All the NSFW stuff coming off of TVT currently

Flyboy

I'd rather stifle discussion of a site that's shitting itself than chastise people for harboring frustration, honestly, because I really don't think we can just trust that every member of this community will be able to keep their cool.

Your stance relies on not trusting your userbase and assuming them to be shitheads until proven otherwise, which while not necessarily an unjustified position, is probably too heavy-handed and reactionary for a site with what appears to be less than 30 regular users.  

 

You're running a small-scale forum, not the United States.  Authoritarian what's-best-for-you isn't always the best policy here. 

glennmagusharvey

First, I think I should acknowledge my own fault, of starting this thread and effectively encouraging (even if unintentional) importation of drama.  I was only hoping to help set some plans in motion for the creation of an archival site to pick up the stuff that TVT is currently blanking.  IJBM was spawned in a similar way, after I repeatedly mentioned to people to look into other forum hosting.  That said, those mentions took place (1) on TVT itself, and (2) privately via PMs (and for a short time, on the "ghost" IJBM board).

I should not have done this, especially in my role as a moderator.  Instead of recreating a thread on this topic to make up for the one I locked due to the timestamp bug, I should have just said to y'all that you're free to make a new one.

Second, I also recommended our accepting one of our newest problem users, only paying attention to the join reason.  He said he wanted to talk about TVT.  We let him in, and knowing the recent events on TVT, sent him a PM saying that he was not to import drama.  (Curiously, he was technically banned not for importing drama but for creating it, though it would be a lie to say the two were not related.)

Third, perhaps we should first try not accepting people who come here solely to talk about TVT.  This is a pretty simple step that we all seem to agree on, and doesn't really even require a rules tweak, at least in my opinion.

Fourth, @INUH, if you want to write up a simpler rules post that still touches on all the important bits, that would be awesome.

All Nines

I'm thinking:



-add a rule stating that this is not a site for bitching about the way that a site you're involved in runs itself (behind its back), insofar as the complainant is concerned, and problems should be left to each community to deal with

-reject applications that only mention TVTropes

-ban threads theorizing on policy change and warn those threads' OP's not to do that

MadassAlex

Your stance relies on not trusting your userbase and assuming them to be shitheads until proven otherwise, which while not necessarily an unjustified position, is probably too heavy-handed and reactionary for a site with what appears to be less than 30 regular users.  

Yeah, this is the other thing. 

I know for a fact that the bulk of the userbase here is not, in fact, comprised of shitheads. This is what gives me faith that we could look at changing our personal conduct when dealing with potential drama. 

All Nines

"Your stance relies on not trusting your userbase and assuming them to be shitheads until proven otherwise, which while not necessarily an unjustified position, is probably too heavy-handed and reactionary for a site with what appears to be less than 30 regular users"



Dude, did you read this thread? :P




Look, I'm not accusing this userbase of being shitheads, and I'm disappointed that you gleaned that from my post. I'm just saying, some people here are undeniably too attached to the site. All this talk of corroborating and fixing other sites' problems needs to stop just as much as the empty bitching.

Flyboy

Dude, did you read this thread? :P
Look, I'm not accusing this userbase of being shitheads, and I'm disappointed that you gleaned that from my post.

Shitheads probably is too strong an adjective.  Drama whore could work, I suppose. 

And yes, I did read the thread.  In this case, the drama wasn't even actually related to the topic, but rather to an idiot who showed up to talk about the topic but dropped an info bomb that was far, far worse (and more interesting, in a morbid fashion), which then derailed the whole thread into shaming him. 

So... you're blaming discussion about TvTropes for this when the thread was derailed away from that discussion to cause the hubbub. 

However, since he only showed up since he was banned from TvTropes, changing how you admit members might actually be effective. 

All Nines

Yeah. At the very least, we'll scrutinize applications much more heavily and add to the rules that you're expected to do more than hang yourself up on one site.

It's quarter of 1 in the morning. I'd rather have this discussion later.

Alkthash

Maybe the rule should be phrased as "if you have an IJBM about another site's policies, take it to that site?"

I have mixed feelings about this suggestion. On one hand it cuts out pointless threads about stupid stuff on SA and TVT, that go in circles and repeat the same things ad nauseum. On the other hand, say a big site like Google institutes a worrisome policy, and we want to talk about it. Under that rule discussion of it would be against the rules. 

ClockworkUniverse

Hmmm...how about "if you have an IJBM about another forum's policies, post it there instead. It'll be more productive anyway."

glennmagusharvey

Well, technically, the TVT wiki is not a forum.

But I'm going to sleep.  Looks like our consensus is that users had better have more of a substantial reason to join this site other than "I want to talk about TVTropes", and I think this is a good first step.

ClockworkUniverse

True. This is a problematic issue and I don't think we're going to get anywhere just jumping at solutions. Talking it over will hopefully help.

I'm working on that new rules post. I'm reorganizing things so that just the main bullet points are out in the open and more details, elaboration, etc. are in toggleboxes. Should streamline things.

captainbrass

Personally, I'd be happy to reject all applicants who clearly just wanted to let off steam here about TV Tropes. There has to be some discretion about it, because people just saying "I heard about this on TVTropes and it sounds interesting" may well be fine, but that's for the admins to decide. 

