How to get yourself banned

[paratactical]

Please see: Thread Bumping.

I think perhaps I take for granted that users of this forum will be familiar with netiquette in general. There is a ton of information on the web about netiquette. Any person who regularly uses forums should be familiar with the basics.

The rules of this discussion forum are shaped after general netiquette principals employed (to varying degrees) at other mid to large-sized forums across the internet.

I'm familiary with netiquette and post other places, but if those Freeze Peach threads where it's one person posting the same crap over and over again don't get anyone in trouble, I think one bump in a thread that was relevant because suspension where happening on the board isn't any more inflammatory or deserving of suspension.

[AJTNYC]

I'm thoroughly confused over the suspension process, based on what I have seen and the recent suspensions of NYCmacUser and Bentleysdad.  I would like to understand the following:
If I'm not mistaken, when someone posts something, Merm, or another Mod, thinks is offensive and the poster gets suspended as a result, the posts stays for everyone to see.  What is the point or logic behind that?  Why try to discourage the poster but leave the offensive message in place. 

Second, mamamac didn't actually spell  A - - hole.  To be clear, she spelled it a$$hole.   (As an aside, I totally understand Bentleys suspension)  People do not completely spell out offensive words on here all the time but I don't believe they get suspended or warned.  There is a thread called The Astorians F - - K the neighbors soundtrack.  Why is F - -K not a problem but a$$hole is?  I don't believe the OP of that thread was suspended.  And if he was because a mod finds that offensive then why is it OK to have F - -K in a thread? 

Similarly, people use arse instead of ass, F'ing instead of f - - - ing, etc.,  so I guess I'm just really confused as to where the line is drawn.


 

[merm]

Using "bad words" isn't against board policy explicitly. Except in cases where there would be an excessive use of profanity. Instead, we're more interested that members treat each other with respect - and name calling (or using profanity to call someone a name) is no permitted under any circumstances.

If you call someone a name, you risk being suspended, and this was the case with Mac - albeit a creative if not tasteful attempt to get around the "rule".

Early on we removed posts that were against board policy, but the problem with that is that it broke up the conversation when people would respond and soon the thread made no sense. So I started leaving them up instead, at least people could then see the inappropriate remarks and respond to it openly, while the poster who made the remark was removed from the conversation temporarily.

[Bentleys Dad]

Please see: Thread Bumping.

I think perhaps I take for granted that users of this forum will be familiar with netiquette in general. There is a ton of information on the web about netiquette. Any person who regularly uses forums should be familiar with the basics.

The rules of this discussion forum are shaped after general netiquette principals employed (to varying degrees) at other mid to large-sized forums across the internet.

Bentley, if by looking at the thread you honestly don't know where your posts were inflammatory, I'll be glad to compile this for you and send it to you personally.

No, I honestly don't, that's why I asked if it was possible to get an email detailing it. Truthfully this board has changed, a lot, some for the better and some for the worse, since the time I first started coming here. To me, at least, it seems that sometimes the rules are changed depending on who you know and what threads you post in. It can be a bit off putting to newcomers and disillusioning to oldies like myself.

[AJTNYC]

Using "bad words" isn't against board policy explicitly. Except in cases where there would be an excessive use of profanity. Instead, we're more interested that members treat each other with respect - and name calling (or using profanity to call someone a name) is no permitted under any circumstances.

If you call someone a name, you risk being suspended, and this was the case with Mac - albeit a creative if not tasteful attempt to get around the "rule".

Early on we removed posts that were against board policy, but the problem with that is that it broke up the conversation when people would respond and soon the thread made no sense. So I started leaving them up instead, at least people could then see the inappropriate remarks and respond to it openly, while the poster who made the remark was removed from the conversation temporarily.

Thanks for your explantion Merm but I really want to understand the way this works.  If you call someone on the board a name you risk being suspended or if you call anyone a name?  For example, can I say George W. Bush is an a--hole and spell it out?  or can i refer to myself as an a--hole and spell it out?

You say "Bad words" is not against board policy so does that mean that I could freely write out F--k, for example, so long as it's not directed at someone?

[merm]

For example, can I say George W. Bush is an a--hole and spell it out?  or can i refer to myself as an a--hole and spell it out?

