›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

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

NovaNova
edited 2011-04-28 15:37:25 in IJBM meta
If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
Therefore, we should make better ones.

And by 'we', I mean people who are serious about improving the standards of the forum.
«1345

Comments

  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Support.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Yes.


    Perhaps we could work from there?
  • delta534delta534
    Tech support
    Support as well
  • PonicalicaPonicalica
    edited 2011-04-28 15:40:43
    (void)
    The issue isn't really the rules, it's how rare it is that anyone gets punished for rulebreaking.  I'm not sure I've even seen posts blanked by mods even when they're arguably breaking the rules.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth


    A dilemma...
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    A dilemma.

    But with the ways things are run now, it allows for thing like the Zelda thread debacle today.
  • KhwarizmiKhwarizmi
    Because you never know what you might see.
    Out of curiosity, did GB suggest this?

    I'm honestly not sure whether I feel it's necessary or not.  I sorta feel like I shouldn't take a side, since the TV Tropes style of moderation is clearly at odds with what most IJBMers want.
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    @Ponicalica:I've blanked maybe two posts, edited maybe five and deleted at least one thread. But yeah, I feel like if the rules were clearer, I'd be doing a lot more.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Guitar Bizzare linked me to the above, but it was not him who suggested this.

    I feel it is. But I'm willing to hear other opinions.
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    edited 2011-04-28 15:48:57
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    Standards are boring.

    Oh well, I decree the following:

    1. Dumb threads are not allowed, unless they are in some way an entertaining spectacle.
    2. People are not allowed post in threads solely to complain about the thread itself.
    3. Threads casting other posters in a negative light are undesirable.
    4. Shitposting should not trump seriousness, unless applied in a rational controlled manner that is totally relevant.
    5. Chagen isn't allowed to start any threads about his family.
    6. Threads should be marked NSFW if they are thus.
    7. NSFW threads should be contained in a magical brandspanking new post repository called "NSFW". Creative, right? Subforum ahoy!
    8. No more than 5 threads can be started by someone in a day.
    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.
    10. "People who X" is a stupid title and should not happen ever.

    That's all I have to offer for now.
  • IanExMachinaIanExMachina
    edited 2011-04-28 15:50:19
    I am Dr. Ned who is totally not Dr. Zed in disguise.
    I can see a bit of opposition to:

    Please refrain from posting meaningless threads, one word (or short) nonsense posts, or the like

    ^ 
    Rule 1 depends on definition of dumb.

    Rule 8 is unnecessary with careful application of other rules preventing shit?
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    Yes, I like those threads, don't kill them.
  • NovaNova
    edited 2011-04-28 15:50:16
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    7. I am really badly extremely opposed to the idea of having a special NSFW board.

    1. Entertaining is subjective.

    They are meaningless.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    1. Debating, discussion, arguments, disagreements and such are encouraged. Attacks, needless (i.e. Shut the fuck up Cygan, I disagree) rudeness, trolling, flaming and needless inflammatory posts are discouraged, and may (probably will) end up being blanked by a moderator.

    2. Pointless threads, spam, nonsense threads and excessive wonderposting is worthy of a warning.

    3. Wonderposting should be contained to the Wonderposting threads. Any wonderposting seen outside of there will be blanked.

    4. No illegal material. Right, this one's easy- if the cops show up at your door, you're banned.

    5. If you have more than one account, please make it clear to the moderator that you have, and clearly link the two.

    Lessee...

    6 The Moderators reserve the rights to move outside of the rules when necessary. They justify their actions to the other mods, and if they move outside the rules, they will justify it to regular members if asked.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    ... Needs work.
  • FrodoGoofballCoTVFrodoGoofballCoTV
    edited 2011-04-28 16:12:01

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

    • I would add "or about the OP".


    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.

    • Maybe split the seriousness and flaming subtopics. Serious = we assume you're being serious, and we don't shitpost, go off topic, criticise the OP, etc.  Flaming = we assume it's a flame.  Or maybe I misunderstood?

