Proposal 2: Official forum policies.
-
mooseheadm5
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
More or less the complete opposite. Heavy moderation is what Adam suggests. A new sub forum will hopefully make it so that the same lax moderation can go on with contentious topics placed in their own forum. Moderating is pretty much the last thing that any of us wants to do. It is too time consuming and requires far too much in the way of judgement calls and discussion amongst the beamters as to what should be locked, who should be sanctioned, etc. If nothing is done, we will continue to shed good members because of it.wkohler wrote:Sounds like the Beamters are hoping to become moderators.
-
mooseheadm5
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
You haven't offered anything to consider other than a blanket "I don't like anything that's been proposed".wkohler wrote:Just figured I should say something since input was requested, though I'm sure it wouldn't actually be considered.
Do you have a suggestion for reducing the animosity of the board that you think would work better than either of the two proposals currently on the table? Or a way to change them to make them better?
Criticism without any explanation or suggestions for improvement is just bellyaching. I'm asking you to be involved in the process. If you choose not to, that's your own problem, but don't mope around complaining how nobody listens like some real life version of Marvin in Hitchhiker's Guide.wkohler wrote:I didn't realize I'm supposed to come up with something. I have no reason to do that but that doesn't mean I have to love what you came up with.
The political stuff hasn't passed. It was supposed to settle down after the 2008 and 2010 elections. It really didn't. It was supposed to settle down after this year's cycle. It didn't.wkohler wrote:Just like with gun laws, I don't think it's smart to make rules and changes as a knee-jerk thing. The political stuff passes and it goes back to normal. It always does.
If you think this is some "knee-jerk thing", you couldn't be any more wrong. This has been percolating and brewing for a very very long time. Years.
-
mooseheadm5
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
Very true statement.Jeremy wrote:If you think this is some "knee-jerk thing", you couldn't be any more wrong. This has been percolating and brewing for a very very long time. Years.
So get on with the new sub-forum already.....CHOP....CHOP!
So where does Tiger stuff go? General Conversation or new sub-forum?
-
slimdevil27
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Nov 12, 2011
- Location: WA
Duke wrote:
So where does Tiger stuff go? General Conversation or new sub-forum?
Definitely inflammatory and highly offensive, if fact you are grounded to the new forum...permanantly
I'm just going to double post from the other thread since it's just as relevant here.....
I agree that it may be time for a separate forum however I don't think the delineation is clear. Topics about firearms, such as recommendations or repair questions belong in General conversation. If you want to debate gun control, that goes in The Tailpipe. The separation is clear one is a lawful, legal object whose ownership is protected by the constitution, the second is a political topic. Inflammatory issues that are political in nature, such as gun control, welfare reform, universal health care, the fiscal cliff, etc. are all political debates. Posting suggestions for a self defense weapon or what new toy you just got, should go in General Conversation. Hold those who shit in threads they are "offended by" accountable for their actions. To that end I'd have to agree with idsbeaker, giving into the "bullies" and moving threads that they find offensive, does absolutely nothing to fix the problem, it only encourages it further.
Put that in your tailpipe.
I would further add that I'm in general agreeance with the unwritten rules becoming codified. It's not anything we haven't had a general knowledge about anyway. And the rules are applied fairly, with plenty of latitude and warnings given. If it's to become something more than how it's been enforced in the past, changing it to hard and fast authoritarian style...then I think it will inevitably hurt the forum. I don't see that happening with Jeremy at the helm, but the interpretation of the written rules should another take over could lead down that path. Just as the case was with Matt being banned, there was and is widespread support for Jeremy's style of management. Minor infractions are ignored, multiple minor infractions get a warning and continued minors get a time out. Major infractions, such as Matt's, are dealt with immediately and I for one appreciated Jeremy's openness and candor in explaining the situation. I don't want any of that to change but I can definitely understand the slippery slope argument and share the same reservations.
As far as the new subforum to the forum, "The Tailpipe" is about as appropriate as you can get for all political debates.
My issue is this, and I'm going to pick on Paul. He posted a question in Brian's gun fun thread. That question was about what firearms could be fired with the middle finger and sought recommendations. Now, to me that would be a General Conversation thread, no different than asking for opinions on what boat to buy, an opinion about a commuter car or how cool the 20's on wkohlers new Prius are. When someone then decides to crap in the thread by injecting political views about self defense or gun control .....would the whole thread be moved to the Tailpipe? Or would the offender be encouraged to start his crap in Tailpipe? Would his trolling be deleted to maintain the integrity of the thread? Or is discussion of firearms, non politically, as a whole banned from General Conversation?
I had written a fairly lengthy post regarding buying a handgun, selection criteria and natural point of aim to post in Brian's thread only to find it locked. The post was informative and non political, so if I decide to post it where should that be posted?
-
slimdevil27
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Nov 12, 2011
- Location: WA
You have my sympathies Jeremy.
I personally don't see the need but I've neither volunteered nor been asked to be a Beamter. I am also able to avoid or leave thread that I know will cause me to hyperventilate. Most of the time.
That said, you are the king of this castle and I support whatever you deem necessary.
Does all this mean we get an E39 forum too?
Re: Proposal 2: Official forum policies.
Jeremy,Jeremy wrote:Avatars or signature pictures of an overtly sexual, political, religious, graphic, or other divisive/offensive nature are not allowed.
