not logged in
| re: This board could use some rules and moderators | |
Posted by:  |
stewbeef 11:09 pm UTC 08/04/07 |
| In reply to: | re: This board could use some rules and moderators - Jacqueline 10:58 pm UTC 08/04/07 |
| well said jd i could not agree more.if ryan had posted what you said(i,ve not seen it)ifs it s as bad bad as what you said in its visual content then fair do,s.(sorry northan english saying). > I really want to thank you both for the input. They are > well thought out, well-meaning posts. > > We could try a list of rules but I doubt that would > influence people much. I don't want to become some sort > of cop or warden....banning for a few days here and there > etc. > > Basically I think it comes down to who we are as people > and how we want to be perceived. This board really does > let the true-colors of the members shine through. I think > that's an important feature and one that a lot of value is > placed on. > > Thanks again. It was nice to read something gentle here > today. > > Big love, JD > > > > > The above post is not necessarily a serious suggestion, > > more a way of me saying that pidunk has not done things > > that warrant a ban and that requesting that she be banned > > is a waste of board space. > > > > That's my real point. > > > > > > Just an advice, to make sure what's okay and what isn't. > > > > Moderators surely can't be too hard to find, and there's > > > > not always need for a ban. Just suspend people temporarily > > > > from posting for a couple of days, or restrict them to a > > > > number of posts per day. Can't be too hard to set up > > > > technically. > > > > > > > > As for the rules, just some basics that should be common > > > > sense but isn't on the internet. Threatening, trolling, > > > > impersonating, harrassing... > > > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up myself, but just in > > > reading this board in 2007, there seems to be a LOT of > > > board space dedicated to discussion of whether or not > > > particular members should be banned, as opposed to Jim > > > Steinman stuff. This is also the only board I read that > > > doesn't have written rules. I know admin issues are none > > > of my business, but I think any board that bans people > > > should have the rules written. > > > > > > Wouldn't hurt to have a sticky thread that says something > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > Rules for this forum > > > > > > > > > You can get banned for: > > > > > > 1) very extreme vulgarity, obscenity or offensiveness > > > > > > 2) very extreme threats or harassment > > > > > > 3) registering or posting in a serious attempt to > > > impersonate someone who you are not > > > > > > 4) posting so much that everybody else's posts scroll > > > quickly to the bottom of the page > > > > > > 5) possibly other stuff at the discretion of the admins > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Off the top my head, that list just seems to be what > > > people actually do get banned for around here. Might as > > > well state rules that are already being enforced. If the > > > board had written rules, I would hope there might not be > > > so much posting about who you want banned. People wouldn't > > > feel like the admins should be "persuaded" or "negotiated" > > > into banning, because the list of things you can get > > > banned for is written plain as day. > > > > > > It would also make it clear that having beliefs that > > > cannot be verified is NOT, by itself, a ban-worthy > > > offense! There are probably lots of things about Steinman > > > that many of us believe that are more about > > > rumor/mythology than solid biography. > > > > > > Written rules I don't see as a sign that board-members are > > > immature, or that things have gotten really bad, I think > > > it's just business-as-usual for an internet forum. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: This board could use some rules and moderators - Klasien 01:03 pm UTC 08/06/07 |
| Next: | RE: Pearl Aday and Julie Bell interviews - Grace 10:33 am UTC 08/04/07 |
| Thread: | |