posted
Many of you have already registered and may not be aware of this but the rules have been updated.
Here they are as of now:
quote:I would love to say that there are NO RULES. As I don't like the idea of censoring other people's thoughts. However, due to the events which helped to create this message board, the following applies:
RULES
1. RESPECT. Show it. Use it. You should at least respect the opinions, works, and posts of others, and the others themselves at ALL times. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everyone and everything or that you have to like everything...just understand that it is someone's work or someone's thoughts that you're commenting on or disagreeing with.
2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english.
3. Think before you post. You should always reread what you're planning on posting at least once before you post it. Make sure it says what you mean it to say and try to make it an intelligent and contributing response to the discussion. Also, try to get all your comments up to that point in the discussion into your one post instead of posting after yourself multiple times. Don't be afraid to go back and add to your post later if you think up something new.
4. Be Patient. Sometimes there isn't anyone else on for HOURS at a time...and sometimes there wont be a response to your thread for days after you post it...but be patient, no need to spam your own topic.
5. Rumors and Fact are different things. Please don't state rumors as fact...and really all you have to do is qualify your statement with an "I heard that..." or a "I think that maybe..." Believe me, it'll save us some confusion.
6. LOOK. READ. Look for other threads that may already be discussing what you'd like to discuss and give 'em a read through before you go off making a topic on the same topic. (See how redundant even the RULE is?)
7. Try to put 'em in the right category. It's not always obvious where you should start your thread, but usually it is. And those categories are there for a reason, people.
8. Smilies and Attachments. The limit to smilies per post is tentatively set at 8, but this may change as we experiment with it.
9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
Well, that's that. We don't wanna be modding with an iron fist, as I don't think that that encourages a healthy board, but sometimes it helps to actually have the rules and consequences for breaking said rules written out.
So there you go.
These rules are subject to change without notice. Please check back often.
Thanks!
From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by icefire: Is this my fault????
This had nothing to do with you, icey. The rules have been in effect since the great blackout a few weeks back (and implied since the very beginning). I just hadn't bothered to post them here until now.
From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only people who recently registered would have seen them. I forgot that fact and had to have it pointed out to me.
If they seem familiar to anyone, then you've been to/registered at Nightscrawlers.com and/or X-Fan. That's where I ripped them off from. I had to modify them a bit to fit our needs though.
From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some commentary on these rules follows. My point in commenting on all of these is to show that hard and fast enforcement is detrimental and relies on arbitrary distinctions.
quote: 1. RESPECT. Show it. Use it. You should at least respect the opinions, works, and posts of others, and the others themselves at ALL times. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everyone and everything or that you have to like everything...just understand that it is someone's work or someone's thoughts that you're commenting on or disagreeing with.
While respect for other people's opinions is well and good, there are some opinions I should have no respect for. An example would be if someone posted something clearly racist. But by these rules, I would be banned if I showed such an opinion no respect.
quote: 2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english.
Again, if for example someone posted a racist comment, or something equally offensive, it may well incite a flame war. Would both victim and racist be banned or warned? That would seem to me to be patently unfair.
quote: 3. Think before you post. You should always reread what you're planning on posting at least once before you post it. Make sure it says what you mean it to say and try to make it an intelligent and contributing response to the discussion. Also, try to get all your comments up to that point in the discussion into your one post instead of posting after yourself multiple times. Don't be afraid to go back and add to your post later if you think up something new.
Much of the discussion here is not "intelligent": a great deal of it is silliness, for which the LMBP is famous. A stricture on silly posts would stifle the ethos of the boards.
quote: 4. Be Patient. Sometimes there isn't anyone else on for HOURS at a time...and sometimes there wont be a response to your thread for days after you post it...but be patient, no need to spam your own topic.
Bumps are prohibited?
quote: 5. Rumors and Fact are different things. Please don't state rumors as fact...and really all you have to do is qualify your statement with an "I heard that..." or a "I think that maybe..." Believe me, it'll save us some confusion.
I think this is a great idea, but I don't think someone should be warned about it or banned for it.
Another message board I frequent, at www.straightdope.com, has a Great Debates forum where posters must validate facts with a source. Even there, though, its not a banning or warning offence, just a point of logical debate.
quote: 6. LOOK. READ. Look for other threads that may already be discussing what you'd like to discuss and give 'em a read through before you go off making a topic on the same topic. (See how redundant even the RULE is?)
