiwi is nuked, we all walk. That's the ANZAC spirit in us.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
RE: Rule Change (New Staff Power)
(January 13, 2016 at 8:09 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Another option is they need 'x' amount of posts in a particular section before they can create new threads on their own. That to me has always been a prudent idea with newbies to forums.

I get that but it's my belief that putting up impediments to posting or creating threads has a chilling effect on new members. I don't think any of us want that.

It's certainly something that's possible, but in my experience, complicated configurations only lead to confusion.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information Staff Log - Bannings, Reports, and Other Actions Darwinian 3505 910987 8 hours ago
Last Post: arewethereyet
  PSA: Added to threats rule arewethereyet 10 4074 July 13, 2024 at 3:12 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  New Staff Moderator The Valkyrie 20 2997 December 30, 2023 at 8:25 am
Last Post: no one
  PSA: Hate Speech, rule 7 arewethereyet 24 4069 September 21, 2023 at 7:14 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  PSA: Update to necroposting rule arewethereyet 51 9548 April 3, 2023 at 2:33 am
Last Post: Goosebump
  PSA: The Necroposting Rule BrianSoddingBoru4 42 8942 April 6, 2022 at 3:03 pm
Last Post: brewer
  PSA - Clarification of rule #3 on doxxing. arewethereyet 18 4966 November 17, 2021 at 5:11 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Staff Changes BrianSoddingBoru4 32 8106 November 23, 2020 at 10:45 pm
Last Post: Rhizomorph13
  [Serious] Proposing A Rule Change BrianSoddingBoru4 24 5935 June 11, 2020 at 11:30 pm
Last Post: Ranjr
  The "Report" button, and how not to treat your staff. Jackalope 71 30994 February 9, 2020 at 1:50 pm
Last Post: brewer



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)