Rules?

[Wraith]

Can we have a warning for starting threads in the wrong forum? Any kind of warning system would need to have the warning points lapse at some point, or most old members will eventually get banned.

Sorry, left that out of the post. All points have a 12 month expiration date currently. It's possible to set the points to last a variable amount of time based on the offense, if desired.

[littlelolligagged]

It's hard not to do, when you feel strongly.

Sure, and I have done it before, too.

But it's really annoying (even when I do it), and should be curbed.

[Being]

Well, that's a stupid idea.

Being gets his first warning for excessive stupidity now, right?

It wasn't in the rules when I posted.

[littlelolligagged]

It wasn't in the rules when I posted.

Yes it was.

[Dreadnaught]

Kudos to Wraith for starting this off.

Given that this is a community with no responsibility to anyone but ourselves, what do people think of a system of voting people off the island?

Anyone can nominate someone to be banned. That nomination has to be seconded and thirded by other members. Then a mod attaches an anonymous poll to the thread. Majority outcome wins, BUT the moderators have veto power over banning someone to avoid egregious mob rule/people just voting against those they don't like.

The goal would be to allow people to vote to get rid of nuisances, while also giving mods discretion to try and keep things balanced.

[Loki]

If you are to implement that, I'd suggest using a super-majority for the voting (say 2/3). It prevents one half of the forum from trying to ban the other half.

[Being]

Anyone can nominate someone to be banned. That nomination has to be seconded and thirded by other members. Then a mod attaches an anonymous poll to the thread. Majority outcome wins, BUT the moderators have veto power over banning someone to avoid egregious mob rule/people just voting against those they don't like.[/B]

The goal would be to allow people to vote to get rid of nuisances, while also giving mods discretion to try and keep things balanced.

Sounds to me like the system is fixed so that moderators can't be banned.

[Dreadnaught]

Loki- Good idea.

Well, technically the mods can't be banned. That's sorta always been the case. Obviously, if everyone voted for me to get banned I couldn't veto my own banning. But we have other mods and an admin who could say, "Yeah, you gotta go".

[littlelolligagged]

I don't necessarily know that something like that is really the best idea, Dreadnaughty. I mean, even assuming that someone survives the mob rule, the chances are good that they would be go after such an experience of being disliked to that point, anyway. Voting them off really does nothing but make sure someone has the experience of knowing how disliked they are by everyone, anyway.

I personally trust you and Randy's judgment. It's why I was in favor of the two of you being our moderators here. I don't think we need to throw in a popularity contest to go with it. I do think there need to be some concrete (and agreed on) rules, though.

[Dreadnaught]

The dilemma is that we have intended this place to be more lax than Atari, with more things allowed. On the flip side, it makes it harder to find a formal basis to get rid of people who are simply annoying folks.

[Wraith]

If you are to implement that, I'd suggest using a super-majority for the voting (say 2/3). It prevents one half of the forum from trying to ban the other half.

The lefties could still vote off the righties, though.

Seriously though, I'm with lolli. Known rules, mods decide who earns a ban, and with the possibility of vocal appeals from the community. No voting people of the island as a real method of getting rid of people.

I mean, even assuming that someone survives the mob rule, the chances are good that they would be go after such an experience of being disliked to that point, anyway. Voting them off really does nothing but make sure someone has the experience of knowing how disliked they are by everyone, anyway.

There's another way that could go too. They survive the mob rule, and then get pissy and stop whatever little useful posting they did in the past to troll and flame full-time. *cough*

[Being]

You don't have to vote me off, just ask nicely.

[Dreadnaught]

Fine then, I'll have to start getting more aggressive with warnings.

[littlelolligagged]

Also, I don't necessarily think that any of the current trio of really annoying people need to be banned for any one of their posts - it's the fact that they managed to turn 4 (or more - I admit to a rule 12 violation - I'm celebrating my accomplishment) threads into nothing but their pissing match that really bugs me.

[littlelolligagged]

You don't have to vote me off, just ask nicely.

I've asked nicely before, and you are still here. I'll try again, though.


Will you please go away and never come back?

[Being]

I've asked nicely before, and you are still here. I'll try again, though.


Will you please go away and never come back?

Okay.

[Illusions]

The goal would be to allow people to vote to get rid of nuisances, while also giving mods discretion to try and keep things balanced.

If our goal is to grow this site then its a pretty bad idea as it will just end up being used by the super majority to enforce homogeneity of opinion on the forum. Mod veto power is essentially the system we have now, except replace anonymous votes with anonymously reporting posts and tallying those.

[LittleFuzzy]

I personally trust you and Randy's judgment.

Wait, what? You say this after last week's tantrum?

I don't really like the idea, Dread. To my mind, we have mods because we don't really like the idea of formal community action, with its popularity-contest patina.

[Illusions]

Actually I now have a suggestion. Have reports stick with a user. If a mod finds a report without merit, remove it. If a report is borderline, but not exactly warnable, keep it. Have them expire after a set period of time, but if a user builds up a certain amount of merit-able reports before that time period, issue a warning or points.

[Dreadnaught]

We do keep track of reports, and can see how many reports someone gets. But the reports aren't public for everyone to see —*that would conceivably remove some of the anonymity of reports.

[Illusions]

We do keep track of reports, and can see how many reports someone gets. But the reports aren't public for everyone to see —*that would conceivably remove some of the anonymity of reports.

Then I'm not seeing why we need a new system. Reports = votes.

[littlelolligagged]

Could we possibly start with deciding on what the rules are, and then move on to a discussion of how we would like to see them enforced?

[Nessus]

Exactly how do you mean to gauge which opinions are sincere?

[Illusions]

Could we possibly start with deciding on what the rules are, and then move on to a discussion of how we would like to see them enforced?

I actually prefer this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...oncealed_rules

Because if you can't seem to figure out the rules to posting on an internet forum, you're probably going to have issues in regular society.

I'm really hoping Young Mage doesn't make me regret not ruining his chances at that special place he wants to go and potentially getting disciplinary action from his school, and hopefully this current asshole-ishness and arrogance is just a youthful phase...

[Wraith]

Exactly how do you mean to gauge which opinions are sincere?

It's easy enough to tell from anyone with a history, and rarely even difficult with people who have none. But that's not really the point. It's just that you can't say "I don't like your opinion but you posted it anyways therefore you are trolling." The bar is higher than that.

[Nessus]

Wish I had your insights, man

[Loki]

So say we all.

[EyeKhan]

Given that this is a community with no responsibility to anyone but ourselves, what do people think of a system of voting people off the island?

Anyone can nominate someone to be banned. That nomination has to be seconded and thirded by other members. Then a mod attaches an anonymous poll to the thread. Majority outcome wins, BUT the moderators have veto power over banning someone to avoid egregious mob rule/people just voting against those they don't like.

The goal would be to allow people to vote to get rid of nuisances, while also giving mods discretion to try and keep things balanced.

I'm not sure this is such a great idea -- consider how people that don't end up being banned would react after this experience. I think it should be a public poll, though. If you have gall to vote someone to be cast out forever, you should have the guts to say it publicly.

[Aimless]

I don't think it would be a great idea either, and think we should stick with a system that relies on reporting and on clear and active moderation. It should go without saying that we should be wary of attempts to bait people in order to get them banned, but...

[Steely Glint]

Rules that lead to banning should be subject to vote, not actual bannings. For that we have mods to act as executors.