The Talk Thread (Please Read the Rules)

[111]

So a side question, among the other one.

 

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

 

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

 

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

 

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

I would like to expand upon this, if I may?

 

I believe, as said above that image macro's can serve a humorous addition to a post. If they are the addition, not the core content. Which is what I believe the spirit of the rules is.

 

• Spurious off-topic posts, including meme images and patent nonsense
  
• Creating posts and/or topics whose purpose/title is sarcastic, belittling, or intentionally provocative in a negative manner (i.e., "baiting").
  

 

I would say that my interpretation is if your entire post can be summed up just by the use of said meme, then is it worth posting? It doesn't add anything to the discussion. If however you have a response thought out and written out, and said meme adds emphasis that is pertinent to your response, then its all gravy.

 

that is however, my opinion on them.

 

I think rules like these sound reasonable on paper, but then you're going to get back and forth arguing over every post. I think their should be a 3 tier system as Nero said in the other thread, but depending on forum. That way everyone is on the same page.

 

Ie, just as an example:

IC Forum - Banned

RP Discussion - At your risk (Can post, but you have no recourse if it's warned)

Off Topic - Do whatever, so long as it's not spamming.

 

Again though the permanent ban acts as a de-facto censor, and it also makes people react to warnings more strongly.

 

Also Nero, I understand what you're saying, but the permanent ban just puts everything in a different context for me.

 

Before me getting a warning was just sort of a finger wag, and I'd sit back and go 'Fair enough' and think about it. Now though I don't view it as a warning, I view it as 1/10 of the way towards a ban, and a "We don't want you here."

 

I find it hard to describe how disheartening that rule is, and I really will not stop campaigning against it. There are specific kinds of people (in my opinion) we don't want on these forums. Everyone knows what that would look like, and I don't think people posting image macros in the wrong places, or getting snippy every once in a while qualify.

[Verad]

Before me getting a warning was just sort of a finger wag, and I'd sit back and go 'Fair enough' and think about it. Now though I don't view it as a warning, I view it as 1/10 of the way towards a ban, and a "We don't want you here."

 

I find it hard to describe how disheartening that rule is, and I really will not stop campaigning against it. There are specific kinds of people (in my opinion) we don't want on these forums. Everyone knows what that would look like, and I don't think people posting image macros in the wrong places, or getting snippy every once in a while qualify.

 

I think that this requires reading quite a lot into the attitudes of the mods and the nature of what reports are made and why, along with a perhaps not-so-healthy amount of persecution complex.

[111]

Before me getting a warning was just sort of a finger wag, and I'd sit back and go 'Fair enough' and think about it. Now though I don't view it as a warning, I view it as 1/10 of the way towards a ban, and a "We don't want you here."

 

I find it hard to describe how disheartening that rule is, and I really will not stop campaigning against it. There are specific kinds of people (in my opinion) we don't want on these forums. Everyone knows what that would look like, and I don't think people posting image macros in the wrong places, or getting snippy every once in a while qualify.

 

I think that this requires reading quite a lot into the attitudes of the mods and the nature of what reports are made and why, along with a perhaps not-so-healthy amount of persecution complex.

 

So still, trying to keep with the 30 minutes between posts and responses. I would appreciate if people could follow this.

 

As for your post, I don't agree. I think it's a very silly system, and I don't think one has to read overmuch into it to think that.

 

Posting hardcore pornography is a 2 warning item.

 

Off topic posting, an insult, etc, are 1.

 

I don't think two image macros are equal to someone posting hardcore pornography in a thread. I just do not think they are equal on any scale. And I dislike this system because it makes minor things on the same scale as big things.

 

I could post pornography in a thread every other month, ruin peoples day, and possibly get someone fired if it comes up at the wrong time at work.

 

Yet that is roughly the same amount of 'wrong' as posting an image macro in the wrong place once a month.

 

It places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.

[Nero]

 

 

....it places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.

 

I'm sure it's been suggested before, but there's a pretty simple solution to this, isn't there? Three tiers: warnings, infractions, and bans. number of warnings in number of weeks results in one infraction. number of infractions in number of months is a temp ban. 

 

This way, minor violations like meme posting or overly aggressive behaviour go with warnings that, ultimately, don't contribute to bans, the idea being that a freakish number of total warnings (say, forty or fifty in the span of four months) are required to actually temp ban through them. This also allows moderators to curb certain hostile behaviours without that person actually feeling as if they'd been punished without due. If a person is consistently misbehaving then the system still allows for a ban with enough accumulation.

 

More severe violations result in direct infractions that would operate like our current system. Say for example, ten infractions in four weeks (as is the current policy). Or something similar.

 

Yes, no, maybe?

[111]

 

 

....it places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.

 

I'm sure it's been suggested before, but there's a pretty simple solution to this, isn't there? Three tiers: warnings, infractions, and bans. number of warnings in number of weeks results in one infraction. number of infractions in number of months is a temp ban. 

 

This way, minor violations like meme posting or overly aggressive behaviour go with warnings that, ultimately, don't contribute to bans, the idea being that a freakish number of total warnings (say, forty or fifty in the span of four months) are required to actually temp ban through them. This also allows moderators to curb certain hostile behaviours without that person actually feeling as if they'd been punished without due. If a person is consistently misbehaving then the system still allows for a ban with enough accumulation.

 

More severe violations result in direct infractions that would operate like our current system. Say for example, ten infractions in four weeks (as is the current policy). Or something similar.

 

Yes, no, maybe?

 

I would be very pleased with something like this. I would be ok with a /very/ small number of serious infractions (Say 3 or 4) causing a permanent ban. If someone does one of the current moderate infractions, it essentially shows a conscious willingness to fuck up a the forums.

 

However the smaller ones are more questions of propriety and tone, and I think it's better to use them to nudge people in the right direction. Currently there is just a huge disconnect between the level of disruption a behavior has on the forum, and the way it is treated by the rules.

 

I could very easily agree with something like the following, if warnings expired every 2 weeks..

 

1 Warning = Warning

2 Warnings = 6 Hour ban

3 Warnings = 24 Hour Ban

4 Warnings = 72 Hour Ban

5 Warnings = Serious Infraction and a week ban.

 

And only the serious infractions count towards permabans.

 

Edit: I actually really like short term bans. I think a lot of drama in the forums comes from being caught up in the moment, and a 6 hour time out for someone getting rowdy is usually doing them a favor. As they'll have calmed down by the time the ban expires.