Seriously people

[j]

Apparently I've been avoiding all the right threads lately because I've totally missed the fighting. I address this to everyone, because there are always peanut gallery spectators that have to jump in and egg on the ongoing arguments. You know who you are. While I enjoy a little snippy remark here and there and a good spirited discussion to keep things interesting, it seems that some people have trouble keeping things in perspective, to the point that the usefulness of the forum is deteriorating. This will not be tolerated. I really don't like banning people; I'd much rather you all would self-police. Steve emailed me to ask whether I think some bannings are in order, and I haven't decided yet. I just want you all to know what's up and to request a return to civility before I have to start kicking people off.

P.S: Name calling or any kind of fighting or arguing in response to this thread is almost guaranteed to add your name to the ban list.

 

[bigbadbuff]

Thanks for posting this J...

 

[Steve B.]

J:

Thanks for the quick response.

I don't like bouncing people either. I've been known to troll a bit, and certainly like a good argument, but if that's all certain members are posting- enough is enough.

 

[kalra2411]

I will act more civil on this board here forth. However, if you final decision is indeed a ban, I will have no qualms - as it is your board; and at the end of the day your decision. I would not expect any different from employees in my company. (Note, David, I know you are also on the forum, please stop wasting company time. )

 

[marc37]

l have half read your rules but; what do you need to do to justify a forum ban? Spell it out to us [j and steve [baldy] B]and keep it as a permanent topic.

 

[j]

One of the things I've enjoyed about the forum is that I really didn't need to spell out rules. It reminds me of the argument against including a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution: that spelling out certain rights would lead to the usurpation of others not enumerated- and indeed that is what happened. I sometimes think that if I post a big list of rules then people will start trying to work between them and arguing when I ban someone who did something not technically against a rule etc. The guideline is to conduct oneself as a gentleman, but obviously people's opinions differ as to what that means in this day and age and to me being an American Puritan who doesn't like swearing in topic titles. Misunderstandings of language and culture are expected on an international forum, but decorum is more difficult for me to spell out. In short, to get banned one must annoy me or Steve enough and/or be more trouble than he is worth. Obviously I will give more leeway to someone who's been here a long time adding to discussions than to someone whose first post is an insult or incitement. Being weird is fine and being argumentative is fine as long as it is kept civil, e.g., no ad hominems, no slights to character, no insults, respect for others' opinions. Snipes at another's taste are okay with me, and I find them funny sometimes as well, but only if they are in good fun. Sarcasm and well-meant jabs are difficult to convey in text (even with italics, bold, underline and smilies) and should probably be avoided, but a thick skin and ability to shrug off perceived insults are also recommended. When in doubt, ignore it or assume that the other person was well intentioned. And remember it's not life or death, you don't actually have to talk to these people, it's not like the forum follows you down the street and nips at your heels. You can always walk away, and when in doubt, it is the better option to avoid escalation and eventual bad feelings and/or getting banned. So that's about the best I can give. If anyone has anything to add it might be a good idea to put some guidelines together.

 

[faustian bargain]

those sound absolutely perfect to me. especially the 'thick skin' part.

/andrew

 

[esquire.]

j- I understand its your forum, but you mentioned how you must have been reading the wrong flames. Do you think its fair to kick people out when you haven't read everything they've said or done. Perhaps, some people went overboard on one thread but have remained civil on others.

Perhaps, we could do what the ancient greeks did when they ostracized somebody. Have every person who's logged a minimum number of votes cast one vote for the person they want temporarily banned.

 

[VMan]

"How many of you do I need to ban?"

Oooh Ohhh. Pick me. Pick me.

Wait....no

 

[imageWIS]

"How many of you do I need to ban?"

Oooh Ohhh. Pick me. Pick me.

Wait....no

I was about to make the same joke...but seeing that I have participated in the aforementioned threads, I just rather read what j said and keep my trap shut.

Jon.

 

[SwaG]

Quote:

(VersaceMan @ 21 July 2004, 3:02) "How many of you do I need to ban?" Oooh Ohhh. Â Pick me. Â Pick me. Wait....no
I was about to make the same joke...but seeing that I have participated in the aforementioned threads, I just rather read what j said and keep my trap shut. Jon.
ditto

 

[AJL]

j- I understand its your forum, but you mentioned how you must have been reading the wrong flames. Do you think its fair to kick people out when you haven't read everything they've said or done. Perhaps, some people went overboard on one thread but have remained civil on others.

Perhaps, we could do what the ancient greeks did when they ostracized somebody. Have every person who's logged a minimum number of votes cast one vote for the person they want temporarily banned.

esq.-

Perhaps you meant to say "Have every person who's logged a minimum number of posts cast one vote for the person they want temporarily banned..." ?

I have seen a variation of this employed effectively, whereby the moderator determines a set # of nay votes (20, 30...?) by fellow posters needed to boot a perceived nuisance poster. It is not necessary for all eligible members to vote, merely those who have been truly annoyed. Makes for some lively discussion with the added bonus of a working model of democracy in action.

On the other hand, I think the idea of self-policing is probably best. I mean we're all adults here, aren't we?

 

[jharrison]

Thank you J and Steve for considering (and hopefully following through) banning those who undermine the purpose of the forum. I don't think a system of voting people out of the forum (so to speak) would work. Especially if the right to vote correlated with the number of posts. Many, if not all, of the "trolls" have posted hundreds of times. This doesn't mean they've "earned" a say in forum administration. And I don't think that written rules, however explicit, would really help the situation. I think it's best to trust the administrators' judgment in the removal of troublesome members. I'd also suggest that the administrators be a bit less tolerant with problem posters. They become tiresome and annoying quickly.

 

[Tom]

This topic is a bummer. As you pointed out J, no one HAS to read posts by any particular poster (note: you have been out of the loop yourself on a few). People obviously choose which posts to read and respond too. Censorship is not needed here. Lots of people have been riled up and a few hot headed words have been exchanged. However, I truly believe that nobody is posting here with the intention of screwing up the forum for anyone else. I say we all take a deep breath and get this thing back into perspective. If someone was here to mess up the forum, we'd all know in a few posts and we'd deal with it then. I just don't see that as being an issue at the moment. Getting passionate about your opinions is often FUN.

-Tom

 

[VMan]

How about for less-serious offenses, we set up a system of punishment?

For example, if you (unnecessarily) call someone a name, the text of all your messages you post will be hot pink for a week. Or, your avitar will be set to an image of PeeWee Herman for two weeks.