Status check and poll on recent crack down

Rich,
True, but a case could be made that the poll numbers might have been different if there had been separate pro "keep it the same" and a con "make some changes" posts before the issue was taken to a vote. While your initial post was fairly "revenue neutral", most arenas where there is a vote-of-members allows for some pre-vote debate. Your system allowed posts here, granted. But since many of us who may have wanted to voice one that may have been persuasive were not aware of the poll until it had accumulated the majority of the current votes, I can't say as the results would not change if the poll system were modified. Put another way, this poll was a whole lot more like coming to a meeting where you voted when you walked in the room, not after pro-con presentations were made. I would suggest posting poll topics for a week on the BOI, saying when voting will be open, and then putting up the poll after some exchange. Just a thought.

Perhaps, but I was not really interested in lobbying for one aspect of the poll over another. Just a simple poll of what people thought about the enforcement of the rules SO FAR, as of NOW, was what I was after. I felt that if an overwhelming majority felt I was being too heavy handed, this fact would have become readily apparent in short order with this opportunity to tell me so. Sorry, but from what I can see, that has not happened.

To paraphrase your analogy, the poll was similar to one when you walk into the meeting room asking people if they think the weather outside is too hot for them. They don't have to debate it inside, they should know right then and there the answer to the question presented without consulting anyone else about it.

Rich,

The results of the polls would be more impartial if people voted before being able to read other opinions and ensuing discussions. You could have them closed until you get what you would consider a representative sample of the population and only then open them for discussion. Maybe even something comparable with the results of the polls (they can only be viewed after voting). A person votes on a poll and only then he/she is able to view the results and participate in the discussion.

Regards.

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

Rich,

The results of the polls would be more impartial if people voted before being able to read other opinions and ensuing discussions. You could have them closed until you get what you would consider a representative sample of the population and only then open them for discussion. Maybe even something comparable with the results of the polls (they can only be viewed after voting). A person votes on a poll and only then he/she is able to view the results and participate in the discussion.

Regards.

Probably a good idea, but this system doesn't have that as an option when setting up a poll.

I voted Yes but scale it back a little. I think that the enforcement has gone a little past the line of justifiable punishment. I believe ( and this is only my opinion) that people should be decent to one another but when we get to the point of awarding points and or fines there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. I saw one person get 10 points and a fine for using the word "nimrod" which isnt volgur or considered a curse word. People getting points or fines for to large a signature area. We arent living in a Puritan society where all sins should be punished to the full extent of the law. We are living in a very liberal and outspoken society where people need a little room and tolerance to say what they need said as long as it isnt done in a manner that is threatening or outrightly deplorable. Sure point or fine people for swearing or threatening or abusing others but lets not get to the point where people are afraid to say anything at all.
I will follow the rules no matter what they are as will most members on this site but that doesnt mean that i have to agree 100% of how they are enforced and or applied to the members.

Originally Posted by nicolai

I voted Yes but scale it back a little. I think that the enforcement has gone a little past the line of justifiable punishment. I believe ( and this is only my opinion) that people should be decent to one another but when we get to the point of awarding points and or fines there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. I saw one person get 10 points and a fine for using the word "nimrod" which isnt volgur or considered a curse word. People getting points or fines for to large a signature area. We arent living in a Puritan society where all sins should be punished to the full extent of the law. We are living in a very liberal and outspoken society where people need a little room and tolerance to say what they need said as long as it isnt done in a manner that is threatening or outrightly deplorable. Sure point or fine people for swearing or threatening or abusing others but lets not get to the point where people are afraid to say anything at all.
I will follow the rules no matter what they are as will most members on this site but that doesnt mean that i have to agree 100% of how they are enforced and or applied to the members.

Ditto.

I have been reading these forums for about a year now. I have not posted much at all I do admit. But I have checked the site almost daily. I never felt I had enough experience to say anything one way or another. I have enjoyed this site very much and that is why I visit so often. Lately though I do feel that there has been a little taken away with some of the members no longer here. While I agree that stricter rules has made a good change, sometimes the penalty does not fit the crime. A suspension after one, often thoughtless, comment is too strong of a penalty in my opinion. Scale back a bit. One warning before a suspension, to me, would be a much easier pill to swallow. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to this site, but ease up a bit. Sometimes a smack on the wrist would have been much better than the smack to the face that was applied.

Originally Posted by Darknate

I have been reading these forums for about a year now. I have not posted much at all I do admit. But I have checked the site almost daily. I never felt I had enough experience to say anything one way or another. I have enjoyed this site very much and that is why I visit so often. Lately though I do feel that there has been a little taken away with some of the members no longer here. While I agree that stricter rules has made a good change, sometimes the penalty does not fit the crime. A suspension after one, often thoughtless, comment is too strong of a penalty in my opinion. Scale back a bit. One warning before a suspension, to me, would be a much easier pill to swallow. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to this site, but ease up a bit. Sometimes a smack on the wrist would have been much better than the smack to the face that was applied.

With well thought out and intellegent responses like that< I think you should be posting on here a lot more !!!

P.S. Especially when you agree with me !!!!!

Nathaniel,

The problem is that some people had several "slaps in the wrists" as you say and still thought it was OK. Believe it or not they not only thought it was OK but they were also proud of them and wanted more. It came to a point that some individuals couldn't care less and those negative points were "worn with pride" and used as some sort of condecoration by the offenders. It's not how it works in real life.

Regards.

In that scenario where you have repeat offenders they should be dealt with accordingly don't you think. Are you saying repeat offenders and first time offenders should be treated the same?
I think that what Nathaniel was saying is that he feels that people should be entitled to that first slap on the wrist as a warning before the hammer gets dropped on them. As i said above in my first reply, People dont need to be executed for a misdemeanor, Make the punishment fit the crime and the criminal in question. In most courts in our society first time offenders are given a slap on the wrist with a warning or community service or something of that nature, when a second time or habitual offender gets sentenced the Judge deals with him more severely because that person apparently hasn't learned from his mistakes and needs to be punished in a way that will dissuade him from doing the same thing again.