While I agree that people should refrain from using excessively gross or inflammatory avatars and signature pictures, I have some concerns about this policy. What about things like the famous "blacked out wheels with red stripe" picture (which, as I recall, graced Brian's signature for a while.)? Would gems like that be censored? Or would the Beamters exercise discretion about what gets removed and what gets to live?
-
Brian in TN
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
Re: Proposal 2: Official forum policies.
I lol'd.Eta power wrote:While I agree that people should refrain from using excessively gross or inflammatory avatars and signature pictures, I have some concerns about this policy. What about things like the famous "blacked out wheels with red stripe" picture (which, as I recall, graced Brian's signature for a while.)? Would gems like that be censored? Or would the Beamters exercise discretion about what gets removed and what gets to live?
-
mooseheadm5
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
Re: Proposal 2: Official forum policies.
No, that was hilarious. Most of the time nobody has any issue with any avatars or sig pics, but some people in the past have put things like severely divisive political cartoons or nearly naked women in them. The former is likely to piss off roughly half of the forum, while the latter is NSFW.Eta power wrote:Jeremy,Jeremy wrote:Avatars or signature pictures of an overtly sexual, political, religious, graphic, or other divisive/offensive nature are not allowed.
While I agree that people should refrain from using excessively gross or inflammatory avatars and signature pictures, I have some concerns about this policy. What about things like the famous "blacked out wheels with red stripe" picture (which, as I recall, graced Brian's signature for a while.)? Would gems like that be censored? Or would the Beamters exercise discretion about what gets removed and what gets to live?
Re: Proposal 2: Official forum policies.
Well, in that case, I feel confident that this board will not go Orwellian. Thanks!mooseheadm5 wrote:No, that was hilarious. Most of the time nobody has any issue with any avatars or sig pics, but some people in the past have put things like severely divisive political cartoons or nearly naked women in them. The former is likely to piss off roughly half of the forum, while the latter is NSFW.
To be clear, my goal in this is not to "bring down the hammer" or create some over-moderated place. I dislike moderators and dislike moderating, so I really like doing less when I can get away with it. I can count the number of people I've PMed and asked to change their avatar or sig pic without running out of fingers, I could probably do it on one hand. I don't anticipate that changing.
The goal is to make what we've expected all along to be clear and out in the open, both for new and existing members alike.
The goal is to make what we've expected all along to be clear and out in the open, both for new and existing members alike.
Given the 'right of center,' generally anti-Government sentiment held by a majority of the frequent posters/antagonists (in this thread and others), it is more than a little ironic to see some of them lobbying for the creation of a set of rules (laws) with Beamters administrating them (a gov't.)
The problem with creating law is that it then must be maintained, upheld, interpreted, adapted, challenged, and changed -- not to mention recorded, understood, and (at least largely) agreed upon. Then there is the underlying notion of "rights" and how those "rights" are to be affected/upheld by those rules.
Even a small set of regulations, laid down with the best intentions to cover only the most egregious and agreed upon behavior, even that little thing requires a living, breathing ecosystem of support. This isn't to say, "don't do it," just a reminder that this will mean an institutional commitment far greater than anyone has really discussed up to this point.
Personally, I think a slightly more equitable application of the current powers of the Beamters, as accompanied by the customary warnings should be sufficient. The British are just short of 800 years of (more or less) equitable rule w/o a written Constitution. I would think, particularly given the history of this body vis-a-vis its former incarnation on Roachfly, some people would be more reluctant to effectively re-create the past.
My own participation in the forum is down precipitously for a number of reasons, some of which is tied to behavior on the board. Having said that, I see nothing in these proposed regulations which will change the application of them to address areas more broadly than they have in the past. Trolls come in all stripes, and far too much deference is paid to some of them. Nothing about a codified system, certainly not the single broadsheet I've seen, comes close to addressing this, or any other, aspect related to application or procedure.
Just my $.02.
The problem with creating law is that it then must be maintained, upheld, interpreted, adapted, challenged, and changed -- not to mention recorded, understood, and (at least largely) agreed upon. Then there is the underlying notion of "rights" and how those "rights" are to be affected/upheld by those rules.
Even a small set of regulations, laid down with the best intentions to cover only the most egregious and agreed upon behavior, even that little thing requires a living, breathing ecosystem of support. This isn't to say, "don't do it," just a reminder that this will mean an institutional commitment far greater than anyone has really discussed up to this point.
Personally, I think a slightly more equitable application of the current powers of the Beamters, as accompanied by the customary warnings should be sufficient. The British are just short of 800 years of (more or less) equitable rule w/o a written Constitution. I would think, particularly given the history of this body vis-a-vis its former incarnation on Roachfly, some people would be more reluctant to effectively re-create the past.
My own participation in the forum is down precipitously for a number of reasons, some of which is tied to behavior on the board. Having said that, I see nothing in these proposed regulations which will change the application of them to address areas more broadly than they have in the past. Trolls come in all stripes, and far too much deference is paid to some of them. Nothing about a codified system, certainly not the single broadsheet I've seen, comes close to addressing this, or any other, aspect related to application or procedure.
Just my $.02.
-
Rich in Tupelo
- Posts: 2917
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
- Location: Spring Hill, TN
I don't have an issue with it only because the cursor automatically sets itself there so to me it is no different than before. I read it and don't need to read it again, but I can still sign in just as fast.Rich in Tupelo wrote:While I can understand the new "rules" popping up the first time when we log in, why are they set to appear on the log in screen everytime now... seems redundant.