That the current set of rules are not well-defined enough.

ClockworkUniverse

^So it's required if you want to be an asshole without getting banned, then? That I can understand.

Nova

Yes.

curiousTraitor

Because, say for example I disagree with Chagen over something, and I post, "That is dumb and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between OS X and Windows. I'd suggest you get a little education before you go and post a massive rant about how OS X users are just massive hipsters."

He feels insulted, reports me for not being polite, I get banned.

Alternatively, I can make another thread that doesn't name names and say, "Some people need to stop saying shit they don't know anything about." This doesn't break any rules and I'm being a passive aggressive whiny bitch, which make everyone wonder who the fuck I'm talking about and puts everyone on edge.

Essentially, it creates a community built around not ever directly saying anything bad about anyone. There has to be some kind of qualifier where being polite isn't the most important factor in a ban/disciplinary action.

Hatter

Guitar, profanity would be allowed, but saying "fuck you you goat fucker" and not contributing to the discussion wouldn't be allowed. Plus, a ban on outright insulting someone would at least get people to use creative thinking to get around it.

ClockworkUniverse

^^Why do you need to do either of those? Couldn't you just explain the "fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between OS X and Windows" bit?

GuitarBizarre

Yes. Loopholes. Its very, very easy to, if not make yourself seem the reasonable party while still being passive aggressive, at least create enough ambiguity by using it, that banning you would seem unjustly harsh punishment.

And people given an environment that provides an unspoken encouragement for that sort of behaviour will naturally gravitate to it, becoming passive aggressive and providing constantly changing examples of how they can get under someone elses skin completely while adhering to any standards of "reasonableness" you can dream up.

There is always a way to annoy someone with words, no matter how restrictive you make the rules defining reasonable conversation. Someone will manage it, and they will abuse it in order to get rises out of those people they don't like. And, then, those people will get banned. And because nobody ever agrees 100% on anything, ever, that will leave behind a forum comprised primarily or solely of people who are simply very, very good at being assholes politely, all trying to get rises out of each other as best they can so they can "win" arguments by making other people seem unreasonable, blissfully unaware that what they're doing is just as unreasonable, and perverts the concept of reason in their own minds in order to allow them their fleeting moments of victory.

GuitarBizarre

INUH - Because people disagree and people aren't emotionless robots. You can't expect people to bottle up feelings, and it should be self evident that anyone who tries to enforce only emotionlessly neutral, or positive conversations, will only succeed in inspiring people to find new and semi-acceptable outlets for their negative feelings towards those people or opinions they disagree with.

Passive aggression will happen under those terms, no matter how hard you try to stamp it out, and all you'll be left with in the end is a scant few people, fighting with each other as politely as possible, over debates that long ago ceased to be informed or reasonable in any way.

And they won't be banned. because they're only being ambiguously offensive, blamelessly tactless by "mistake", and because they're always the victim, when someone gets "out of hand" and tells them what they really think, after bottling it up and trying to passive aggressively outmaneuver them.

curiousTraitor

Though I'm not saying that you shouldn't be polite. Just that it shouldn't be the only judge for a ban-able offense.

GuitarBizarre

I'm not arguing that either, of course, but its a long way down my list of "Reasons people should be banned"

Somewhere just below "Too dumb to live" and above "Only posts about tractors"

Vorpy

   1. Dumb threads are not allowed, unless they are in some way an entertaining spectacle.

Dumbness is subjective and differs from person to person.

   2. People are not allowed post in threads solely to complain about the thread itself.

Komodin will not like this at all.

   3. Threads casting other posters in a negative light are undesirable.

Does this count "God I hate some Conservatives (Yes this means you GMH but not really)"? How vague and unrelated can it be to be outlawed?

   4. Shitposting should not trump seriousness, unless applied in a rational controlled manner that is totally relevant.

Not sure if I agree because I don't know what "Seriousness" on this place counts as since nobody but me is sincere when posting.

   5. Chagen isn't allowed to start any threads about his family.

One complaint about a person per thread or else it's a Dogpile.

   6. Threads should be marked NSFW if they are thus.

I can agree.

   7. NSFW threads should be contained in a magical brandspanking new post repository called "NSFW". Creative, right? Subforum ahoy!

I agree with this, but don't make it solely for nasty pictures from Danbooru. There's gotta be more shit besides shocker site pictures and porn to fill that niche.

   8. No more than 5 threads can be started by someone in a day.

I agree.

   9. (possibly) Hot topics like abortion and some such can be placed in a special board for seriousness and flaming. It will be IJBM within IJBM and mixed with OTC.

Um, that's fucking stupid? There is nothing wrong with those topics, it's just the problem users who don't want to discuss it who shit it up with attempts at being edgy or snide. Rule 4 and rule 2 apply to this.

  10. "People who X" is a stupid title and should not happen ever.

Agreed. Because "People who X" are not real people.

GuitarBizarre

I should note that "Being Vorpy" is much higher up my list of reasons to ban someone, than rudeness, because seriously, did that post just now actually contribute in any intelligent way to anything being discussed in this thread? I'm voting "No", since what Vorpy just said was a list of comments ranging from "No shit sherlock, my mind is blown", through "Thats great but it has nothing to do with whats being discussed" and ending with "God just stop talking forever, that wasn't funny if it was trying to be humorous, and its too obvious to be a real troll"

snowbull

^^Komodin never even comes on here.

Nova

Komodin will not like this at all.

He will get over it.

   7. NSFW threads should be contained in a magical brandspanking new post repository called "NSFW". Creative, right? Subforum ahoy!

