|
1314. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:20:10 AM Wabbit,
Do not be needlessly abusive of other posters.
I expect there's nothing I can add that hasn't been seriously considered before, but, if possible being a little more objective enforcement could be applied .... looking at behaviour as much as the moniker.
The RoE looks fine to me, just an enforcement issue. If a newbie used the term "menapausal hyena" when referring to one of our well liked ladies here, they would face banishment ... if CG used this same term referring to a newbie, what would happen.
I'm not out to get CalGal and sincerely hope that she gets over the anger she's obviously dealing with, but we should be equally considerate of others.
Wabbit, again, I am posting this respecting that you (and others) have pondered these issues before ... but you screwed-up and asked for opinions (hehe).
1315. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:30:21 AM Forgive the lousy grammar. 1316. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:36:30 AM Seadate,
We have this thread just for hammering out these rules.
In the past, we have tried to keep the rules few in number and vague, which allows leeway in implementation. For most, this seems to work, but for some it becomes an issue of inconsistency. There is no way to be absolutely consistent in enforcing civility. Those who dish it out should also be willing to take it, and usually they are.
Newbies are cut a lot of slack. In the case you mention, someone would probably warn them off, but I doubt they would be threatened with banishment. And while it would be nice if everyone would be a bit more careful with how they speak to newbies, I don't see how that is enforceable. I also think it's unreasonable to expect moderators or thread hosts to have to act as babysitters. btw, while CalGal seems to be everyone's favorite example, there are others who have been unnecessarily rude to new posters in the past couple months. None of us are perfect.
1317. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:48:01 AM Agreed. 1318. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:51:53 AM Wabbit,
I used name(s) in my earlier post in an effort to be specific. It's not my style to point fingers or rashly accuse .... If you care to delete or edit that post, I certainly understand. 1319. wabbit - 4/2/2001 4:24:15 AM No problem, Seadate, your post was fine. 1320. wabbit - 4/2/2001 7:08:43 AM Anyone have any problems with the revised RoE? Now is the time to speak up. 1321. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2001 7:21:54 AM I have no problem with them. 1322. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 7:37:46 AM The problem is not with the RoE. The problem is the lack of consistency with which they are enforced.
I have been banned twice, both times without cause. The 'needlessly abusive' excuse has been used when everybody knows that Cal is by far and away the most 'needlessly abusive' regular Motie, bar none. She's gone apeshit on me, Judith and MsGreer in the last 24 hours alone, without provocation.
I expect that I will soon be banned a third time, this time citing the 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' clause.
It's time for a triumvirate who are willing to behave like grown-ups. I strongly recommend Maria, Jay and PP for the jobs.
And put this thread on the front page where it belongs, already. 1323. wabbit - 4/2/2001 8:00:41 AM I've sent emails to all three citing your hearty recommendation. 1324. AceofSpades - 4/2/2001 8:41:20 AM
I guess I approve of the new RoE. To be honest, I'm not sure I really understand the difference between the new RoE and the old one.
If there's any subtle new wrinkle, I don't see it.
Then again, I'm a moron. 1325. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 9:45:47 PM I was about to join Ace as a self-described obtuse moron, but first I looked at the current RoE and saw that the proposed RoE are much longer. New rules include:
- You may post using your real name or a pseudonym.
Under no circumstances can you deliberately use someone else's name for your username.
- You must have an ISP-issued email. Freemail accounts may be deleted without notice.
- Posts that are judged to violate these rules will be deleted by the thread host(s) or moderators and may constitute grounds for suspension of posting privileges.
- Suspended members who re-register with new accounts may have those accounts deactivated without notice. Repeated attempts will result in our contacting your ISP with a complaint.
- We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
I'm a little uncomfortable by the level of threat in the proposed RoE. I think I prefer the kindler, gentler current version.
1326. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 10:07:31 PM I'm happy with the RoE. I think it defines important behavioral and technical expectations clearly. 1327. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 10:08:45 PM I'm happy with the revised RoE. 1328. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 10:08:59 PM
Rick - Which RoE are you happy with? The current or the proposed, or both?
1329. JayAckroyd - 4/2/2001 10:14:06 PM The real issue is that the problem JonF is causing is not really a question of 'abuse.' He's just being really annoying and repetitive (at least from what I've read). We've had that before, with all threads spammed with identical messages, with the current situation with posting outside content in Politics (which may be a copyright violation, btw).
I don't see how you can phrase "Don't be an annoying twit or we'll ask you to leave." I especially don't see how you can do so when annoyance is personal, and when we have more than one annoying twit (IMO).
I think wabbit's the best of all possible moderators, patient but ultimately firm. The rude people who constantly complain about other people's rudeness would find me a disappointing moderator, because I think these rules are impossible to state clearly and enforce consistently, so I just wouldn't enforce them.
I don't think the rewording of the RoE changes anything. 1330. wabbit - 4/2/2001 10:17:52 PM vonKreedon,
The kinder and gentler version, or even better the non-existant version, would be preferable, but there are people who would like things spelled out in detail, so the group strives for some compromise.
Is this what you don't like?
Repeated attempts will result in our contacting your ISP with a complaint. 1331. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 11:00:38 PM
Wabbit - No, it's not a specific item, it's that there are ~five explicit threats of account deletion/suspension in five bullet items. 1332. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:30:10 AM Jay
Could you please provide a few examples of this spam (i.e., repetitiveness) or are you just spouting the party line and/or pissed off because I recently took you to task in the slow thread?
Thanks. 1333. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:35:07 AM re 1325
I couldn't agree more. Well stated, VK.
Gee, the problem seems to be that we're driving posters away because there's too much arbitrary and capricious abuse of power by PTB and certain thread hosts.
I know the solution! Let's make up even more vague and threatening rules in the privacy of the Policy sub-thread (that very few bother to visit and many don't even notice) so that the PTB and certain thread hosts can power trip even more and drive even more posters away!
Curiouser and curiouser.
|
