Want to get rid of the popups??

[Shi Huangdi]

Even someone with a popup blocker helps pay for the site, they still the banner ads and the ads that pop up when you click on a link that leads outside of Apolyton.

[Skanky Burns]

Banner ads don't show in many styles. (Half, iirc)

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by alva
And btw, I have yet to experience Ming to ban anyone on a whim...

Someone obviously missed a certain thread that contained several heads, 9 I think...

[alva]

Hehe, true that.

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Banner ads don't show in many styles. (Half, iirc)

And IIRC, they don't bring in any money unless clicked.

Same goes for a pop-up btw, you need to let it load completely or it won't count.

[MarkG]

But, to be frank, there are plenty of other free bbs's out there without pop-ups and with just as lively discussions.

some links would be interesting

If the ads get much worse, people will just go somewhere else.

we are actually discussing reducing the ammount of ads if subscriptions work

[Arrian]

How much? That's really what it comes down to for me. What's the bottom line we're talking about here?

The popups are somewhat irritating, but I tolerate them right now, translating that irritation into virtual payment for use of the site in my head. Basically, posting at 'poly is worth enduring some popups for me.

But, depending on what they charge for this no-ad membership, I might consider it.

For those arguing they shouldn't get banned if they pay, That's ridiculous. The idea is that you're paying for a removal of the ads, and that's it. Allowing people to pay to get around the basic rules of the site is patently insane, and I assume Mark & Dan are smart enough not to do that. As far as I've seen, people get restricted for good reason. Some whine and
complain, but I see Ming warning people in advance, sending PMs, etc. It's really not that hard to follow the rules. Even in the OTF.

-Arrian

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Arrian
For those arguing they shouldn't get banned if they pay, That's ridiculous.

Just to be clear, my argument was for a stricter system of banning for paying customers. Makes sense, right? If you're a customer, more professional standards need to apply. Then again, implementing a proper system might cost more than what subscribers are willing to pay.

[alva]

Just to be clear, my argument was for a stricter system of banning for paying customers. Makes sense, right? If you're a customer, more professional standards need to apply. Then again, implementing a proper system might cost more than what subscribers are willing to pay.

No, I'm sorry but it doesn't. You(we) are NOT paying their (the mods) wages, they are all volunteers, as in they do this sh*t for free...

Dammit, think of it as a volantarily donation, nothing more..

[Locutus]

Originally posted by The Templar
Just to be clear, my argument was for a stricter system of banning for paying customers. Makes sense, right? If you're a customer, more professional standards need to apply. Then again, implementing a proper system might cost more than what subscribers are willing to pay.

Ming and the other mods treat everyone equally, you were treated no more or less fair than anyone else. If you or anyone else violates the rules by posting something hateful, discriminating or otherwise undesirable you will get banned.

How it usually works (and how it worked in your case) is that if you violate the rules, you will get a warning, sometimes even several (unless it's a very severe violation or you're a known troublemaker, then you may get banned straight away). If you heed the warnings, problem solved, everybody happy. If you ignore them, a mod will have a talk with you. If necessary you will be temporarily get banned to 'get your attention' (you were ignoring a mod after all, grounds for punishment in its own right). If you show remorse, promise not to do it again, or at the very least recognize you were in violation of the rules (and in case of doubt, the mods make the rules, so they interpret them as well), you will probably get away with a warning or a slap on the wrist (usually a 24 or 48 hour ban), assuming you're a first-time offender. If you don't do any of those things, you risk a (more severe) banning or some other form of punishment. If you disagree with the mod's decision, you can always contact one of the owners, who will then investigate the case and tell the mod to reduce or retract the punishment if it's deemed too severe. All of this is usually kept on record as well (in private, to protect people's privacy), for future reference and so that it's possible to keep track of what the mods are doing with their power.

If you have any suggestions on how this procedure could be made more 'professional', I would love to hear them and I know the mods and owners are always willing to at least listen to your thoughts as well. But frankly, I don't really see how (in fact, most corporate/'professional' websites I visit are a heck of a lot less patient in their treatment of rulebreakers).

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by MarkG
some links would be interesting

How about The Trek BBS, then? They consistently tell UGO not to serve them popup ads, with the sole exception of a "market survey" popup that periodically rears its head (much to the chagrin of most of the board's members as well). They're currently reporting over 5000 registered users.

