|
1598. rubberducky - 4/22/2002 11:07:18 AM but that is true of any man... 1599. vw - 4/22/2002 10:18:05 PM What if there are three paragraphs of crap about someone and one sentence that is relevant to the discussion, should that post stand as contributing to the thread?
I think wabbit has presented a good example that demonstrates why thread hosts should be the given a fairly long leash to make these kinds of decisions.
In my little corner of the Mote, I would allow a post with three paragraphs of crap and one relevant sentence to stand. Why? Because social issues often touch upon intimate aspects of the human condition and many people get very heated in the discussion of them.
So early on I decided and stated that posts devoid of any relevance and that seemed to only have been posted to make personal indults or to agitate would be removed. Therefore “You F*#@ A$& mother-doinking wanker, you’re never correct” would be removed while “You F*#@ A$& mother-doinking wanker, you’re incorrect. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case in 1987, not 1982!” would remain.
If I were hosting another a Gardening thread, they would both be deleted immediately just because posting about treating a gardenia for black spots is different than posting about abortion.
Requiring that a conversation about abortion be carried on in the same tone and conform to the same rules as a conversation about gardenias is unworkable. Allowing hosts to set the acceptable tolerance levels for “heated discussion” in each thread allows different types of conversation to occur.
1600. vw - 4/22/2002 10:19:32 PM "If I were hosting another a Gardening thread" was supposed to read, "If I were hosting a Gardening thread"
(more caffeine please)
1601. wabbit - 5/2/2002 3:03:27 AM vw, post 1599, well said.
Meanwhile, please see RoE, section 3 on Needless Abuse, for additional small blurb about spam.
Comments requested. 1602. Ms. No - 5/6/2002 4:03:50 AM I never realized that red on yellow was hard to read until I read it in blue. That was soooo soothing.
...although, I don't suppose that's the kind of comment you were looking for.
I like the addition. 1603. rubberducky - 5/7/2002 3:17:21 AM Don't be a pest, please.
this says it all, really. 1604. vw - 5/10/2002 4:40:49 AM I'm getting a Page Not Found error for both the Proposed RoE and Proposed Thread Hosting Guidelines. 1605. Ms. No - 5/13/2002 12:54:49 AM vw,
yeah, me too. I think those links are rillllly old. The link in 1601 works, however. I think Wabbit's traveling at the moment but I'll drop her a line to let her know about the links. 1606. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 3:03:26 AM i don't like the idea of restricting thread hosts by taking away the renaming ability. if the host can not be trusted to run his/her thread, that host should be removed.
i think it is an all-or-none game, really. 1607. CalGal - 6/12/2002 3:13:01 AM I agree. 1608. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2002 3:15:06 AM Well, my next move would have been (and might still be) to remove marj as host.
1609. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 3:19:22 AM i think he should be, Pelle. he has completely disregarded what the thread was to be and, imho, lied to the moderators, the general mote population about this whole fiasco – not thread host material to be mild. 1610. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 3:25:45 AM Ducks,
It isn't a permanent decision, But after three days of watching folks abuse their power as hosts to take shots at other Moties by changing thread titles it was deemed better to suspend a little used priveledge than to suspend a bunch of posters.
1611. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 3:28:52 AM With all the squabbling going on I haven't had a chance to check in on Marj's thread, but from what I've seen of his behavior in the Islamism thread he's out of line.
I would prefer that no one be suspended, but when I got on this morning I was ready for mass suspensions just to get a little order. 1612. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 3:37:32 AM Re: Message # 1610, Ms. No.
fair enough and i can completely understand. i just hope it doesn't become permanent. 1613. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2002 4:00:09 AM Ms No
You don't need to suspend people. Just use the maintenance tools to remove them as hosts. 1614. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 4:37:06 AM Pelle,
I know, but it wasn't a question of suspending the priviledge or susending the host it was a question of suspending the priviledge in order to stop a chain of events that would eventually result in the suspension of posters. If someone is adamant enough about causing a ruckus to keep abusing his hosting priveleges, then he's adamant enough to get wild when those priveleges are revoked at which point he'll likely do something to get himself suspended......like try to derail his nemesis' thread by spamming it continuously. We've seen this behavior before.
Halting the escalation of hostilities caused by the changing thread titles was a small move that will hopefully have a widespread calming effect.
(And just how long was everyone going to sit around and let me misspell priviledge?) 1615. marjoribanks - 6/12/2002 5:39:41 AM 1) Kindly spell out to me exactly what behavior of mine has been out of line in either the Islamism or the America Abroad Thread.
2) When you do so, please note that I will be closely comparing your description of what is out of line with what has been tolerated in other threads in exactly the same period of time, and what is eminently reasonable.
3) My intention with and in the US foreign policy thread is exactly as stated openly and repeatedly, there have been zero hidden agendas. 1616. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 6:23:26 AM Banks,
What do you call it when a poster in a thread repeatedly violates the thread host's instructions? You continued to re-post a message that the Islamism thread host deemed inappropriate for the thread. Rather than bring this issue to the attention of the Moderators you chose instead to try and duke it out with the thread host. 9 times out of 10 you will lose this battle as our RoE state very specifically that
The definition of "needless" and "abusive" are left to the thread host, whose word is final. Any posts that are deemed abusive may be deleted. Understand that standards are set by the host. Continually abusive behavior may be grounds for suspension of posting privileges.
It goes without saying that this has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague.
Now if you'd like to argue that Thread hosts should have to justify their every action to the screaming horde trying to derail a discussion then you're welcome to try that, but I doubt you'll get much support.
The most recent prior example of this behavior is Jexster's antics. Previously both RosettaStone and AceofSpades tried these tactics. Without fail every single one of them was suspended for the behavior. I don't expect to have to keep warning people not to do something so decidedly puerile.
If you have something to say on topic in the thread then you have as much right as anyone else to post it. If you want to lodge a complaint about your treatment at the hands of a thread host and have made a clear statement to that host and not received satisfaction then you should come to the Moderators. You don't get to run around with your hands over your ears singing "La-La-La I'm not listening to you!!!" and disrupting the flow of discussion in a thread.
1617. marjoribanks - 6/12/2002 6:36:57 AM Okay, in that instance, given the clear reference to the Rules of Exchange, I pursued the incorrect tack. Mea Culpa.
Thank you for clearly spelling out the perceived problem.
|
