 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
Poll Question:
Do you think there should there be a rule against trolling/flaming on this board? | | Total Votes: | 71 | | 1. Yes | 43 | 60.56 % | 
| | 2. No | 28 | 39.44 % |
|
Shane
 
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
 |  |  |  |  |  | Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
< on 5/3/2004 8:42 AM >
|  | | | I'm starting this thread because I've mentioned this idea a few times and some people seemed to like it, but nothing's really happened as a result of it.
I propose that we add a no trolling/flaming rule to the current ones and let moderators decide what fits that criteria.
This will help with some of the problems on the board. I think the mods are objective and fair enough to determine what trolling is and isn't.
I propose we give each user a few chances to change their behavior too.
Example:
Incident 1: Warning.
Incident 2: Limit them to 5 posts per day for 1 week.
Incident 3: Limit them to 5 posts per day permanently.
Incident 4: Ban them for 1 week.
Incident 5: Ban them permanently.
I think this is more than fair, and it would hopefully only be used once in a while. It establishes some standards instead of just letting the user sit around until one day Av gets sick of them and bans them completely. This way, people still have a chance to get the message and change their behavior before they are banned completely.
So please vote and if you have any suggestions for the way this should be implemented, please do add a comment here.
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
Viper
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Gender: Male
Trespassing On!
| | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 1 on 5/3/2004 9:34 AM >
|  | | | I think this could be a good idea. But what would fit into the criteria to get a warning? Would everytime someone trolls/flames result in a warning or would it take a couple occurances to get a warning? I'm assuming the former but maybe the latter would be better since some people make a habit of flaming while others do not. Perhaps for incidents #2 and #3 the daily posts should be reduced to 3.
Earth, the world's most dangerous planet!
"The will to do, the soul to dare." -Sir Walter Scott |
|
Pouch
 
Location: Toronto, Canada
Gender: Male
| | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 2 on 5/3/2004 1:11 PM >
| | | | I like the idea. I don't know that it will make a huge impact on the quality of posts, but at least it gives the Mods/Admins something to work with when a users shows themselves to be annoying, but otherwise well behaved.
There are going to be obvious concerns about Mods/Admins taking things "personally" and other such complaints. I have a small suggestion, simply to avoid people getting pissy. If possible have a page similar to the "banned users" page, that will show which users are temp. banned, or who is limited to 5 posts a day. It also invariable happens that a mod gets caught up in some of the issues here. Perhaps it's a good idea to have one of the mods that isn't discussing the issue do the disciplinary action. I imagine this would save some headaches from users that feel the mods have a "vendetta" against them.
I trust the Mods/Admins would use this power sparingly, and intelligently if they had it. Great suggestion Shane.
...For here, millions of mixed shades and shadows, drowned dreams, somnambulisms, reveries; all that we call lives and souls, lie dreaming, dreaming, still... |
|
El_Gordo_Uno
 
