Wild Wild West - Part 2

[Lucille]

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?

 

[KelliH]

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.

 

[bsharrah]

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

Bart

 

[Lucille]

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

Bart

Better than mud wrestling?

 

[Seamus Haley]

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.

 

[Wilomn]

This is going to be one ugly mess.

 

[DThomas]

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.

 

[Lucille]

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?

 

[Seamus Haley]

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).

 

[Lucille]

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?

 

[Seamus Haley]

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?

Probably not. See why it's a potential problem? Biased application of the "rules" and using the warning system as a weapon, rather than an even application intended to enforce a certain behavioral standard.

Understand?

And uh... I'm not real sure what the last bit there was all about, am I notorious for lying and nobody has bothered to tell me yet or... What was that supposed to mean exactly? Might want to PM me an explaination if it's long, detailed and will detract from the subject of this thread.

 

[WebSlave]

Spamming 1
Shotgun style advertising 1


I think those types of violations are pretty straight forward and not wanted here therefore should be a higher number... the site has been getting hit with some spammers lately.

Adrian

There are actually two different types of spamming that is a problem here. One is whereby someone simply registers here and posts something of the nature of Viagra or ringtones. Those are deleted when discovered and the perpetrator banned or deleted immediately.

The second type is when a member simply gets carried away with the promotion of their own business and begins posting that promotional material in discussion forums or elsewhere that is just not really appropriate. This could possibly be rolled into the INAPPROPRIATE ADVERTISING warning in order to simplify it somewhat..... Which is what I may do....

Shotgun advertising is entirely different. That is when someone will post the same ad in many different classified ad sections. This is not quite as severe of a problem as spamming, but still should be discouraged as much as possible.

 

[WebSlave]

Mods are people too, and prone to the same mistakes. Might as well be prone to the same attacks, no? J/K
I actually agree with you, but I've also seen where some mods might be just as guilty. Maybe they should get zapped for more points because they are supposed to be role models??? It would be awful hard to implement a system that would know the difference. Or else, it would require a lot of moderation.

I too think this is going to be pretty interesting. How long before you think it may happen?


Rick

If the site moderators cause problems, that is a management problem that falls on my shoulders and is not subject to popular PUBLIC opinion. If the mods were open to the warning points, they would continually be bombarded with retaliatory warnings from every member that that correct with that system. Since that is their JOB here, I feel it is not fair to subject them to that sort of aggravation and abuse.

As for the timeline, soon, but can't give you a date for it. Still got some details I am ironing out with the programmer. Plus there may certainly be bugs in the system when first implemented, so I want to make certain I have several days open to field problems as they crop up.

 

[WebSlave]

Will it be retroactive to existing posts?

Yeah. This was something I didn't care for, but it would complicate the programming considerably to put a barrier in place for previously made posts.

But in reality, I think many people may be of the opinion that someone going back to old posts in order to ding a particular member would be doing so in a spitefully and abusive manner, so such an action may be getting someone more than they bargained for if they engage in that sort of activity.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

Yeah, I am pretty much a pessimist myself. But once I thought of implementing this system, I felt obligated to try it. After all, what would it say about my opinion of you all if I said that I didn't think you could handle the responsibility and authority I am giving you?

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

Yeah. This was something I didn't care for, but it would complicate the programming considerably to put a barrier in place for previously made posts.

But in reality, I think many people may be of the opinion that someone going back to old posts in order to ding a particular member would be doing so in a spitefully and abusive manner, so such an action may be getting someone more than they bargained for if they engage in that sort of activity.

A simple Sticky from you stating that posts made prior to.......are exempt should, more or less, solve that problem

 

[WebSlave]

A simple Sticky from you stating that posts made prior to.......are exempt should, more or less, solve that problem

You forgot the "roll your eyes" smiley.......

Yeah...... How many people do you think have read the RULES for posting on the BOI? Which IS a sticky, btw.......

 

[WebSlave]

This is going to be one ugly mess.

Yes, for some people I suppose it will be........

 

[Stardust]

Seamus,
Lucille was referring to me. As I took off some of my posts as well. It was during the time of Al and Chris. After taking off a few I said "forget it" basically to myself and stopped, hence most of my posts are still there. I am still guilty of doing it when it was available to do so.

Lucille,
It is this exact thing of trying to bring someone else into it that gives you a bad look. You may just want to think before you type. I have no problem with admitting that I did some as well nor do I have a problem with saying I over re-acted and was wrong to do so.

As far as this whole new thing on here goes, I am not seeing a lot of good coming from it, but it will be a good show to say the least.
Good luck one and all.

 

[Stardust]

I do have a question.
What about the paid for forums? I do not want people there afraid to post. Are they safe havens?
I am thinking they are not, just would like it verified.