In fact, at this very moment, they have over 500 members & guests on their board as opposed to Apolyton's ~300.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by alva
No, I'm sorry but it doesn't. You(we) are NOT paying their (the mods) wages, they are all volunteers, as in they do this sh*t for free...

Dammit, think of it as a volantarily donation, nothing more..

What we have here is an internal/external problem. Internally, from the perspective of the people operating the site, nothing changes. Externally, from my perspective, Apolyton becomes something of a service.

Ming and the other mods treat everyone equally ...

Equally shabby treatment is not a selling point.

If you have any suggestions on how this procedure could be made more 'professional'

(1) Rules of usage less subject to multiple (good faith) interpretations. I think whether or not the word 's****y' (rhymes with 'lobotomy') is "family friendly" is something reasonable people can disagree about.

(2) Getting banned for not immediately responding to a moderator's PM after I had logged off is going a bit far. I suppose it is one way to get my attention when I came back on, but I thought it was a bit extreme.

There's two things that could be improved upon procedurally, in my humble opinion.

My big complaint though is that getting banned from posting also cuts off your ad-free viewing. Its one thing not to be able to post for being an ass, another to not get the thing you are actually paying for.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by The Templar
(1) Rules of usage less subject to multiple (good faith) interpretations. I think whether or not the word 's****y' (rhymes with 'lobotomy') is "family friendly" is something reasonable people can disagree about.

And I'm sure you can do the same thing about the n-word (to describe black people), but that doesn't make it acceptable to use without careful consideration. But let's not open up a discussion that was closed a long time ago.

The rules of the site clearly state that anything that could be considered hateful or insulting will not be tolerated. What rephrasing of the rules would you suggest? Should we mention every single word that might qualify? That would be a very, very long list. But even then, I could easily be very hateful and insulting without using a single 'bad word'. So should we specifiy list every single word in every single context that could have ill meaning, every insinuation someone might make, every single topic and formulation that might be inappropriate? There's no ending or beginning to that list! And no matter what rules are drawn up, people will always find grey areas and will always try to get away with as much crap as possible.

And as I said, people who violate the rules (or the owner's interpretation of it, if you will) usually get one or more warnings and a talking to before being banned. More often than not, especially if they show understanding and cooperation, they're let off with a warning; usually we just want to make sure people understand (our interpretation of) the rules and won't violate them again. If that can happen without punishing them, all for the better. Otherwise it's their loss.

(2) Getting banned for not immediately responding to a moderator's PM after I had logged off is going a bit far. I suppose it is one way to get my attention when I came back on, but I thought it was a bit extreme.

I don't know the fine details of your case and I won't go into them, but normally you get a pop-up warning you have a new PM. Of course, if you use a pop-up blocker you might have a problem there. But then there's still the email warning and you can check the PM info manually. Personally I do this everytime I visit the main forum page (and I get pop-ups and email warnings too).

But regardless, if someone doesn't respond and there's even the slightest chance he might still be online, what other way of getting their attention does a mod have if he wants to talk to the offender NOW? And even if he's gone offline (or might have), at least he'll notice it as soon as he gets online again and he won't be able to happily continue to (either accidentally or deliberately) ignore the warnings. Some people never check their PMs at all and don't use the email address they registered with, should a mod wait a few months until someone accidentially bumps into the warnings? And since there's virtually always a mod or staff member online (as I said, usually this stuff is documented so everyone knows or can find out what's going on), the offender should never have to wait long for an explanation. In such a case, noone's punishing anyone (yet), the mod in question just wants to make sure the offender becomes aware that there is a problem. If you can provide a convenient alternative means of alerting people who can't be contacted, I'm all ears (god knows I run into the problem often enough outside Apolyton as well).

My big complaint though is that getting banned from posting also cuts off your ad-free viewing. Its one thing not to be able to post for being an ass, another to not get the thing you are actually paying for.

Well, when you signed up here (and later if you sign up for ad-free usage of the site), you agreed that you would follow the rules set out by the owners. If you violate those rules, you don't keep up with your end of the agreement, so why should the owners keep up with theirs? If you're making trouble in a cinema, theatre, stadium or similar place, you'll get thrown out without a refund as well. Only makes sense, if you ask me.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Locutus


And I'm sure you can do the same thing about the n-word (to describe black people),

I doubt we are thinking of the same word.

