A Frank Discussion on The Rules

Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 8:05pm

Meta

Friends,

This is your 2nd place moderator here. Darth's diary was a nice plea for respectful communication among our friends. I don't think it took for more than about a day or two, unfortunately. For that reason, I'm putting this one with my thoughts on the front page.

First, let me remind everyone what the rules are:

1) No profanity

2) No insults or personal attacks on other users

3) Try to write entries that will encourage discussion. We don't discourage disagreement, just disagreement based on personal attacks and nasty comments.

4) Try to stay on topic, or at least limit yourself to a related topic within discussion threads. If you have a point that is entirely unrelated, it's easy enough to post a diary about it (we are generally pretty lax about this one, it's more of a guideline).

5) Do not try to hack your way around an established policy or try to mess with the site's configuration or settings (this one will get you banned immediately and permanently).

6) Please don't create multiple user accounts.

I've been a little lazy on #1 even though Hank has asked to flag it so we don't show up on a blocklist. Apparently a lot of you visit from work. Ok, I'll try to do a better job on that.

Obviously we don't flag for #4 and no one is doing #5 or #6. That brings us to the heart of the matter as Don Henley would say. #2 and #3.

Right now is a crazy time of year, and we all know it. Everyone's nerves are frayed and anxious to defend their candidate/party of choice. The negative and misleading campaigning tends to bleed over into the electrons and photons of our nice little website. Let's all try to be a bit more forgiving with the folks on the other side, shall we? And while I'm asking more of you, I must admit I've been falling down on my job here. I need to do a better job of walking my beat, posting open threads and promoting up-voted or thoughtful diaries.

Trying to keep up on what is a PRV these days is darn near a full time job. I'd like some input (and I'm sure my moderator brethren would as well) on what you guys think we should flag or what #2 and #3 should say. Maybe we should flesh them out a bit more. Maybe we shouldn't. I'm interested in hearing what you guys think would foster better discussion and discourse between our motley group of stand-up philosophers. And not to call anyone out in particular, but my friend Bird Dog has been using the phrase "Delusional Comment" regularly. He's absolutely correct that I do not believe that to be a violation of the rules, and I will never flag him for it. However, it's really unfortunate that we even have to go that far when disagreeing with each other. Why can't we be friends?

In other words, what is a PRV that shouldn't be. What isn't that should? Should we quit with the 24 hr suspensions and go straight off for a week? I'd like some feedback. Go nuts. Tell me I suck and am ruining the site. Just tell me what's on your mind.

How many have you suspended lately?

(#290622)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 8:40pm.

I think you guys can afford to be a little more "parent-like" and a little less "judge-like." Throw down a line in the sand: "This subthread of inanely escalating insults is now locked. Next reply here gets a 24-hour suspension."

Be a little arbitrary. If we're all absolutely convinced that the rules are infallible, we'll keep pushing them to the limit. On the other hand, if we think the rules might change willy nilly should we piss off the mods, we might actually be careful about what we post.

You guys have a lot of credibility. Nobody's going to accuse you of selectively enforcing rules on a partisan basis, at least not for the time being. Take advantage of that. Bust some heads and make it clear that baiting other commenters isn't going to fly. Bend the rules. Surprise the clever ones who think they can lawyerball their way into getting away with acting like snide a-holes. Drop your pimp hand. Cut some fools. It'll be all right.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Jordan, I think you have to look at who was elected

(#290652)

Submitted by Darth Cuddly on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 11:14pm.

Me, a guy with declining participation at the time of the election who stated he wouldn't be able to mod for a month.

Stinerman, who at the time of the election had posted perhaps a dozen times (I dunno, not a lot anyway) in the previous six months.

MA, ? I joked that he got the serious vote.

I read that as the Forvmites saying they didn't want a heavy-handed mod presence. We're all smart enough to know what this time of year would be like, it was even mentioned in the election thread itself. Your comment here is the first, and so far only, indication that folks would like a stronger mod 'presence' when it comes to policing comments. BTW, that made me think of something....

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.

You go to the election with the mods you have

(#290654)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 12:05am.

seriously, I don't have a problem with any of you guys. I will say that I don't think it's too much to ask to just skim the new comments everyday, it's not like we get hundreds of posts here.

I blame it all on the Internet

I Agree With Darth...(and Hank)...Things are Fine....

(#290657)

Submitted by Traveller on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 12:23am.

...if you have to blast someone that gets out hand...just do it, no apology, no agonizing.

The tone of the conversation is much kinder than I thought it would be at this time in the election cycle.

I might even posit that things are good because the race isn't particularly close.

I might note that I spoke to people in NC and FLA today...both are certain that Mittens will win and that America would be crazy to elect that GD'd socialist...

Well,

Well, I say, I understand what you are saying and move the conversation on to something else.

Traveller

Fox news will have a lot to answer for come election day

(#290662)

Submitted by Spartacvs on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 5:43am.

lot's of disappointed propaganda consumers/gold buyers.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

It's not too much to ask, Hank.

(#290694)

Submitted by Darth Cuddly on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 1:08pm.

But work, family, life and occasional bouts of Forvm fatigue mean that undesirable comments will hang out here until a mod gets a chance to 1) check and find it, 2) conclude using his judgment that its out of bounds and 3) fire off a warning.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.

Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

(#290668)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 8:41am.