7. Try to put 'em in the right category. It's not always obvious where you should start your thread, but usually it is. And those categories are there for a reason, people.
8. Smilies and Attachments. The limit to smilies per post is tentatively set at 8, but this may change as we experiment with it.
I don't have any real issue with these, although again I don't think someone should be banned or even warned for repeatedly making threads on a board which mirror the topic on earlier threads (especially when that other thread may have gone off on a tangent), or for repeatedly making threads in the wrong category.
quote: 9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
One man's spam is another man's art. By spam I gather you mean a succession of silly posts in a board. But again this cannot be a hard and fast rule. I see on the Mission Monitor Board that Danny Blaine-Starman has posted a succession of posts, each of which seem silly in topic, and which have grown quite long. By these rules, that poster should be banned, or at least warned.
The rules do not fit the board's up-beat and nonsensical culture. You'd be better off calling them guidelines. If someone is causing trouble, you should just ban them, rather than look for a rule to fit the crime.
Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Computo: While respect for other people's opinions is well and good, there are some opinions I should have no respect for. An example would be if someone posted something clearly racist. But by these rules, I would be banned if I showed such an opinion no respect.
Well and good not having respect for an opinion, but another to show it. Isn't it just as well to give a counter opinion or ask for clarification without commenting on the quality of the comment to which you object? Perhaps the original poster poorly stated an opinion, or you poorly interpreted? Why risk a confrontation before clarification? Maybe it was intentional. Why feed the troll? Why help start the flame war, most of which seem to happen on the thread of an innocent?
Around here that all seems unlikely but if the original comment was intentional AND clear, what would we accomplish in counter-attack other than giving that poster the vicarious thrill of being noticed?
From: East Toledo | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the laws in our society become guidelines. Judges use case law/precedent, experience or (unfortunately) respond to powerful interests in their interpretation and application of the "law". (Just an observation, I'm not a lawyer.)
Interpretation and application of rules or guidelines, especially in matters of expressing opinions and ideas, seems to be subjective. I don't see any way around it. It's not usually a yes/no issue, such as "You may not use the word "cat" on this board". Or starting a thread on Batman comics in the Legion forum - its place is in Dr. Gym'll' Cultural Rarities, that's clear cut.
Questions of respect are seldom so easy to deal with - however, I think we have to deal with them, even if we muddle through subjectivity.
quote:Originally posted by Fat Cramer: Most of the laws in our society become guidelines. Judges use case law/precedent, experience or (unfortunately) respond to powerful interests in their interpretation and application of the "law". (Just an observation, I'm not a lawyer.)
I am. I disagree with your observation...respectfully, of course.
quote: Interpretation and application of rules or guidelines, especially in matters of expressing opinions and ideas, seems to be subjective. I don't see any way around it. It's not usually a yes/no issue, such as "You may not use the word "cat" on this board". Or starting a thread on Batman comics in the Legion forum - its place is in Dr. Gym'll' Cultural Rarities, that's clear cut.
Questions of respect are seldom so easy to deal with - however, I think we have to deal with them, even if we muddle through subjectivity.
You correctly point out that subjectivity is the problem in such rules. Its better just to have an authoritative person who simply bans or deletes a clear trouble-maker. Or, even better, does nothing at all, since the best deterrent to most trolls is for nothing to happen in response to their trolling.
quote: Well and good not having respect for an opinion, but another to show it. Isn't it just as well to give a counter opinion or ask for clarification without commenting on the quality of the comment to which you object? Perhaps the original poster poorly stated an opinion, or you poorly interpreted? Why risk a confrontation before clarification? Maybe it was intentional. Why feed the troll? Why help start the flame war, most of which seem to happen on the thread of an innocent?
If someone makes a cearly racist remark, I'm not going to wait for a clarification - I'm going to make it very clear that such conduct is not socially acceptable. Silence allows such attitudes to perpetuate.
quote: Around here that all seems unlikely but if the original comment was intentional AND clear, what would we accomplish in counter-attack other than giving that poster the vicarious thrill of being noticed?
On that point, why have rules at all? The rules are the vehicle or excuse for reacting to a troll, and giving him the (usually negative) attention for which he was fishing.
posted
Ah, Dave - you must frequent better quality courts than I do in this provincial backwater I live in!
The question of silence vs action regarding a troll - or any "offending" post - is a difficult one for me. Silence can become a form of shunning, which can be a powerful deterrent in some societies, particularly closed ones (such as a religious community). However, I think I prefer the action approach; let people know that you consider something wrong or inappropriate - because silence can imply complicity or indifference.