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

    • Does this include "People who X" where X is a verb? Also, I don't understand why "People who are X" is any worse than "[Type of People]" or "X", but if the majority wishes this rule I will abide by it.
  • curiousTraitorcuriousTraitor
    It would be nice if the mods were a bit harder on people who are blatant trolls, or just not conductive to discussion. I mean, on any forum with a decent moderation system I would have been warned for attacking Chagen by now.

    Though, Chagen probably wouldn't be an issue on a forum with decent moderation, because blatant trolling would be banned.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Agreed.

    There needs to be an objective mod, who doesn't really post but to go thumpity thump.
  • curiousTraitorcuriousTraitor
    I don't think they need to avoid posting. I just think they need to understand that there is a difference between being a member of the community and not enforcing community rules.

    It's perfectly possible for a mod to be an active poster and still be a somewhat objective moderator. 
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Is what I meant.
  • DYREDYRE
    @OP: Disagree.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Care to explain why?
  • DYREDYRE
    No, because to be honest I don't have a particularly good reason, so I'd rather not say the reason I do have.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Then... I don't really see a reason to stop, then, so I'ma just continue with the thread, 'kay?
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    I don't see why serious topics should not be allowed to spring from silly ones.  It's just that we have to make sure that when people argue, they argue about the content and don't attack each other in the process.  (And yes, this includes calling names.)

    Marking NSFW threads as NSFW is a good idea.  And you shouldn't be on this board at work anyway.
  • curiousTraitorcuriousTraitor
    /me is on this board at work.

    There are multiple threads where the main argument consists of calling people names and just general abuse towards each other. When I do see a moderator post it's generally to say that they're staying out of it, if they're post has anything to do with the topic at hand and they're not joining in on the abuse themselves.
  • GuitarBizarreGuitarBizarre
    I'm just popping my head in here to provide the other half of that post about Musicbanter's rules.

    My understanding of the moderation process [on musicbanter] is as follows -

    • Moderators one and all, have the power to instantly ban any member for any reason.
    • Moderators answer for their actions to every other mod. This
      prevents mods 'going rogue' as happened with Boo Boo, since if they were
      to do so, the other mods would put a stop to it.
    • Mods work according to our very basic rules and largely use their own judgement as to when infractions are handed out
    • Most if not all mods, unless the situation is in need of immediate
      attention or the offensive behaviour is so blatant it can be safely
      assumed no other mod would object, CONSULT with other moderators before
      taking any serious action such as a ban, even after reviewing the facts
      they have available to them, which leads me to...
    • moderators are able to leave infractions on a members account, which
      are visible to other moderators and to the person in question. This
      means a mod effectively has a full history of any and all behaviour that
      member has engaged in that has been sufficiently bad to warrant a warning.
    • Therefore, we can conclude that any banning of a member
      is not an isolated incident, nor is it a single mods power trip. All
      bannings are decided upon by what is effectively a comittee in posession
      of a large number of facts, to say nothing of that members posting
      history, which as we all know, we can search even without mod powers

    Read more: http://www.musicbanter.com/announcements-suggestions-feedback/51361-member-bans-26.html#ixzz1KrF86AIt



    It genuinely works very well, and MB is the better for it. Of course, a huge proportion of the success of this system is that not only is MB overstaffed with moderators (Deliberately, so as to avoid moderators forming grudges or getting stressed with particular members through overexposure), but those moderators are particularly level headed, even the ex-mods, who nigh on universally step down while remaining community members and voices of reason.

    Some food for thought. Now off I go, to not post in this forum for another few months.

  • NovaNova
    edited 2011-04-28 17:05:01
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    "I don't see why serious topics should not be allowed to spring from silly ones."

    ?

    I didn't say that. I said the opposite- that silly topics should not be allowed to spring from serious ones.

    Thank you for that, Guitar Bizarre.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    I've seen many a snowclone or wonderpost thread actually become an interesting conversation thread.  I love it when that happens.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    I'm... not trying to stop that.

    I'm trying to stop the serious ones from devolving into silly ones.

    i'm all for silly topics becoming interesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.