Clear behavior guidelines & consequences

[Wolfblade]

Since it seems to have come up, maybe it would be prudent to have some clearly posted and enforced behavioral guidelines.

Even a simple "no flaming" would probably cut it, so long as there are also clearly visible consequences for poor user conduct on here.

If excessively hostile and aggressive personally insulting posts were a bit less tolerated, and clear and simple consequences for being an ass for no reason on the forums were available for moderators to use, it might be less tempting to take other means of behavioral correction.

If someone is just being an ass, it IS really hard for anyone who isn't an ass to not simply call them as such. Obviously, it isn't a proper thing for an admin to do, but I think the problem isn't how that particular situation was handled, but that there doesn't seem to be a publicly visible guideline for how it >should< have been handled. The behavior from a user needed to be stopped. It was stopped. If it wasn't stopped the right way, let's decide how it should have been stopped, so more mods can go about stopping that sort of thing properly when the need arises.

 

[Tensik]

I have to agree, I haven't had much inclination to hang out here the past few days because of the attitudes, they just bring you down. I've got no problem with people disagreeing with each other, but there was a lot of flat-out assholery and flaming going on and I'm actually very surprised it wasn't locked down sooner. I'm not saying to enforce an all happy rainbows board (or gallery, for that matter) but there really is a point to say enough is enough.

 

[Suule]

I have to say it out loud first: Let's not confuse 'asshatery' with having a diffrent opinion.

 

[Damaratus]

I have to say it out loud first: Let's not confuse 'asshatery' with having a diffrent opinion.

You probably didn't need to. I'm pretty sure it's just preaching to the choir here.

 

[Wolfblade]

Thank you, Suule, I do keep forgetting that one of the main problems is that some people don't know how to express a different opinion without also being an asshat.

For clarification, just having a different opinion can usually be expressed with a minimum of profanity, and is devoid of personal insults. Personally attacking the other person, and not just their opinion, is almost never just 'having a different opinion.' If you feel someone is an idiot, then you should be able to counter their argument with intelligent posts.

Directly insulting another user as a person, rather than focusing on how and why you disagree with their opinion, is rarely called for. But it happens all too often.

Once people start saying "idiot", "freak", "sick", etc, or are just swearing excessively (we all swear for emphasis sometimes, but come on), you're attacking the person, and not their opinion, and that should not be allowed to get much farther than that. Most everyone on the boards SHOULD be an adult, so I don't see why there should be any problems with making users act like one.

I think the administration has generally demonstrated the ability to discern genuine discussion from just flaming. It'd just be nice to have clearer guidelines and less tolerance for when the former devolves into the latter.

 

[sasaki]

If someone is just being an ass, it IS really hard for anyone who isn't an ass to not simply call them as such. Obviously, it isn't a proper thing for an admin to do, but I think the problem isn't how that particular situation was handled, but that there doesn't seem to be a publicly visible guideline for how it >should< have been handled. The behavior from a user needed to be stopped. It was stopped. If it wasn't stopped the right way, let's decide how it should have been stopped, so more mods can go about stopping that sort of thing properly when the need arises.

A Karma rating system similar to that of slashdot may also work. You can filter replies based on relevence (moderated tags like "Funny" "Insightful" "Off-Topic" "Trolling") and a rating from 0-5. This way, you don't have to see posts left by anyone otherwhise trolling. In a lot of cases you get trolling, but it's not against the rules based on the TOS.

Why ban a user when their posts can simply be ignored based on your threshold? It'll teach them that "nobody cares" so they'll give up.

 

[Tensik]

RE:  Clear behavior guidelines & consequences

If someone is just being an ass, it IS really hard for anyone who isn't an ass to not simply call them as such. Obviously, it isn't a proper thing for an admin to do, but I think the problem isn't how that particular situation was handled, but that there doesn't seem to be a publicly visible guideline for how it >should< have been handled. The behavior from a user needed to be stopped. It was stopped. If it wasn't stopped the right way, let's decide how it should have been stopped, so more mods can go about stopping that sort of thing properly when the need arises.

A Karma rating system similar to that of slashdot may also work. You can filter replies based on relevence (moderated tags like "Funny" "Insightful" "Off-Topic" "Trolling") and a rating from 0-5. This way, you don't have to see posts left by anyone otherwhise trolling. In a lot of cases you get trolling, but it's not against the rules based on the TOS.

Why ban a user when their posts can simply be ignored based on your threshold? It'll teach them that "nobody cares" so they'll give up.

Or a simple one I know is available for php, just an ignore feature. Self-moderation can be a great thing.

 

[Damaratus]

It still would be really nice for people wanting to post in the forum to at least agree to behave on a certain level. Some of the blatant flaming and such has gotten kind of stupid today. I mean if two people have a problem with each other, the forums should not become a haven for their bickering.

