Wild Wild West - Part 2

[WebSlave]

Was reading up on Karma and came across an interesting post.


From Webslave on 12/22 in the Karma thread


Does the change mean that Karma is going away?

And any I idea when the change is going to take place?

Karma and the Warning system will be two separate entities. Karma is for what people think of the content of a post as a personal opinion based on the context. The Warning System will be an evaluation of the post in reference to being a violation of the site rules. Certainly there CAN be some overlap when considered in relation to antagonism, threats, and prejudicial remarks.

As for when this will be implemented, I am still waiting to hear back from the programmer about some issues in the new code and some potential feasibility problems. I tend to push some programs beyond the limits for which they were designed. In this instance, I don't know if the Warnings display window can actually hold a very large number of warnings. Wes had 184, and it held up fine, but that number for some members could potentially go WAY over that number before triggering an automatic fine and suspension.

In any event, as soon as I feel everything is ready, then it will be implemented. As Jay Owens suggested, it will likely be at HIGH NOON on the day I choose for implementation.......

 

[Dragondad]

High noon is perfect, just show me to Grace Kelly.....thanks Rich look forward to the changes.

 

[WebSlave]

OK, back to the original intent of this thread.......

Are there any warnings as listed in the first post of this thread that can be perceived as likely to cause problems in enforcement? Bear in mind that this site is NOT going back to the overly strict enforcement recently, so I do not want to overly inhibit this site giving someone enough rope to wrap soundly around someone's neck when handed to them. But there does have to be a line drawn somewhere indicating when someone just went obviously overboard in their enthusiasm. Can something like this be practically enforced or do I just eliminate that as being a futile gesture?

What I want to do is have as much black and white and as little gray as possible in the rules. This is likely not very easy to do, but in some respects, that is what has been asked of myself and the moderators. So bear this in mind if you intend to avail yourself of this enabling that will be offered to you. Your interpretation of a rule will most certainly come under heavy scrutiny by anyone you apply warning points to. So make certain that you can support your case when that person PMs you asking you what the hell you were thinking when you did that. Trust me, it is GOING to happen. It will pretty much be the equivalent of every time you shoot someone with your Colt .45, they will come back as a ghost to haunt you about it.

 

[Stardust]

I am not sure this can be black and white as you want it as there are too many different people and personalities.
If you are trying for black and white might I suggest a sort of guideline to each rule?
For an example. What would constitute profanity? Ass? Hell? Damn? Shit?

 

[Wilomn]

I am not sure this can be black and white as you want it as there are too many different people and personalities.
If you are trying for black and white might I suggest a sort of guideline to each rule?
For an example. What would constitute profanity? Ass? Hell? Damn? Shit?

The S word is profanity when it's caught. I got zapped a couple of times for it.

Poo, crap, feces, diarhea, poop are not.

This is just the tip of the inquisition iceburg.

 

[Stardust]

I was merely giving an example of what I was suggesting.
There can be fewer rules but what rules there are, I believe, has to be laid down in very understandable wording. People are apt to try to get away with what they can. I hesitate to use too many examples in that area, lol. so I will give another example in for a different rule: unnecessary roughness, what is that exactly? Would it be " quit acting like a jerk" or "quit being a jerk"? If neither of these are not strong enough what would constitute strong enough?

 

[ravensgait]

Rich I don't know if it can be done or if it's a good idea but is there any way to set a time limit for nailing someone on a post? Say like 6 or 12 or 24 hours and then it's safe from retribution. My reason being to keep someone who gets a warning from searching back through old post of the person who did the giving..

Randy

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Rich I don't know if it can be done or if it's a good idea but is there any way to set a time limit for nailing someone on a post? Say like 6 or 12 or 24 hours and then it's safe from retribution. My reason being to keep someone who gets a warning from searching back through old post of the person who did the giving..

Randy

I agree with this.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

The S word is profanity when it's caught. I got zapped a couple of times for it.

Poo, crap, feces, diarhea, poop are not.

Wes, you forgot ca-ca and doo-doo.

A question: How many 'points' can an individual get per infraction? Let's say someone posts a poll, and one of the choices has the "s" word in it. It would be a clear case of profanity, but how many of us would be able to issue a point value for that infraction? Would it be first-come-first-served, or would all of the readers be able to snow-ball the person who posted?

Just curious...

 

[Bill & Amy]

Wes, you forgot ca-ca and doo-doo.

A question: How many 'points' can an individual get per infraction? Let's say someone posts a poll, and one of the choices has the "s" word in it. It would be a clear case of profanity, but how many of us would be able to issue a point value for that infraction? Would it be first-come-first-served, or would all of the readers be able to snow-ball the person who posted?

Just curious...

All readers could if they wanted to.

 

[Stardust]

OMG LOL, I so did not connect it. I am so going to get a point now and totally get why LMAO, I know this won't be believed and it is fine with me as I can't help but to laugh but when the first post when I did about profanity, I did not equate what I know now, lol.
So sorry, lol, I REALLY did not mean any offense to anyone!
By the way, I just saw that one DOES get a point for using the "S" word in a poll.
OH my, just give me my point, lol.

 

[WebSlave]

I was merely giving an example of what I was suggesting.
There can be fewer rules but what rules there are, I believe, has to be laid down in very understandable wording. People are apt to try to get away with what they can. I hesitate to use too many examples in that area, lol. so I will give another example in for a different rule: unnecessary roughness, what is that exactly? Would it be " quit acting like a jerk" or "quit being a jerk"? If neither of these are not strong enough what would constitute strong enough?

Well I guess, upon thinking about it, there really can be no black and white with most of this. Suppose I were to make a list of words considered profanity and "crap" were to be one of them. Certainly then someone would use "cr@p" and then claim immunity because it was not on the list spelled like that.