I am sorry, but I think this is illegal. You need to make sure all members of your site are 18 or older before you are allowed to do this. Otherwise, you are corrupting a minor. This is a rule the moderators need to crack down on.

Vorpy

I
am sorry, but I think this is illegal. You need to make sure all
members of your site are 18 or older before you are allowed to do this.
Otherwise, you are corrupting a minor. This is a rule the moderators
need to crack down on.

How many others are under the legal age in their country other than Chagen?

snowbull

I seriously doubt IJBM 2.5 is high on the list of things the feds plan on cracking down on.

curiousTraitor

I think it's more the responsibility of the site that is linked to to determine the age of the user. Not that I know of any case involving that law being taken to court.

Nova

"How many others are under the legal age in their country other than Chagen?"

Me.

"I seriously doubt IJBM 2.5 is high on the list of things the feds plan on cracking down on. "

Are you saying that the mods should allow this to continue regardless of its' legality?

I believe both sites get in trouble, actually.

ClockworkUniverse

By the current rules, you aren't allowed to embed NSFW stuff, but you can link to it. By that rule, the burden is on the person clicking the link and the site linked to to determine that they're old enough.

Nova

I... really reccomend at least tightening that rule, INUH.

Khwarizmi

I know I said I was going to stay out of here, but if I may - the primary reason that I feel that aggression should be moderated for and stupidity should not is that I see stupidity as an unintentional behaviour which may improve over time as a person becomes less ignorant and more self-aware, while aggression is something which any rational person can avoid if they try hard enough but which is disruptive and may upset others.

Basically, nobody wants to be stupid, and stupid people improve over time, whereas aggression can be consciously controlled, and there is no reason to suppose that anybody who is not controlling their aggression intends to change their behaviour in future.

(The secondary reason is that I don't regard some of the IJBMers I have seen accused of stupidity in the past, such as Rottweiler, Vorpy or Fireworks, as stupid people, which presumably means I am one of them, and I'd rather not be banned myself.)

Nova

"(The secondary reason is that I don't regard some of the IJBMers I have seen accused of stupidity in the past, such as Rottweiler, Vorpy or Fireworks, as stupid people, which presumably means I am one of them, and I'd rather not be banned myself.)"

You are not guilty by association.

curiousTraitor

A single instance of stupidity isn't a ban worthy offense, in my opinion, but a repetition of the same events shows an unwillingness to grow or change. A user that keeps disrupting conversation by posting in a way that caused arguments before should probably be warned or banned in some way.

And I don't mean arguments in a discussion sense, I mean them in a "this conversation has derailed into a hatefest" sense.

Khwarizmi

>You are not guilty by association.

I wasn't suggesting that I was.  I was suggesting that I was stupid.

>A single instance of stupidity isn't a ban worthy offense, in my opinion, but a repetition of the same events shows an unwillingness to grow or change.

I can agree with this, I think, depending on what behaviour is expected to be changed.

GuitarBizarre

There is stupid and willing to learn, and there is stupid and aggressively unwilling to even discuss reasonably that possibility. A troll is the latter, the people you mentioned are the latter, and the kind of person a good forum wants to keep around, is the former.

A key component of a user becoming "not stupid" is that user having the ability and inclination to listen to what someone is saying and adapt accordingly. If you are being aggressively stupid and you get warned about it by a mod or older forum member, then the kind of person we want to keep around will usually change their behaviour accordingly, at least a little.

If they continue to react badly to being corrected and refuse to consider their knowledge might be inferior to that of someone else on a subject, then they slowly edge their way into the latter category, after being given benefit of the doubt they belong in the former.

A few incidents and a final warning later, they either wise up or they get banned.


On the other hand, aggression can be argued as justified, and, once again, the person either does it infrequently enough that its worth taking account of, or they do it eloquently enough it can be taken as emphasis rather than outright insults, or if they do it all the time, incoherently, and show no signs of changing this behaviour, they're banned.

Imposing a specific rule on either situation is silly, but imposing any rules beyond common sense on freedom of expression, including the negatives that come with that, will only lead to people skirting those rules as best they can, and thus passive aggression etc etc we've discussed this above.

Nova

"I wasn't suggesting that I was.  I was suggesting that I was stupid."

See, now, I thought that was so implicitly false it didn't even need to be refuted.

curiousTraitor

I think we're getting back around to the first post that Ponicalica made. The rules are not the big issue here. It's that the moderation needs to be more proactive in making decisions on the attitude they want in this forum and enforcing that attitude.

Specific rules are not needed, but general guidelines backed by a moderating staff that works together to enforce the kind of forum they want and that users appreciate are a necessity.

Nova

Perhaps.

Vorpy

A key component of a user becoming "not stupid" is that user having the
ability and inclination to listen to what someone is saying and adapt
accordingly. If you are being aggressively stupid and you get warned
about it by a mod or older forum member, then the kind of person we want
to keep around will usually change their behavior accordingly, at
least a little.

A lot of my behaviors are problematic, which ones don't matter much at all and which ones should I change?

GuitarBizarre

@curiousTraitor Perhaps so, but as mentioned, I believe the moderation here is over inclined to believe that intelligence follows as a function of proper decorum, which is patently false, as following proper decorum while being offensive is pretty much the definition of passive aggressive, which I think everyone will agree has always been rife within both the original fora and this series of offshoots.

Vorpy - Post less, troll less, try to be serious once in a while without being sarcastic about how serious you are, troll less, troll less, stop crowing for attention, and troll less.

Khwarizmi

OK, well.  I see your argument, Guitar.  I see the distinction between willing and unwilling to learn.  None of the people I listed behave in a way that I would like to see a person banned for, but as I said I wouldn't involve myself in the actual rule-making here, I withdraw my objection.