People posting in threads they don't care about to make irrelevant points.

glennmagusharvey

It's relevant because I'm expressing that I'm already not very happy with that user.  That said, let us NOT talk about that user further.  Thank you.

@Cygan: I had to deal with this before I got you on board.

@MadassAlex:

"I'm not saying don't punish those who break the rules, mind. Whimsy can
go too far. But keep in mind that this forum is a surrogate for the most
chaotic subforum on TvTropes, so being overly harsh on whimsy is
counterproductive to its initial aims.

Ideally, we want contribution and shitposting fun to coexist in peace. Neither one is worth losing the other.

I
do realise how difficult it is to balance this in practical terms,
though, especially given some of the userbase you have to work with."

This.

Stormtroper

I think a permaban for three strikes is maybe a bit too much, specially when it's a week for 2. How about something like 6 months? (and maybe increase the 2 strikes penalty).

Anyhow, more important than that is actually banning people (for however long), there's the idea that nobody ever gets banned from here no matter what they do or for how long they do it (or at least, that's how I feel).

I'd say that rep plays a big part as well. Seriously, how many times has IJBM II been referenced as a shithole in TvT?

Never seen it referenced over there. What do they say about it?

Edit: Crap, missed the new page.

Noimporta

Or do you?

Can't be 100% sure without the ability to IP check, but I have a pretty good guess.

What do they say about it?

It's a shithole/worthless/so shitposty even Anonus won't touch it/etc.

MillerCross

I think a permaban for three strikes is maybe a bit too much, specially when it's a week for 2. How about something like 6 months? (and maybe increase the 2 strikes penalty).

Six months sounds a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Anyhow, more important than that is actually banning people (for however long), there's the idea that nobody ever gets banned from here no matter what they do or for how long they do it (or at least, that's how I feel).

Notwithstanding says hi.

Never seen it referenced over there. What do they say about it?

Here

All Nines

^ Well, one of them (kashchei) was notwithstanding anyway.

MillerCross

I know, but he asked what they said, it was the first thread I could think of. TBH, there's much more in Random Thoughts about it.

All Nines

Probably. I think I've seen at least one person say such things. Oh well.

FrodoGoofballCoTV

Leaving a hyperlink, without an explanation of its purpose to the discussion.

Guilty as charged, although it was relevant.  Or, at least I thought it was.  But I think we do really need to get stricter about keeping the wonderposts in the correct category.

Stormtroper

Six months sounds a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Well, it's an eternity in internet time, and longer than IJBM2 has been alive. Or you mean it sounds ridiculous to have such a long ban and not make it permanent?

@That thread: Boohoo, I'm having flashbacks from IJBM1's destruction.

Wait, notwithstanding got banned? News to me. I take back what I said earlier. Sorry.

MillerCross

Well, it's an eternity in internet time, and longer than IJBM2 has been alive. Or you mean it sounds ridiculous to have such a long ban and not make it permanent?

Yes, and it's also a bit of a big jump from 2 weeks to six monts. I'd say that a month would be better.

All Nines

So, how do people feel about this, for a 3-strike rule:

1st infraction: Week

2nd infraction: Month

3rd infraction: Forever

Just throwing something out there. I don't necessarily agree with these times myself, but I want some sort of baseline to be discussed.

MillerCross

As I proposed, I'm obligated to say FUCK NO yes.

Vorpy

Personally I don't think the majority of people who created accounts here really aim to come back (Travis Bickle, Ardiente, Lithp, Unknownlight, Lavos, etc.) and they honestly didn't explain to us why they won't. People have mentioned that they don't want to come here because the software is ugly-looking/dumb and they are too used to TV Tropes to bother getting involved into two forums.

I also think this place, while being a tumor of Tv Tropes, doesn't really assert itself enough as it's own site, and merely declares itself bannee run-off and a place to make threads about hating TV Tropes, although I would enjoy it if this site did actually gain independence (we have the domain, that's a start).

MillerCross

^ I agree with the second paragraph.

glennmagusharvey

> People have mentioned that they don't want to come here because the
software is ugly-looking/dumb and they are too used to TV Tropes to
bother getting involved into two forums.

