The Site > Site Suggestions & Support

Policy Changes: How do you feel?

<< < (8/36) > >>

Warden John Marcone:

--- Quote from: Shecky on June 22, 2010, 10:39:28 AM ---That's as may be. Why, then, do the rules keep getting violated when mods ask pretty please with sugar on top over and over and over again? I don't like coming down harshly on an offender. I've never liked it. It would be easier and probably more efficient just to ban the offender; the extra effort to get through to the person seems like such a waste when most offenders just wind themselves up more over the affront of being called to task for their actions.

--- End quote ---

The example I call to refute this is myself.  Ask any of the regular posters from when I joined, I was one of the nastiest SOB's around.  A good chewing out from when I stepped over the line once too often, a good knock over the head for smarting off, and I shaped up (I like to think) into the sort of guy that loves to be around and people like having around.  If I'd been banned outright when I stepped over, it wouldn't have happened, I'd have stayed a beligerant smartass.  I understand that I'm the exception, but (again, I like to think) it's the exception that proves the rule.

Shecky:

--- Quote from: Warden Jon Marcone on June 22, 2010, 06:13:46 PM ---The example I call to refute this is myself.  Ask any of the regular posters from when I joined, I was one of the nastiest SOB's around.  A good chewing out from when I stepped over the line once too often, a good knock over the head for smarting off, and I shaped up (I like to think) into the sort of guy that loves to be around and people like having around.  If I'd been banned outright when I stepped over, it wouldn't have happened, I'd have stayed a beligerant smartass.  I understand that I'm the exception, but (again, I like to think) it's the exception that proves the rule.

--- End quote ---

(Psst: The bit you were responding to was preceded by "It would be easier...")


--- Quote from: Niccos Shadow on June 22, 2010, 06:05:59 PM ---There's nothing wrong with the cold-water-in-the-face. I mean, if someone slips up a few times over the course of thousands of posts, there's nothing wrong with a polite slap on the wrist. But if it goes to the point where an admin/mod feels the only way to get through to the offending person is by "stooping to their level", I think a ban (even a temporary one) is in order.

I like the debates, but I don't want to see them dissolve into petty bickering any more than the next person. But, at the same time, I don't want to read constant exasperated "I'm so sick of you people" posts by admins. It boils down to either the offending poster(s) that are annoying said admin(s) need to be banned, or said admin(s) are over reacting. If the former is correct then ban the offending poster(s) and let the forum be happier for it. If it's the latter, then perhaps said admin(s) require some cold-water-in-the-face as well.

In all honesty, there has been a few times in which I actually considered hitting the "report to moderator" button on admin posts to point out these things. But frankly, I thought it might cause more problems than it solved. Not because I doubted the validity of my claim, but because the temperament of the post left me expecting a response of "don't like how things are done, leave".


--- End quote ---

Prejudice. Literally. You're assuming that a major chewing-out of one person who's stepped WAY over the line is going to equate to your getting pissed on if you pose a reasonable, private question to the mod. Plus, and I repeat, you still don't have anywhere nearly all the information. I've SEEN massive chewings-out. They're a sort of compliment - they mean that the person getting chewed out at least seems to have the POSSIBILITY of straightening up and flying right, becoming a contributing member of the forum. WJM is a perfect example. He was (sorry, WJM, but I think you'll agree) pretty damn dickish. He got a thorough chewing-out and now he's a member in fine standing here - because, as he said, he didn't just negligently get booted but was actually ADDRESSED, actually given more than just "You screwed up" to show him how and how BADLY he had stepped over the line.

This goes hand in hand with how you don't "want to read constant exasperated 'I'm so sick of you people' posts by admins" honestly misses the point. Yeah, the mods could just boot people. Do you really think they'll learn? Especially when they're repeat offenders who have more than once entirely missed the point about HOW they're offensive? If a punishment is to have any effectiveness, it must be strong enough to catch and HOLD the attention of the person receiving it. They have to know in absolutely NO uncertain terms WHAT they did, WHY it's wrong and WHY it's not fit for polite society. And when there's a whole freakin' flood of people doing that, are you honestly surprised that there are "I'm so sick of you people" mod posts?

And finally, aren't you exaggerating a lot with the "constant" description? Happened a handful of times, and anyone who honestly claims that those times were quiet and peaceful and NOT exasperating as hell needs to see a surgeon to fix that rectocranial inversion. :D

Niccos Shadow:

--- Quote from: Shecky on June 22, 2010, 06:27:32 PM ---You're assuming that a major chewing-out of one person who's stepped WAY over the line is going to equate to your getting pissed on if you pose a reasonable, private question to the mod.

