Open Discussion of Board Rules and Policy

[jennifer]

I agree with most everyones ideas here and thank you for opening a thread for this discussion

Number of suspensions.  I think there is a big difference between someone who has been suspended multiple times - say 3x in a couple of weeks - vs the person who has 3 suspensions over the course of a year. I think that if you are going to build the length of the suspension with accumulation - you have to take time span of incidents into account.  Maybe something like after x months the slate is wiped clean.

nods - generally I'm in favor - but over the last few days there's definitely been an "us - vs - them" mentality going on - where anyone seen as having any criticism of this board is getting slammed with neg nods.  It seems a bit out of hand - but maybe it will die down after a while.   I vote to keep the nods.

mods - definitely can use some more if they're going to be used rather than relying on users "report to mod."  Report to mod is too much like "tattling" for my taste.  If there is something that is obviously out of hand - it won't go unnoticed. 

I think a person should only be banned for:

Posting a business announcement in the guise of a normal post or spamming

I think this is a bad idea because as we have seen recently - it's not always obvious who is posting for their own business and who is just a supporter of a business.

Bumping a thread should not be reason for suspension - I think bumping happens all the time and it is not generally looked at as anything other than harmless.  If bumping IS suspendable... then you have to also include responses like "I agree" or other short responses that don't actually add to the conversation.  I don't think anyone should be in the position to make calls on this. 

[Pinnochio]

over the last few days there's definitely been an "us - vs - them" mentality going on - where anyone seen as having any criticism of this board is getting slammed with neg nods.  It seems a bit out of hand

for real?

[essen]

mods - definitely can use some more if they're going to be used rather than relying on users "report to mod."  Report to mod is too much like "tattling" for my taste.  If there is something that is obviously out of hand - it won't go unnoticed. 

I agree with this, but for a sort of different reason from what you said. It's easy for some people to hit "report to mod," but then there are other people who will never hit "report to mod," except for maybe in the most extreme cases, simply because it seems like tattling. So if the moderators are relying on people to report posts in order to enforce the rules, this will make for an inconsistent and unreliable system by default.

It should be up to the moderators of a board to moderate. I would think that there are enough people here who would be able to be fair moderators in accordance with whatever the board rules are, maybe assign one or two categories per mod.

[paratactical]

Okay, I know that maybe this might seem excessive, but have you guys ever thought of having moderators for different sections of the board?

I know other sites that I've been on often say in the description of each part of the board who the moderator is for that section. It would allow people to directly contact the moderator if they had questions or suspension problems.

I guess I'm kinda suggesting more moderators. Have one person do Politics (since it's the pain in the ass) and divide the rest of the board up to a few people. It would give the mods more time to actually read the posts, allow different parts of the board with different kinds of discussion to have a more organic moderation.

[jennifer]

I agree with this, but for a sort of different reason from what you said. It's easy for some people to hit "report to mod," but then there are other people who will never hit "report to mod," except for maybe in the most extreme cases, simply because it seems like tattling. So if the moderators are relying on people to report posts in order to enforce the rules, this will make for an inconsistent and unreliable system by default.

It should be up to the moderators of a board to moderate. I would think that there are enough people here who would be able to be fair moderators in accordance with whatever the board rules are, maybe assign one or two categories per mod.

Yes - That's what I was thinking - I just didn't explain it.  Thank you.

[masande]

I think this is a bad idea because as we have seen recently - it's not always obvious who is posting for their own business and who is just a supporter of a business.

i have to say, this is probably one of the most annoying and thread-killing practices of this board — speculation and assumptions about a member's true identity or motives. not that i have anything to hide, but i have seen numerous discussions devolve into "i bet you are the owner" or "i bet you are the landlord" or "i bet you work for...".

in my humble opinion, any suggestion, speculation, pondering or conjecture about a member's identity or motives should be discouraged. as far as i'm concerned it's akin to namecalling and offers nothing to enhance a thread.

[Starwind51]

I think this is a bad idea because as we have seen recently - it's not always obvious who is posting for their own business and who is just a supporter of a business.

We already have a business section of the board, anything adverstising a business or service should be put there.  I'm not referring to the people who get panic stricken when a beloved business seems to disappear - that's conversational.

If a business owner or reprentative gets banned because someone else posted in their name, I'm sure a heart-felt message to the mod would get their name back.

[megc]

Wow...8 negative nods so far.  I guess you can't say what you want.  I guess we live in a world where only one persons views are acceptable.  I am sure to get negative nodded again  :)

Negative nods don't have to determine what you say or don't say.  They are not important enough to make you give them that much power.

[Bentleys Dad]

I honestly don't know if they are user created or not but are you suggesting that the definition of bumping a thread is not accurate?

Sorry I didn't see this before AJT, but yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. Or perhaps the definition needs redefining.

[essen]

Bentley's Dad, when Mirriam-Webster gets around to adding "bump" in this context, it's going to mean exactly what these user-created dictionaries already say it means. Which is to reply in a thread just to bring it to the top of a forum, without adding any new content to it. Whether or not that's an internet crime is up to merm.

Can most of us agree that the problem here isn't so much the rules themselves, but how they are enforced? To me the moderating is just done with too heavy a hand, which stems from the moderators feeling too overwhelmed to deal with issues in a more careful manner.

[Bentleys Dad]

Can most of us agree that the problem here isn't so much the rules themselves, but how they are enforced? To me the moderating is just done with too heavy a hand, which to me stems from the moderators feeling too overwhelmed to deal with issues in a more careful manner.

Oh I totally agree with you that enforcement of the rules is a bit wishy-washy( can I say that?).

[megc]

I need some clarification - are people advocating for the right to call other members of the community names or insult them?

[essen]

megc, I could be wrong, but I don't think people are annoyed just because they're not allowed to call people jerks or whatnot. The annoyance seems to come in that doing so gets them tossed off the board for a week or more, when it should really just cause for a warning or post deletion. On every other forum I've been a member of, when things get too heated a moderator will just step in, perhaps delete or edit the offending posts depending on the circumstances, and tell people to cool it. People only get suspended or banned if they've really proven themselves to be trolls, or if they refuse to act civil despite repeated warnings. A suspension is not a warning; it's a punishment, and this is what I think is really bothering people.

[AJTNYC]

Sorry I didn't see this before AJT, but yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. Or perhaps the definition needs redefining.

B...so then how do you define bumping a thread?  It seems that there is a general consensus of the definition in the links i posted.  I admit, I didn't quite understand it until recently. Do you have a different definition?

[kempsternyc]

Really? We cannot conduct ourselves in a way that doesn't require moderators......

Really?

I'm sorry, but this whole thing seems silly.

Someone....we know who...was banned for saying....a******

we aren't adult enough to act above that?

Really?