[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[giblets]

Will you remove the sigquote? If we're going to do that, you should take that down. I'll do the same.

I'll remove it if you admit that your statement about South Africa during Apartheid was retarded.

[Elok]

BTW and apropos of nothing, my older son is immensely fond of that Ming smiley. He saw the row of them in the other thread and asked to sit in my lap for a while watching the men do the hammer dance.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would like to politely ask Kidicious, Ben Kenobi and AAHZ to never post in my threads again.

Will you remove the sigquote? If we're going to do that, you should take that down. I'll do the same.

[Elok]

After some thought, I think the most helpful rule (grudging credit to BK for this) would be "if the thread starter tells you to get your bull**** out of his thread, you obey," and it has teeth. You can't ban specific posters, but if I start a thread to discuss social change with C0ckney, and BK comes in to try and segue that into yet another discussion of gays, I should have the right to say "Get your own thread, or it's " Possibly we could be flexible with "thread starter" to include posters who were clearly key players in the original conversation, so in that case C0ckney. Maybe we could be flexible in other ways too, but the right to have a clear discussion space would help a lot.

Rules on personal attacks probably wouldn't hurt too much, but I think they'd be less immediately helpful. Some of us are more aggressive than others, and almost all of us slip sometimes, and most of the time we deal with it okay. Threads with titles like "[poster] eats donkey smeg" are in poor taste, but they also tend to sink like rocks because fights between two posters are usually only interesting to those two posters.

[C0ckney]

it seems to me that we have three choices. we can either

a) ban ben
b) continue as we are now
c) show a bit of restraint when dealing with him

unfortunately c) is a lot like b) in practice. i doubt making new rules will really work. ben/others will find a way around them and it will, as elok rightly said in the other thread, lead to a lot of passive-aggressive nonsense and endless whining.

[giblets]

I would like to politely ask Kidicious, Ben Kenobi and AAHZ to never post in my threads again.

[giblets]

Is it okay to say someone has a child molester mustache?

[Ben Kenobi]

like not calling people child molesters etc?

Yeah, that's a bit excessive. Once or twice, ok. 17 times in the same thread?

[Aeson]

Also, I'd like to see a return of the rule of deleting threads attacking posters. We had that before. Posters right now feel that they are free to say whatever they like without repercussions. That's not really helping things. Poster A says that Poster B is the devil, and then goes around attacking poster B for 'making arguments he doesn't like. The inmates run the asylum now, Aeson.

I am ok with this. Though it would need to include indirect attacks (attacking stereotypes) to be even-handed.

[Kidlicious]

I hate to even ask, but can we not implement excessive rules? How about the important things like not calling people child molesters etc?

[giblets]

If I'm ignoring Ben I don't want and entire page full of hidden Ben posts.

[Kidlicious]

Ban triple (and quadruple, etc.) posting, if someone wants to respond to multiple posts they should use the multi quote feature.

Why?

[giblets]

Ban triple (and quadruple, etc.) posting, if someone wants to respond to multiple posts they should use the multi quote feature.

[Aeson]

Yah, they would need to be spelled out more clearly if such a rule was made.

[Elok]

Spite/hate could be somewhat subjective and hard to quantify for the purposes of discipline.