--- End quote ---

Threats are designed to cause fear, it's unreasonable to make open ban-threats directed at a thread at large and then expect people to accurately interpret who they were meant for. Personally, in those instances, I assume that everyone is included in said threat/warning regardless of having violated rules or not. I'm not a mind reader, it's not up to me to assume or figure out who was being chastised and who wasn't. So I find it only reasonable for me to make that assumption.


--- Quote from: Shecky on June 22, 2010, 06:27:32 PM ---Plus, and I repeat, you still don't have anywhere nearly all the information. I've SEEN massive chewings-out. They're a sort of compliment - they mean that the person getting chewed out at least seems to have the POSSIBILITY of straightening up and flying right, becoming a contributing member of the forum. WJM is a perfect example. He was (sorry, WJM, but I think you'll agree) pretty damn dickish. He got a thorough chewing-out and now he's a member in fine standing here - because, as he said, he didn't just negligently get booted but was actually ADDRESSED, actually given more than just "You screwed up" to show him how and how BADLY he had stepped over the line.

This goes hand in hand with how you don't "want to read constant exasperated 'I'm so sick of you people' posts by admins" honestly misses the point. Yeah, the mods could just boot people. Do you really think they'll learn? Especially when they're repeat offenders who have more than once entirely missed the point about HOW they're offensive? If a punishment is to have any effectiveness, it must be strong enough to catch and HOLD the attention of the person receiving it. They have to know in absolutely NO uncertain terms WHAT they did, WHY it's wrong and WHY it's not fit for polite society. And when there's a whole freakin' flood of people doing that, are you honestly surprised that there are "I'm so sick of you people" mod posts?

And finally, aren't you exaggerating a lot with the "constant" description? Happened a handful of times, and anyone who honestly claims that those times were quiet and peaceful and NOT exasperating as hell needs to see a surgeon to fix that rectocranial inversion. :D

--- End quote ---

I can't really comment on the example of WJM since I didn't witness the events in question. However, whether or not I have all the information is irrelevant if I'm being subjected to the end result. Keep in mind, I'm not passing a judgment which requires me to have the full information, I'm commenting on things which admins/mods have chosen to expose me to by openly posting it.

Even if member_01 went off calling me every name under the sun resulting in me reporting the post, I still would have no desire to witness a mod/admin beat them down. And if an open post was required by said mod/admin, I would prefer it to be assertive yet still mature and respectful. I don't believe in calling in a bigger bully to beat up the smaller bully; if they're both bullies, they're both wrong.

As to my use of the term "constant", I believe it was fitting in regards to posting proportions. For example: if admin/mod_01 makes 10 administrative posts in a week and 9 of those are offensive, I'd call that constant. And in my opinion, this has been the case in some instances, maybe not throughout the course of a week, but the example is still valid.

Shecky:
An "open ban-threat" means one of two things: 1) there were multiple offenders and the mod doesn't want to single any one of them out for fear of being accused of favoritism or 2) there were more offenders than not. And if you can't figure out whether your posts were or weren't in line with the rules, chances are they weren't - you don't have to be a mind-reader, just a reader. And yes, it IS up to you to analyze your OWN actions. This is not a hand-holding pre-school; it's alleged to be a congress of adults who are self-aware and, hopefully, able to be self-critical. The rules have been laid out pretty clearly, and it's, frankly, kind of small to refuse to self-examine. A participant in any group has just as much obligation to be a contributing part of the group as the group has to the participant.

*shrug* It's been explained by multiple mods to great extent; if you still choose to believe it to be bullying or offensive in light of those explanations, that's certainly your right. I'd still like to see specific examples instead of broad brushstrokes.

Niccos Shadow:

--- Quote from: Shecky on June 22, 2010, 07:31:49 PM ---And if you can't figure out whether your posts were or weren't in line with the rules, chances are they weren't - you don't have to be a mind-reader, just a reader. And yes, it IS up to you to analyze your OWN actions.

--- End quote ---

I acknowledge the fact that it's possible for someone to read a problem with one of my posts even if I can't imagine what the problem was. I can proof read a post 1,000 times but since we're communicating solely through text, it's not going to guarantee that someone wont find an issue with it. If i do something wrong, I personally have no problem accepting the consequences, but it's only right that I be told what I did wrong. Honestly, I don't know if I've annoyed any mode/admins or not. I've never been contacted directly about anything, but a few debates i was involved in have been generally stepped on. So do I assume I was right and continue on as I was, or do I try to completely change the way I normally explain myself to be on the safe side?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page