[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Lorizael]

None of this sentence fragment ****.

/me hopes this is intentionally ironic.

[Elok]

The "****" replaces the obscene acronym "**** Happens (to) Illustrate Technicallycorrectenglish."

[jsorense]

What do you know? Your noobie ass hasn't ever been around Ben.

Now look what you have done. You've made me cry.

[Sava]

Yep, Slowwy definitely wants to take it up the ass from Ben

Wants to?

They've met and likely already have. Sloww was the bottom.

[Sava]

And the MOBIUS barometer registers "No Class", per usual.

You should talk, classless fuckstick

[Sir Og]

This is not really about moderation, it's more about site design but I figured I'd post it here.

I just noticed a realy redundant interface feature.

Are you sure you want to add Ben Kenobi to your ignore list?

Yes/No

[regexcellent]

Can someone move Ben and Kiddy's idiotic slapfight out of my thread?

[giblets]

I agree, threadjacking against the wishes of the thread starter shouldn't be allowed.

[SlowwHand]

As do I.

[Aeson]

Threadjacking is a proud and glorious OT tradition. I don't have anything against moving the posts though, so long as I don't have to do it.

[Egbert]

Threadjacking is a proud and glorious OT tradition.

Aeson speaks the truth.

Tradition

[Kidlicious]

They hate our tradition

[Aeson]

OT Rules/Conduct Discussion

What rule changes would you like to see? Or are things the way they should be? All input welcome. Ming is apparently chomping at the bit to have something to enforce.

For my part I am committed to stop participating in spiteful (even feigned) discussions, and also from long/boring exchanges. As a matter of self-improvement and focusing on more productive uses of my time, regardless of what the rules are/will be.

If forum wide changes aren't necessary, just the need for "places of refuge", perhaps we could revisit the [serious] thread tag and/or something along the lines of [civil] to allow humor and friendly ribbing but not spite/hate. They won't work unless strictly enforced of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think the real solution instead of an imposed one is to simple *ask* that poster X not post in your thread, rather than some heavy handed moderation solution. It's a social problem with a social solution.

I've mostly abided by my personal rule of not posting my own political threads. I'm willing to abide with the "do not post in my threads" with one exception - anything concerning the Catholic church. Given that it's my faith I think it should be fair game. I think both of these is a good compromise. People get some of what they want, I get some of what I want. I've already sort of done that by signaling what threads I won't post in, "ie, threads with ****" in the title. That seemed to be working well.

Also - the whole, 'post is boring, let's ban, seems to me an even WORSE idea. Who defines 'boring'?

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.

But I'm not sure any of this will resolve the core issue, of people not wanting to read opinions that they disagree with being contrary to what's in the best interest of Poly. I think, really, the best solution is to just tell the folks who are complaining about views they don't like to just live with it. The more they feel that their views ought to be catered to in moderation, the demands will continue. If they feel that by complaining enough they will get what they will want - you've established a reward cycle.

I really suggest, for once, not rewarding them.

[Elok]

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