Well, I've gotten enough positive feedback about the looks of things, so I ain't changing stuff anymore.  (Unless it's like AFD or some other special occasion.)  So that reasoning can go shove it.

As for using two forums, yes, I know that it's a bit more of a bother.  However, I don't see a way to reintegrate this with the TVTF, so nothing can be done about that.

> I also think this place, while being a tumor of Tv Tropes, doesn't
really assert itself enough as it's own site, and merely declares itself
bannee run-off and a place to make threads about hating TV Tropes,
although I would enjoy it if this site did actually gain independence
(we have the domain, that's a start).

I agree.

LouieW

Everest,
There's that "banned users come here" point, yeah. But we, as
moderators, don't treat other users based on popularity (if we did,
Chuggles would probably be down for the count by now). But there's
reasoning behind bans. If people act like they did when they got banned
before, they're going to get banned again.

I do not disagree. I guess I was just trying to lay out how other people who dislike it may view IJBM II. I definitely agree that you should not ban members based on popularity though. I think that if people break the rules enough times they should be banned, regardless of who they happen to be.

glennmagusharvey,
I'm willing to let slide one-off jokes and responses, such as me too,
meme images, and stuff, PROVIDED THAT THEY DON'T DERAIL THE THREAD.  If
you have caused the thread to become such that someone else who comes in
wanting to actually talk meaningfully about the topic of the thread
feels unwelcome, then this is a problem.

I am kind of wary that such a rule may not be clear enough, but I may be wrong about that. I suppose I just think that it may be difficult to determine if people who want to talk meaningfully about the topic of a thread feel unwelcome and that may lead to a lack of enforcement whatsoever.

Vorpy,
I also think this place, while being a tumor of Tv Tropes, doesn't
really assert itself enough as it's own site, and merely declares itself
bannee run-off and a place to make threads about hating TV Tropes,
although I would enjoy it if this site did actually gain independence
(we have the domain, that's a start).

I definitely agree with you there. Does anyone else think that having something like a Troper Covens section might be a good idea? I do not mean a place to discuss real-life meetups as much as a section of the forum where people can try to coordinate playing games online and working on projects (written, game-related, liveblog, or otherwise) with fellow IJBMers.

I think that TV Tropes is actually not that great at doing that, partially because of its size and wiki focus so I think that having such a subforum, assuming people actually post there, may be a good idea. I also think that by encouraging people to work and play together, it might help reduce some of the drama and improve IJBM's reputation.

MillerCross

I definitely agree with you there. Does anyone else think that having something like a Troper Covens section might be a good idea? I do not mean a place to discuss real-life meetups as much as a section of the forum where people can try to coordinate playing games online and working on projects (written, game-related, liveblog, or otherwise) with fellow IJBMers. 

I think that TV Tropes is actually not that great at doing that, partially because of its size and wiki focus so I think that having such a subforum, assuming people actually post there, may be a good idea. I also think that by encouraging people to work and play together, it might help reduce some of the drama and improve IJBM's reputation. 

I think that while a good idea, it doesn't really help with the "Stop being related to TvT aspect" then again, if we can have a bigger, full of variety userbase, then I'm all for it. However, I believe that the thread could be nuked on "Exporting/Importing drama" accounts. I suppose we could make it very clear that we're not about to bring drama to this place, much less export drama to TvT. 

I think Glenn should write the OP, though. 

InsanityAddict

I like the smaller size, since you can more easily have a discussion on spicy topics that doesn't either accumulate a zillion posts you have to trudge through in an hour or gets hijacked by the living strawmen that frequent OTC. It's easier to drop in and out casually without losing sight of what's happening, and we have less emphasis on building an idiosyncratic e-persona before people actually start to take notice and respond to you.

glennmagusharvey

^^ What do you want me to write again?

MillerCross

@glenn:The hypothetical OP to a thread that I just realized would be fruitless. :P

@InsanityAddict: I like the place's actitude, but I don't think that should be accomplished through its size, but through the actitude of the posters themselves. 

Vivi

I disagree!

MillerCross

On what, and why should we care?

Vivi

Terribly sorry, I forgot to read all the pages and was replying to something said on the first page, so it's unimportant now.

Also, harsh brah.