Wild Wild West - Part 2

Originally Posted by WebSlave

The warning system has in place the capability to reference the post that the warning point applies to. So too does it label who that warning point was issued FROM. And yes, the TYPE of warning is also clearly indicated in the log as well.

As for multiple warning hits on a single post, yes, that was implicit in the design of this system. The reason for this is because there will likely be cases of someone making a post offensive to MANY people. In this case, I think it behooves us all that those MANY people be able to express their displeasure with that particular posting.

Will it be retroactive to existing posts?

This change will certainly be interesting and entertaining to watch. I just have this gut feeling that once it is implemented the amount of flame wars, fighting amongst members etc is going to increase to even higher levels. I guess what I am saying is I don't see how this can be a positive direction but I hope I am wrong. It happens occasionally. :-)

Fauna is about to become more entertaining than cable television and well worth the price of admission.

Bart

Originally Posted by bsharrah

Fauna is about to become more entertaining than cable television and well worth the price of admission.

Bart

Better than mud wrestling?

Originally Posted by lucille

Will it be retroactive to existing posts?

Probably something that is... if not exactly a worry, something to think about for a lot of posters. Hell, I haven't gotten a warning point on fauna in a couple years- but that's a result of understanding the rules and sometimes falling just barely inside them. As the rules have changed, I've seen more than a few members who have allowed themselves a little more... strength of expression. Some of those posts are potentially memorable and are the reason I suspect it might turn into the same kind of vindictive crapfest that the early karma points were- people deciding to bomb a target over a disagreement of content rather than actual infractions.

I don't really want to get dinged for warning points because I argued against hybridization or for euthanasia three years ago. Just taking a guess here, but it might be a concern to Lucille because of that selective editing spree she went on awhile ago, all those "." posts are now trolling- as much as I may disagree with her actions there, I've gotta say that past posts are past posts, and were weighed and judged based on the rule enforcement that was in place at the time they were made. Retroactive punitive measures using a new standard and a new judge doesn't sit too well in my grade school interpretation of "fairness"

I just have this gut feeling that once it is implemented the amount of flame wars, fighting amongst members etc is going to increase to even higher levels. I guess what I am saying is I don't see how this can be a positive direction but I hope I am wrong.

Pretty much my worry, yeah. There have been some pretty famous fueds on these boards, some of which have settled down to a pilot light; be a shame to see any of them explode because of this sort of change. I haven't got a direct link to it, but one of the semi-recent threads had a kind of discussion about how perception can change over time and small slights or imagined insults can explode when there's bad history- this seems like it might turn into bad history armed with hand grenades and blindfolds.

I am not an optimist. It'd be easier to be one if it weren't for the way my pessimistic predictions frequently prove true. This smells like an idea that human nature will turn very bad, very fast.

This is going to be one ugly mess.

Originally Posted by lucille

Will it be retroactive to existing posts?

My opinion will be no. I WILL put the boot to ANYONE that decides to go digging up two year old posts to ding. Nothing positive would become of it. It would be nothing but pure antagonism at it's best and extremely childish.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Just taking a guess here

Sorry, no Seamus. Not the reason at all. This was a question to try to understand the scope of this new way of handling things.

Seamus, I can't remember, have you ever come out in favor of anything?

Originally Posted by lucille

Sorry, no Seamus. Not the reason at all. This was a question to try to understand the scope of this new way of handling things.

Seamus, I can't remember, have you ever come out in favor of anything?

Permanantly banning Neil Gubitz.

If something seems like a good idea, it doesn't really need to be commented on, does it? If I did that, I'd probably have four thousand posts mostly consisting of that idiotic little "I agree" smiley face or the letters "lol" I contribute when and where I feel that my thoughts might add something- sometimes that something will be a bit of wary protest.

'course... time after time when I suggest that something might not be the best idea and present reasons, if it happens anyway, when it's undone as "Not working as intended" I have to go kneel on the beach for awhile shouting and punching the sand.

Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it. You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

Oh and... Lucille... it should be a concern for you. If it's got no cutoff date, there are definitely people who have it in for you that'd go back and nail you on every one of those posts. If retroactive hits are allowed, you'll probably be one of the first ten facing a ban. 'salright though, you'll be in proud company right beside Northrop, Wes, Chamco, probably myself and any number of others (I can't keep track of who's got a grudge with who anymore, sometimes offensive posts seem to be the verbal equivalent of wearing a blindfold and swinging a bat).

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Oh and... Lucille... it should be a concern for you.).

Do you suppose they would nail the other person who got spooked also and removed some of her posts too? After all, they were not selective, they were done in a short amount of time as a response to a certain person.

But, you never much bother with the truth, do you Seamus?