I was called to account here on a post, which I didn't mean to be offensive - but it came out that way. Thread deleted, and I try to be more careful since then.
From: Café Cramer | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english.
Again, if for example someone posted a racist comment, or something equally offensive, it may well incite a flame war. Would both victim and racist be banned or warned? That would seem to me to be patently unfair.
No it wouldn't. Countering the idiot's opinion wouldn't constitute a flame war, and given that a flame war is when all reason and point to a debate is lost in favour of mindless insults, yes, all participents should be at the very least warned, if not outright banned.
quote:Originally posted by Computo:
quote:9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
One man's spam is another man's art. By spam I gather you mean a succession of silly posts in a board. But again this cannot be a hard and fast rule. I see on the Mission Monitor Board that Danny Blaine-Starman has posted a succession of posts, each of which seem silly in topic, and which have grown quite long. By these rules, that poster should be banned, or at least warned.
That's not what is meant by spam here - posts by those who have become known here as the "Nature Boyz" of a certain picture, or blatant "Buy my endless Viagra" supply. "Silly" posts, with the unheard-of-so-far-exception of the same thread being posted and reposted so far as to go beyond accidental double-posting into a deliberate attempt to clog up the board, aren't spam, and I fail to see why you think they would be.
quote:Originally posted by Computo: You correctly point out that subjectivity is the problem in such rules. Its better just to have an authoritative person who simply bans or deletes a clear trouble-maker. Or, even better, does nothing at all, since the best deterrent to most trolls is for nothing to happen in response to their trolling.
Here I disagree - clear trolls should have their threads deleted at the first opportunity (or posts, in otherwise civil & on-topic threads) and be warned or banned forthwith.
Besides, your "doing nothing is best" here seems to contradict what you say elsewhere.
[ September 14, 2003, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Sanity or Madness? ]
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I think it is possible to respond to such a post respectfully. i.e. pointing out how the original post is offensive, refuting the assertion of the post, and/or ignoring it.
The respect part is to NOT launch a personal attack against the poster (aka a flame war)
IMHO
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english.
Again, if for example someone posted a racist comment, or something equally offensive, it may well incite a flame war. Would both victim and racist be banned or warned? That would seem to me to be patently unfair.
No it wouldn't. Countering the idiot's opinion wouldn't constitute a flame war, and given that a flame war is when all reason and point to a debate is lost in favour of mindless insults, yes, all participents should be at the very least warned, if not outright banned.
I slightly disagree on your definition of a flame war. A heated debate, which is characterised by personal attacks, is a flame war, and I think that in circumstances these are entirely understandable, if not commendable.
Even at law, if someone is incited to commit an act of violence, it is a factor which mitigate the punishment. Here, on the other hand, when dealing only with an exchnage of abuse (which, incidentally, at law is not illegal), people are banned.
Such strict interpretation of loosely drafted and arbitrary rules is draconian and unfair to the point of capriciousness, and doesn't take into account mitigating circumstances.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Computo:
quote:9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
One man's spam is another man's art. By spam I gather you mean a succession of silly posts in a board. But again this cannot be a hard and fast rule. I see on the Mission Monitor Board that Danny Blaine-Starman has posted a succession of posts, each of which seem silly in topic, and which have grown quite long. By these rules, that poster should be banned, or at least warned.
That's not what is meant by spam here - posts by those who have become known here as the "Nature Boyz" of a certain picture, or blatant "Buy my endless Viagra" supply. "Silly" posts, with the unheard-of-so-far-exception of the same thread being posted and reposted so far as to go beyond accidental double-posting into a deliberate attempt to clog up the board, aren't spam, and I fail to see why you think they would be.
I fail to see the distinction betwen the Nature Boys' posts and the silly posts, with the exception that the Nature Boys are more prolific.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Computo: You correctly point out that subjectivity is the problem in such rules. Its better just to have an authoritative person who simply bans or deletes a clear trouble-maker. Or, even better, does nothing at all, since the best deterrent to most trolls is for nothing to happen in response to their trolling.
Here I disagree - clear trolls should have their threads deleted at the first opportunity (or posts, in otherwise civil & on-topic threads) and be warned or banned forthwith.
Besides, your "doing nothing is best" here seems to contradict what you say elsewhere.