And for the example above concerning "unnecessary roughness", there would be no way possible to list every possible phrase that would be considered as being against the rules.

So perhaps some rules will just have to be removed where the gray area seems to be MUCH larger than the black and white areas. But on the other hand, perhaps it will be a real eye opener for people to see what myself and the moderators have gone through with nearly every warning point we have issued here.

What exactly IS the definition of "excessive", or "unnecessary", or even "roughness"? But I guess such rules are much like laws that police officers have quite a bit of discretion in how they are enforced. What exactly is "reckless driving"? At what point does it become "reckless"? When does reluctance to accept being arrested become "resisting arrest"? It's not like YOU are going to have a radar gun that gives a number reading for speeding or NOT speeding that you can point at a post.

I may just state something like "make your best judgment" and be prepared to justify it to the member you apply the warning points to. That will really be who you need to answer to if questions about your judgment are asked. I certainly have no intention of playing referee in every disagreement over such things.........

 

[Stardust]

It has been a long night and I wear the dunce hat tonight, lol.

Ok trying to get back on track here. So you are saying it will have to be gray areas and to use our better judgements? (still laughing at my stupidity, lol, so sorry )
I must be at that too tired and laughing stage but is that what you are saying? Rich that seems way to funny to me. On these nights apparently my judgement is not great so I think I will bow out of the judgement area at these times

 

[WebSlave]

Rich I don't know if it can be done or if it's a good idea but is there any way to set a time limit for nailing someone on a post? Say like 6 or 12 or 24 hours and then it's safe from retribution. My reason being to keep someone who gets a warning from searching back through old post of the person who did the giving..

Randy

While I imagine I could pay my programmer to implement such a time limit, I'm not convinced it would be wise to do. Personally I am uncomfortable with the idea that if someone were to post an overt threat to someone that somehow escaped anyone's notice until after the time limit passed, would then be off scott free without being reprimanded for such an action here.

As for being safe from retribution, sorry, but I don't see that as any real problem. It will certainly happen, but if someone gets a TON of warning points merely from retribution, then perhaps there is something wrong with the manner in which this person is trying to enforce the rules.

And as indicated before, warning points given merely as retribution will be considered as an abuse of the warning system, and subject the member who uses the system that way to one or more warning points from others.

 

[WebSlave]

Wes, you forgot ca-ca and doo-doo.

A question: How many 'points' can an individual get per infraction? Let's say someone posts a poll, and one of the choices has the "s" word in it. It would be a clear case of profanity, but how many of us would be able to issue a point value for that infraction? Would it be first-come-first-served, or would all of the readers be able to snow-ball the person who posted?

Just curious...

There is no real limit in that context. If 100 members are offended by a post, each and every one can assess a warning point for the infraction. That is why I need to carefully consider the value needed to incur a Fine & Suspension event. It needs to be high enough that a handful of people cannot easily gang up on someone unfairly.

But as mentioned by Dennis earlier in this thread, anyone who specifically seeks out older messages to apply warning points will be considered as abusing the system and then a target for their own rash of warning points against them. I'm certain that many members will be keeping track of such things via the warning point display window for each member and EASILY pick up on such things. There will also be an easily detected pattern of any particular member consistently posting warning points against one particular member, which will also be construed as being abusive.

I believe that over time, this sort of problem will become self limiting as people find that reaping what they sow may not be all that much fun.

 

[ravensgait]

Rich if something like that did slip by there are still the Mods to set things right. You know as well as I do that just because you say don't do that, that some will just because you said don't...Randy

 

[hhmoore]

In looking this over, I still have one question:
There continues to be reference to group response to retaliatory efforts/inappropriate use...Just how is the "group" or general membership going to know? I don't make a habit of randomly checking people's warning points, or why they were assessed. Is it just ASSumed (sorry - couldn't help myself...it has become a pretty natural way of typing that) that when given warning points, people will be launching a PM or email campaign to notify everybody of this wrong doing? Will there be a special room in Chat, or a special section here for people to post things of this nature?

 

[SoulSmilen]

The warning point display window will hold that information, and it would/could be considered a tool for those who want to participate in this system - checking how many different points for one infraction, from who, etc. Some will most assuredly use it more than others, some maybe not at all. I don't see PM's and emails running amock as much as I predict many a lengthy warning point display window sessions.. lol

Now that I've put that into words, it seems a little ominous to think about trying to sift through, i.e., 200 warning points and what they were for, by whom.... that, too, will eventually level out, I'm betting, and most folks will base judgement on the single incident/post as it should be.

Rich is right - for those who think moderating is easy and always fair and just will see just how much of that is subject to interpretation.

 

[Stardust]

In looking this over, I still have one question:
There continues to be reference to group response to retaliatory efforts/inappropriate use...Just how is the "group" or general membership going to know? I don't make a habit of randomly checking people's warning points, or why they were assessed. Is it just ASSumed (sorry - couldn't help myself...it has become a pretty natural way of typing that) that when given warning points, people will be launching a PM or email campaign to notify everybody of this wrong doing? Will there be a special room in Chat, or a special section here for people to post things of this nature?

Very good thought Harald.
a special chat room or forum/thread where people can hash it out? Or a segregated room where people go to discuss points or actions?
This sounds much better then the PMs flying back and forth and every which way.

 

[SoulSmilen]

I don't think that's good at all; that immediately paves the way for group actions and 'ganging' up. This might be a group action, in effect, but it shouldn't be one that happens through group discussion.

Generally, this system is going to prove much simpler than this thread is making it out to be. What is, is; what isn't, isn't.