The rules of the site clearly state that anything that could be considered hateful or insulting will not be tolerated.

I really doubt we are talking about the same word.

What rephrasing of the rules would you suggest? Should we mention every single word that might qualify?

I assume the FCC guidelines are what the mods are looking for - just stick to prime time language. Also, most words that are forbidden are already blocked.

There's no ending or beginning to that list! And no matter what rules are drawn up, people will always find grey areas and will always try to get away with as much crap as possible.

Again, I think good faith interpretations of the rules are fairly distinguishable from gamesman-like interpretations.

And as I said, people who violate the rules (or the owner's interpretation of it, if you will) usually get one or more warnings and a talking to before being banned.

That's nice, but I'm not a mind reader. Like everyone else, I take my cues from the standards set by others in the community. I assume if an activity is widespread and does not lead to banning that if I engage in it it will not lead to my banning.

More often than not, especially if they show understanding and cooperation, they're let off with a warning;

Now I will plead guilty to being belligerent the time I was banned - but that is not really the part I am concerned about. It was everything up to that point.

I don't know the fine details of your case and I won't go into them,

Hey, that's right! You don't. So why are we even having this conversation if you don't know what you are talking about?

but normally you get a pop-up warning you have a new PM.

I'm sure I would have had I been logged on. I know you don't know the details, but I did mention this one in my post.

But regardless, if someone doesn't respond and there's even the slightest chance he might still be online, what other way of getting their attention does a mod have if he wants to talk to the offender NOW?

I assume that, like me, Ming has a life. I might not be available now, and he might not be available later. So depending on the level of the offense, this might be cracking wallnuts with a sledgehammer.

Now, as I said earlier, I am going to exercise the option of not subscribing on those terms and instead play whack-a-mole with pop-ups. Is that ok with you?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by The Templar
I assume the FCC guidelines are what the mods are looking for - just stick to prime time language. Also, most words that are forbidden are already blocked.

Again, I think good faith interpretations of the rules are fairly distinguishable from gamesman-like interpretations.

Believe me when I tell you the list of censored words doesn't begin to cover what's not allowed, and could never do so. Unfortunately people are far too creative for that.

The things you mention are the exact things that the rules call for now: no swearing, good faith, common sense, that sort of thing. But according to you, that was too subject to "multiple (good faith) interpretations". What you're saying now directly contradicts your earlier post...

Hey, that's right! You don't. So why are we even having this conversation if you don't know what you are talking about?

I'm not even remotely interested in your banning, I couldn't care less about it. I'm talking about the general procedure when someone's banned, which is better here than on most sites I've been to, 'professional' or otherwise.

I assume that, like me, Ming has a life. I might not be available now, and he might not be available later. So depending on the level of the offense, this might be cracking wallnuts with a sledgehammer.

Like I said, there's almost always someone online here. There's a reason the OT has 6 mods (including the owners) from 3 continents. And often the mods and staff from the rest of the site know what's going on as well, one could even ask them if one really can't find anyone else. The past has proven that this is the only way that works aside from a lot of time-consuming hassling on the mod's behalf. And one did brake the rules after all, even if one wasn't aware of it, so a short ban just to get ones attention would hardly be unwarranted. A mod can't know how and when it would be best to contact people, so he can make them contact him. I don't see how a brief ban that rarely lasts more than a few hours (usually the time that one is offline, assuming one is) would be a big deal. It's a brief disablement of one's ability to post, not a bloody stoning...

Now, as I said earlier, I am going to exercise the option of not subscribing on those terms and instead play whack-a-mole with pop-ups. Is that ok with you?

I couldn't care less, but I hardly find your claim that the mods here are unprofessional warranted.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by optimus2861
How about The Trek BBS, then?

hmm they are a UGO affiliate. e.g. they get free hosting for showing ads that UGO gets paid for. which means less control on everything(server, ads, etc).

In fact, at this very moment, they have over 500 members & guests on their board as opposed to Apolyton's ~300.

and 220k posts vs 2.5mil