 

[Wolfblade]

It still would be really nice for people wanting to post in the forum to at least agree to behave on a certain level. Some of the blatant flaming and such has gotten kind of stupid today. I mean if two people have a problem with each other, the forums should not become a haven for their bickering.

Yeah. Ignoring people just out to make trouble is one option. Doing something about people just making trouble so nobody HAS to ignore them usually seems a nicer option.

 

[Rouge2]

I agree 100 percent with a clearer behavior guideline & consequences.

 

[nobuyuki]

In a perfect world, you could tell everybody how they should act. This is the real world. I've heard too many proposals to add crybaby protections to various site TOS's all the time, but the only time people lose out is when people have to bend to the whims of the minority. No acting out, no calling people on bullshit, and no giving anyone a well-earned verbal rapping without the threat of some stupid consequence.

Smile, or one day it may be time for some reNEDucation.

 

[Wolfblade]

In a perfect world, people would have the capacity to behave themselves without needing an authority structure to keep in check behaviors detrimental to the health and happiness of a community. This is the real world. It is the necessity and responsibility for the authority structure, and not other members of the community, to do the correcting of unwanted behaviors. One community member attempting to correct the behavior of another would not be necessary if there were an authority structure handling those issues.

 

[nobuyuki]

Who said they need an authority on how to conduct themselves? You? Are you the authority? I bet you wish you were. One community member attempting to correct the behavior of another works best when there are grounds for understanding on both sides that one of them knows what's best for all. I err on the side of leaving it the fuck alone, not having the ego, at least in this capacity, to say I am the authority on the guidelines for correct behavior.

On the same token, I don't think you nor anyone else posting (maybe not even the admins) have the requisite experience for determining what clear-cut rules there are on this site for acceptable behavior. This has been demonstrated by the current state of the AUP / TOS and what that boils down to is that this thread is nothing more than a "please improve our rules" thread. I can agree on those grounds, at least, though we may disagree on how to do so.

 

[Damaratus]

Who said they need an authority on how to conduct themselves? You? Are you the authority? I bet you wish you were. One community member attempting to correct the behavior of another works best when there are grounds for understanding on both sides that one of them knows what's best for all. I err on the side of leaving it the fuck alone, not having the ego, at least in this capacity, to say I am the authority on the guidelines for correct behavior.

Nobu, you think you can manage to say something within these threads without attacking another person? You seem hellbent at the moment, and though you may be adding valid points they're being lost in your additional childishness.

On the same token, I don't think you nor anyone else posting (maybe not even the admins) have the requisite experience for determining what clear-cut rules there are on this site for acceptable behavior. This has been demonstrated by the current state of the AUP / TOS and what that boils down to is that this thread is nothing more than a "please improve our rules" thread. I can agree on those grounds, at least, though we may disagree on how to do so.

Yes, but at the moment it seems that any kind of answer to the problem that may be offered will be met with your normal cynicism. If you have no faith in any of the administration then it's going to be useless for them (or anyone else) to try and come up with any kind of rules that fit your fancy.

I'm usually under the impression that just being civil to each other is good start. Honestly, there's a certain amount of aimed egging on that isn't really necessary in this forum.

 

[nobuyuki]

Hm, I can definately see your point. I have to run off to work right about now, but I was hoping the last paragraph on my post would open up some doors for common ground and get to discussing on "well here's how I would do it" rather than being locked into a series of rebuttals against a certain ideology.

It's not hopeless for an administration who doesn't have proper experience to come up with a useful TOS or AUP, it's just that any attempts to improve upon it in a dramatic way such as how this thread suggests I think would be in haste, and also in error. Perhaps the administration already knows this, and has played a "hands off" approach with it since the last time they had a crack at it. I have the feeling this is the case, and I also think this about the only reasonable thing they can do until they have a real consortium of people with administration experience evaluate the stuff.

One last thing before I go -- I know it's cynical to mention this, but just because I can keep a post free of directed attacks, Damaratus, doesn't mean that everyone else can. I hope for your sake, since you asked, that all parties will be able to honor your request without a final baiting "well if HE was more x" type of insult. heh. Since you pointed out I kind of started the barrage, I'll try and end it right here.

 

[Dragoneer]

I actually have a draft "Rules of Conduct" that will be going up to the rest of the admins for review, and once ratified, will become a TOS-binding agreement all users must follow.

 

[Wolfblade]

I actually have a draft "Rules of Conduct" that will be going up to the rest of the admins for review, and once ratified, will become a TOS-binding agreement all users must follow.

Awesome.

 

[Rouge2]

Also we need to do something about the increase number of people here to assault others.