[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Ben Kenobi]

But you answered the question WRONG, and I was simply pointing out your error.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Good for you! Duty calls! To the Mingmobile!

I'm talking to people who want to talk to me, and ignoring those trolling for an argument. Isn't that the purpose of these new rules?

[Kidlicious]

That wasn't threadjacking BK. I"m interested in your response to what Ming posted.

[Aeson]

In all honesty, this is not a great idea. The whole thing of tagging threads that people aren't supposed to **** in, just says its fine everywhere else. It's also been tried before IIRC and utterly failed to change anything. Why not just unleash Ming and Rah and see who survives? At least then the transition period will be entertaining even if it doesn't work.

It is fine everywhere else (to a point).

Serious was doomed because it wasnt enforced much and by definition ruins most of the fun convos.

[ZEE]

I agree to the [Civil] tag.

[Alexander's Horse]

Can we have a few days of civfanatic modding? From the time when that mod stopped taking his Ritalin?

That would quickly clear out all the freaks.

[Aeson]

There is no poster exclusion tag that will be observed. Though some posters may very well not br willing/able to live up to the civil tag.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, then I apologize to Ming and Kidicious. I was in the wrong here. I really, honestly wasn't trying to troll Ming.

[Kidlicious]

Well, then I apologize to Ming and Kidicious. I was in the wrong here. I really, honestly wasn't trying to troll Ming.

Who said you were trying to troll. I just thought you were deflecting.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope, not at all. Ming was claiming that I was trying to troll him in post 128. Really, I wasn't.

I deleted your poor attempt at a troll thread

[Kidlicious]

I can't accept your apology since I thought you were deflecting and you don't admit to that.

[Ben Kenobi]

since I thought you were deflecting and you don't admit to that.

Why would I apologize for deflecting when that's not what I was trying to do? I've apologized for presuming about what you thought about Ming.

I thought you were asking a sincere question, so I've been trying my best to answer it.

[loinburger]

Thanks Aeson. In order to hep with the transition to the new Nazi regime I suggest the following protocol:
1. Poster A posts something that Poster B dislikes (this could be a horrible personal attack, or it might just be a fairly benign opinion that Poster B happens to dislike)
2. Poster B responds with "please be civil" or "please stop threadjacking" or something to that effect - this can be done even in an "uncivil" thread (Unless what Poster A posted is particularly awful (e.g. "I'll cut you and shave your cat!" or whatever) in which case Poster B reports the post)
3. Poster A either agrees that he was being uncivil / off-topic / stupid / whatever, or else disagrees and continues to post whatever he was posting (either because he believes that Poster B's complaint is inappropriate, or because Poster A is trying to antagonize Poster B, or somewhere in between)
4. If Poster A continues to "misbehave," then Poster B links to the offending post in a stickied thread dedicated to similar complaints and asks for clarification on the rules
The thing is that it's impossible to have a comprehensive definition of things like "civility" and "threadjacking," especially with different posters wanting different applications of the rules in different threads - this way there's a record of "case law" on the subject. Also, hopefully most problems will be resolved with Poster A ceasing to antagonize Poster B without things going to stage (4), or else hopefully Poster B will have enough of his complaints dismissed that he'll just grow a thicker skin.

[Aeson]

It's a good suggestion to have a public "case law". It's a lot of grey area right now ...

Though I worry about treating unmarked threads the same as [civil]. The idea is to try to have our cake and eat it too, with threads for those who want civil discussion, and threads for those who just want to let loose (within reason). If we do want to go that far, then there's no need for [civil] and instead we have the same rules for all threads.

If it ends up that most thread starters want [civil] then we could switch to using [flame] and have civil as the norm. At this point I would say we're at flame being the norm. Though I'm hopeful that will change.

[Aeson]

I've merged the rule discussion threads so the OT doesn't get too sticky ...

[Kidlicious]

Banning people from threads simply because they are interested in alternative topics is uncivilized. I would like to ask again that we don't over burden ourselves with excessive government.