I didn't mean to sound like I was asking for some kind of heavy-handed mod presence on comments. Stiner asked a specific question about how to interpret the rules. Knowing that stiner can be a bit of a stickler for the letter of the law, I'm simply advising him that in some cases it's better to be arbitrary & unpredictable than punctilious & literal. We can all tell when a discussion is beginning to furball into an all-wombat angel dust knife fight, with commenters riding the line of rules #2 & #3, baiting one another, tempers rising. When mods see that happening, they can step in and demand a cease fire whether the rules have technically been broken or not.

I see this as a creative interpretation of Rule #3

3. Try to write entries that will encourage discussion. We don't discourage disagreement, just disagreement based on personal attacks and nasty comments.

Bottom line: as enforcers, particularly enforcers with little time to police every single discussion on the site, it can be to your advantage to be unpredictable. Angry commenters will push things as far as they can... but a wildly swinging ban stick might make the lawyerballers think twice.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Yeah, but

(#290625)

Submitted by aireachail on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 8:50pm.

I remember when and how #5 and #6 came into being. Good times, man. Good times.

Oh well, it's silly season for a while of course. Jordan's right...at times like these, a hammer drop often clarifies in a way no written reminder can.

And yet,

(#290628)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 9:12pm.

you did call me out in particular. Thanks a lot.

Personally, given that and your refusal to acknowledge "you don't understand" as a PRV--even though such phraseology is clearly directed at commenter and not comment--I think you're too biased to be judging me. I suggest you defer to the other two. I do respect your efforts, but I'm not won over by your judgment. That is what's on my mind. You asked for it.

As for the commenting environment, I'm civil with those who are civil with me.

Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

You should be civil also with those who are not.

(#290632)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 9:33pm.

That is, if we're going to bother following the rules.

M Aurelius was probably right.

BD, I disagree

(#290651)

Submitted by Darth Cuddly on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 11:03pm.

Stinerman can mod impartially. As for calling you out, some of you guys like to dabble in the gray area and most of it is either done by you or at you. I get it, I see what happens, there is no lack of lefty cheap shots aimed at you but at the same time you throw your share of elbows as well. Also, there's like ten of us that post regularly so it's not like you were singled out of some large, faceless gaggle.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.

Fair enough

(#290672)

Submitted by stinerman on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 9:17am.

However, I did say that although I don't like it, I would never flag you for it. So I'm not sure why you'd be grumpy about what I said. I'm sure if you were modding me and didn't like something I said (for instance something disparaging about Christianity) you would like what I said, but wouldn't flag me for it.

I know you didn't agree with your earlier suspension, but do recall that it was unanimous after the other two weighed in...and it was 24 hours. Less actually. Another thing to recall is when we were both on the same team a year or so back (or was it two?). Except for one disagreement, I think we agreed on all the other suspensions.

With respect to the "you don't understand", I've been even in not flagging that for everyone. I don't see what the deal is unless I'm inherently biased. If you were to tell me about the intricacies of accounting or real estate law and I didn't understand what you were trying to get across, I'd expect you to tell me that I didn't understand your point by saying "you don't understand". If it was because you wanted to insult me by the back door, that's a different story. The difference is "you don't understand the point I'm trying to make because of a simple miscommunication" and "you don't understand the point I'm trying to make because you're an idiot". The latter is a PRV in my opinion. The former is not. I haven't seen any of the latter (but if I have missed some, please let me know).

As I stated before, if you can provide particular examples where you think I'm being biased, I'm happy to review them. I'm not perfect.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

"You Don't Understand" Is Often Free-Floating Condescension

(#290697)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 1:25pm.

In one notorious case directed at me, it involved an area of law that I had special interest in and had been (locally) published regarding, and the commenter in question doubled down after I gently explained this to him. Intent and wording matters here--it usually isn't something that should be considered a PRV, but it is at its worst rather uncivil and obnoxious (though this is often balanced by the person engaging in it looking foolish to objective observers).

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Long And Frequent Suspensions Would Wreck The Site

(#290640)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 10:06pm.

Short and infrequent suspensions are pretty much a joke as a means of keeping order. At the current ratios of bad behavior to suspensions, I'd say thirty days is about right. If suspensions are to be more frequent (say, "zero tolerance" for someone who has had a yellow in the last sixty days), shorter suspensions of a day to a week would be preferable, with no "reset" after the suspension is over--think of the shorter suspensions as glorfied "tsss"s:

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I was never a fan of the 24 hour suspension

(#290676)

Submitted by M Aurelius on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 10:25am.

It's so short it's hardly perceptible. I would move to 48 hours or 72 minimum.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

Adding Elaboration To Rule 1 Would Be Good

(#290642)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 10:11pm.

It would be good to remind people that the rule isn't a matter of being prudish--it's trying to avoid getting the site blocked at workplaces.

Also, to that end. . .we might want to keep the gay god porn--or anything else that might also trip a not particularly prudish blocking program--behind links, too. Just a thought.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Agreed. -nt

(#290643)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 10:13pm.

I'm wondering if my comments are invisible

(#290655)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 12:08am.

because I've been saying this since the site was founded.

I blame it all on the Internet

I don't have a problem with BD saying "delusional comments"

(#290653)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 11:57pm.

as long as he attacks the comments and not people directly, it's fair game IMO.

I think most people here are pretty thick skinned, the only thing that gets people riled is when they get the impression that the rules are not applied consistently. That (unfortunately for the mods) requires judgment, and there's no easy way out.

We used to have a procedure where we'd allow retraction and/or request an edit by the mods, and only suspended people if they refused to do so. Might want to consider trying that method again.

I blame it all on the Internet