I'm offering alternatives to the rule-based paradigm in place here. Either you let one person call the shots as he or she sees fit (the Joe Quesada approach), or just do nothing (the Rob and Moorg approach). Having rules in place simply sets standards which anyone with half a brain can dance around.
As for the do nothing approach to trolls... compare and contrast Athanon, Joe Quesada's Boards, and a handful of others to Moorg's boards and Rob Kamphausen's boards. With the first set of baords, the owners freaked out and shut them down or put in place expensive filtering software. With the second group, they rode out the storm and did nothing - no reaction discouraged further provocation.
Whether you like it or not, so long as this place tries to inhibit free discourse, of whatever variety, and reacts with emotional posts of the kind posted by Greybird on the xlegionx thread, you're going to get attacked. You won't even be able to implement IP bans because most of the Nature Boys use IP carriers with roaming IP addresses - knock out all of AOL's IP addresses and you'll lose half of your regular members.
I've seen this many times before. Either you open the floodgates, or have them knocked down.
Anyway, this topic is boring me now, so that's my last word on the subject.
posted
Well, Dave, the above may have been your last post on the subject, but you've opened the floodgates of discussion, so I hope you won't mind if I put in some belated two cents.
Your argument seems to focus on one question: Should we go back to anarchy, a la Rob's Damn Board, or should Scott and Gary impose martial law on Legion World? You seem to be arguing for the former. In reality, the latter is closer to the truth -- this is Scott and Gary's board. We're their guests. All they've done is ask us to play nice. They have even codified what playing nice means to them. Call them rules, call them guidelines -- it's the same difference.
You find fault with their efforts and point out that anyone "with half a brain" can get around their standards. You are probably correct, but if you are advocating anarchy as a viable alternative, then I disagree. I experienced anarchy before on RDB. I prefer these "rules," thank you.
You see no distinction between what the Nature Boyz (the preferred spelling, apparently) did on RDB and the silly threads that have been posted here? Come again? The Nature Boyz posted the same picture of one of their members sleeping in EVERY THREAD on the Legion board at RDB. They posted it multiple times in each thread. They did this despite repeated requests for them to stop. They made it clear that they were going to exercise their will against those who didn't find their joke funny, and do it continuously. When the Moderators attempted to delete those posts, the Nature Boyz retaliated by flooding the board with several pages of WE WIN AGAIN threads -- just to let the rest of us know who's boss.
Nothing that has been posted on these boards compares to that wanton display of arrogance. Most silly threads here do not go on forever. Silly posts do not invade other, non-related threads. (Threads do tend to veer off-topic, but that's another matter entirely.) As others have said, this has been a very pleasant environment in which to post. I hope it continues to be such.
[ September 14, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: He Who Wanders ]
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You find fault with their efforts and point out that anyone "with half a brain" can get around their standards.
Sorry, I said I had nothing more to say, but I need to clarify or, rather, correct this.
Its not "their" standards, or rules. Its anyone's standards/rules. I was one of the guys appointed to be in charge at Athanon, towards the end. We had rules on what people could and couldn't do. They failed entirely, and after a period of siege by the Nature Boys, the board shut down, for much the same reasons and with the same melodrama as the abandonment of Legion HQ at Rob's boards. Its a shame because Athanon was a particularly good board.
Same goes at Joe Quesada's boards, except that instead of shutting down, they apparently spent a lot of cash to keep the Nature Boys out (by the way, definitely "s", not a "z" - the "z" version were in effect a failed "second generation" group which I was a part of).
I don't fault anyone's efforts here (or query anyone's motivations. Its clear that the rules here - or at least their severe imposition - are a reaction to the laissez-faire attitudes at the RKMBs). In saying that anyone with half a brain can dance around rules, I'm certainly not criticising anyone's drafting skills. I'm speaking from experience. The Nature Boys are clever and persistent, and they love the sort of reaction that they're fed here.
Perhaps in a month people will point and say, "Ha! Naysayer! Our rules worked!" I will tip my hat if that happens. I just doubt it will. And, to be honest, it will trouble me to the extent that I won't even have the inclination to say "I told you so."
In any event, I've said what I wanted to say. I could answer you further on the benefits of "anarchic" moderation, but getting involved in such debates is a bit pointless, especially when you all have entrenched positions derived from your own rather unfortunate experiences at Rob's boards. I've rambled on enough about a subject which, as I've said, the outcome of which I don't care about one way or the other. Hopefully it has been at least marginally insightful.
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