You say "Bad words" is not against board policy so does that mean that I could freely write out F--k, for example, so long as it's not directed at someone?

Yes to all questions.

[pineapple]

Yippee.  George Bush, total asshole.  Freeze Peach, total pain in my fat ass.  f___ the 18 story office tower.

[PJ]

bump :-P

[jennifer]

No, I honestly don't,

I think you can get a time out for suggesting that a member be thrown in the East River.  I'm assuming this is what the suspension was for -

kind of funny that when I read the post I wondered "what is a Rendo?" and "what good would it do to throw one in the river?"   Then I had an AH HA moment.

 :-)

[merm]

To me, at least, it seems that sometimes the rules are changed depending on who you know and what threads you post in. It can be a bit off putting to newcomers and disillusioning to oldies like myself.

To be honest, I miss some of the threads because Dirk and I can't keep up with all the conversations happening on the board so we tend to respond to the ones that are reported to moderator. There are some cases where a user may cross the line, but where it's not enough for other members to send the post to the moderator queue and so we miss it. However, it's interesting to have you say that it "depends on who you know" because I recently was accused by others as suspending people I know too often, and giving people I don't know the benefit of the doubt.

In general though I am realizing however as a result of the recent feedback that it's probably a good time to solicit new input on the current rules, and perhaps add more moderators to the group again. It's my goal to 1) have rules that are agreed upon by the majority of the community (not simply the most vocal) and 2) enforce those rules as fairly as possible. As the community changes I recognize that the rules (and moderator group) will need to change and adapt as well.

[mcdirk]

Both Matt and I try and read all the threads, but there are a lot of them, and when things start to get heated, we start getting people reporting the thread via the report to moderator function. 

Once I see a number (or even just one) report, I always go into the thread and see if things have crossed the line or if a warning note can calm things down.  Usually a posting reminding folks of the rules of the board is sufficient to get discussion back on track, sometimes suspensions result, but that does not happen most times. 

I think this discussion has been very helpful in fleshing out an understanding of board rules.

[Sweeper]

No, I honestly don't,

You nominated someone being thrown into the river. I am all for free expression, but if there is a suspension policy for inflammatory language, that pretty much passes the test.

BTW, are you sticking with "honestly" or is that hyperbole also?

Most people would say "no, I don't".

[Bentleys Dad]

You nominated someone being thrown into the river. I am all for free expression, but if there is a suspension policy for inflammatory language, that pretty much passes the test.

BTW, are you sticking with "honestly" or is that hyperbole also?

Most people would say "no, I don't".

First of all it was sarcasm, or does that go over your head?
 Secondly, who died and made you king?
 Thirdly, I am being honest about being honest about not knowing why I was suspended is all.
Well, perhaps I'm not most people TYVM.
I don't use hyperbole in my speech, honestly.

[AJTNYC]

If you call someone a name, you risk being suspended, and this was the case with Mac - albeit a creative if not tasteful attempt to get around the "rule".

Merm, I think it is a good idea to review your rules and open the discussion to the board because I really do find them confusing and somewhat inconsistent.  As stated previously, I've been wrestling with your procedure to try to understand where the line is drawn.  You said in the case of Mac she called someone a name.  I went back and reviewed her post and don't feel that she directed her comments to any individual person.  Although you say she "creatively" tried to get "around the rule", I cannot discern who in fact she wanted to call an a$$hole.  She was, albeit jokingly, asking you permission to call "someone" an a$$hole, however, I can't tell from reading her post who is that "someone".  I don't think it is fair to assume that her comments were directed to the poster immediately before her.  In fact, in re-reading the posts I don't think they were.  She simply didn't call anyone a "bad" word.  I'm reasonably intelligent and just can't tell.  Although I appreciate your attempts to clarify your "rules", I don't find them to be all to clear (although your earlier post certainly clarified some things for me) and in the case of Mac, i find your application of the "rules" to be somewhat unfair.

[lanseaux]

I highly recommend reading all posts after a lot of wine, while listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers (hey, Astoria connection!).

Otherwise, nothing make sense nohow contrariwise.  Even after the above, nothing makes sense nohow contrariwise.  But at least you don't care.