And ban threads about it (and for that matter Something Awful - sorry for starting one myself). They just cause drama and attract banned tropers/curious goons. If people want to PM about it or whatever that's up to them.

It is all a bit like Fight Club though. "The first rule of IJBM is that you do not talk about TV Tropes."

InsanityAddict

Perhaps do it as an addendum to the importing/exporting drama rule so that it also covers ^, ban refugees and people we want to reject based on having a shitty history on another site? I'd hesitate to specifically mention any site in particular as a taboo topic: that is also a surefire way to attract problem users like a honeypot precisely because they see it as an easy trolling tool, and also makes said addendum less flexible.

ClockworkUniverse

Having thought about it more, it might be best if we just keep in mind going forward that TVT talk is particularly likely to import drama, and try to act faster if something is going downhill.

Whale

As far as I saw it, the drama in this case only really started when Draven said he was a paedo and okay with it. However, I don't know how it has gone down previously.

ClockworkUniverse

Note that this isn't the first thread on this issue; the last one got locked.

It's more that something like this (not always in this exact form) happens every time anything happens on TV Tropes.

captainbrass

I think part of the problem is getting a (somewhat undeserved) reputation as a refuge for banned tropers. Actually, refuge for disillusioned tropers is closer to the truth for most of us.

DYRE

More like bored tropers, in my case... >.>

ClockworkUniverse

^^Honestly, I'd rather be just some forum.

DYRE

That's... unlikely to happen, considering the circumstances that it was created in, and the fact that the vast majority of the users are formerly/currently from TV Tropes.

ClockworkUniverse

Fair enough, but still...:/

All Nines

For what it's worth, my motivation for wanting rules changes is that I really just want to stop seeing the word "TVTropes", and I, personally, am willing to give up a few things to make it happen. But really, a decent rule to have might be to disallow people from making threads bitching about being banned from X community, or threads about why they left X community, because, really, no one cares (unless it ties into something that's actually illegal, like with Redditbomb, as opposed to another admin's preferences for running a site). On top of rejecting known dramawhores/people who just want to complain about TVTropes outright.

gentlemanorcus

Eh. Banning any discussion of TVTropes seems too extreme a measure. I'd say just be way more wary about locking TVTropes convos if they seem, to be getting out of hand.

All Nines

Sounds good. But I still want to also follow through with some of the other ideas that we've had, so I'll wait for further feedback on my other suggestions.

Bee

To be honest, in all the time I've been here, I've skimmed the rules perhaps twice.

And to be honest, I haven't bothered at all.  It seems like what few bans and locks we have come down to whether a dude was being enough of an inflammatory jackass to cause undue drama, or did something outright illegal.  Both should be common sense for pretty much every forum ever.

Granted I'm not exactly a tremendous firecracker, but I dunno.  I guess I just feel like any new rules wouldn't be read by the people who would be stirring shit up anyway.

glennmagusharvey

I think generally speaking internet community rules have similar content:

* Don't be a jerk.  (Exceptions: anyone the community feels is worthy of being treated to jerk behavior.)

* Don't do anything illegal.  (What counts as illegal may vary between jurisdictions and forums.  Really nasty stuff like child porn is right out.  Stuff that's less "wrong", such as copyright-infringing downloads, may vary.)

* Don't cause problems/drama or otherwise piss off users/mods/admins.  Closely related to the "don't be a jerk" rule.

* Mods/admins reserve the right to do whatever.

One major thing that forums do disagree on, however, is necroing/bumping/reviving threads.  Some really hate necroing with a passion; others really hate it when people post new threads on stuff that already has old threads.  Here, it's advised to check the rules and get a sense of how people bring up old topics.  A common rule of thumb here is "allowed to bump but must contribute substantively to thread (contentless bumps prohibited)".

Bee

Yeah, pretty much the only context I've ever seen where bumping was allowed without contributing anything big is guild recruitment on official MMO forums.  And even then it's a facepalm thing and not anything worthy of retaliation.

ClockworkUniverse

Really nasty stuff like child porn is right out

Usually. Look at Reddit :P

InsanityAddict

>(Exceptions: anyone the community feels is worthy of being treated to jerk behavior.)

Yeah, just gonna point out here that this is one of the easiest free passes to stir up a lot of drama. The community almost never shares a total consensus on who is worthy of scorn and in what measure, and with Draven the people who disliked the ridiculing only showed up later in the thread. Ergo, this created the illusion of a unified front, which riles up the dog pile and sort of justifies bully behaviour because someone 'deserves' it. Better to be tough on dogpiles and ask users to flag dramawhores instead.

Yes, I know I should be the last person to point this out, but if I can't have my fun then no-one can. >

RedEyedAbyss

"Exceptions: anyone the community feels is worthy of being treated to jerk behavior."

That consistently leads to a double standard situation in which a popular user can get away with behaviour which would be inexcusable for anyone else. The rules should be universal and not be swayed by popularity contests.