Location: Wenatchee, Washington
Gender: Male
This post brought to you by Allan Smithee
| |  | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 3 on 5/3/2004 1:13 PM >
| | | | Flaming can be very subjective at times. I vote no.
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges |
|
Jester
Location: Vancouver,B.C. Canada
Gender: Male
Always just out of sight...
| | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 4 on 5/3/2004 1:17 PM >
| | | | I think that as long as more than one mod agrees about the discipline, then it would work.
It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf. |
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 5 on 5/3/2004 5:12 PM >
| | | | Yeah, obviously the users who have been punished would be listed on the banned members page.
As far as more than one warning, I guess we could have more than one if you think it will be more fair. Maybe add a time constraint to it. If you've only been warned or just had your posts restricted for a week, and you go for a month (or maybe 2 or 3) without any incident, then you start again with a clean slate. If you've had your posting rights permanently limited, then it wouldn't come back. This way, if someone just has a little slip of the keys and fucks up, it won't be held against them forever.
I think the two mod thing would work well too. We can discuss it on the admin board and if two or more mods agree, then the action will be taken.
I want to make this as fair as possible, but still allow the mods to be able to take care of people like TT/Intalex/Chikote who cause issues on the board, but do not explicitly violate any of the other rules.
Edit: If you are voting no, please post in this thread as to why you think this rule would be a bad thing, I want to address everyones concerns with this. Suggestions for improvements are also good.
[last edit 5/3/2004 5:20 PM by Shane - edited 1 times]
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
LongHorn
Location: Alabama
Gender: Male
"Clever got me this far, and tricky got me in."
| | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 6 on 5/3/2004 6:41 PM >
| | | | shane, could you be a bit more specific as to what this would prohibit? maybe this is because i dont exactly visit forums much (actually this is probably becuase i dont go to forums much, as this is the only forum ive really posted more than 1 comment in) but im not sure exactly what you want to stop with this rule. to be honest i know what flaming is but im not sure about trolling. plus i think you need to have a pretty good definition of what the rule is against so no dispute would come up over the meaning of flaming and somebody says "well i wasnt flaming because to me flaming is blah blah blah and i didnt do that. you guys are just want to punish me cause you dont like me." if you have a clear cut definition of the rule then they couldn't argue whether they broke it or not (well, im sure some could argue with it but there'd be a lot less arguing).
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, next to soccer." |
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 7 on 5/3/2004 7:03 PM >
| | | | Please see this list to get an idea:
http://www.uer.ca/forum_banlist.asp
Those people were mostly banned for abusing things on the board. Some were violating specific rules, but others were a general nuisance and just caused problems on the board (like intalex/chikote/twinturbo/mousey). This would be to deal with these people in a fair and consistent way. As of now, there really are no precedents for how to deal with these people. They just show up and cause problems, people get annoyed with them and complain, they keep doing annoying things, and finally at some point, Av or another mod will bring up the issue on the admin board, and if it's decided they are a problem, they are banned. This would give them a bit more warning and chance to improve their behavior. As of now it just kinda goes from people telling em "hey chill out or you'll get banned" to being banned. I wanted to implement this to give them some form of consequences early on and make it something that happens in stages so they have a chance to correct the problem and mesh a bit better with the community at large.
It will mostly be applied to people that several users complain about, not just people that mod's dislike. With the banned members list, people will be able to appeal the decision.
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
Ricotta
Nobler Donor
Location: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
De arimasu~
| | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 8 on 5/3/2004 7:06 PM >
| | | | Posted by El_Gordo_Uno
Flaming can be very subjective at times. I vote no.
|
You're only voting no because this rule would have caused you to stay banned.
Edit: Fucking typos...
[last edit 5/3/2004 7:22 PM by Ricotta - edited 1 times]
|
|
El_Gordo_Uno
Location: Wenatchee, Washington
Gender: Male
This post brought to you by Allan Smithee
| | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 9 on 5/3/2004 7:20 PM >
| | | | Hehe, I love you too Damien.
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges |
|
Bizzybear
Nobler Donor
Location: Lake George, New York
Gender: Female
Doesn't play well with others
| | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 10 on 5/3/2004 7:21 PM >
| | | | That still doesn't define what flaming and trolling is though Shane. I know what flaming is, but not quite sure about trolling. If you create another reason to potentially ban people, the definitions have to be a little more concrete than just checking out the banned members list to see what others have done.
http://sybilsden.com/bizzybear/main.html[/ur |
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 11 on 5/3/2004 7:53 PM >
| | | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
kn0wledge
This member has been banned
Location: Glasgow, UK
Gender: Male
| |  | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 12 on 5/3/2004 9:02 PM >
| | | | The idea is an honourable one, but I am voting against it.
For those of you who immediately thought "typical" you may click the X now.
I read the definition of troll on Wikipedia, as was posted. While it does give a good explanation, I am still concerned that the "disciplinary" (I hate that term) action would be far too subjective.
Peoples' remarks are very easily taken out of context, misread, or open to more than the intended interpretation when written, especially those whose command of English is not quite up to par. While I try to be explicit in everything that I say, obviously a great many people have branded me a small-minded bigot, for reasons that we need not discuss here. This is certainly not the case.
Therefore my worry is that people such as I would be branded trolls and/or flamers, when this is certainly untrue.
Besides, it is plainly obvious when one is flouting the rules, intentionally insulting someone or posting nothing but unadulterated crap (read: masher). I would say let the discipline be handed out to them, fair and square.
I know I would take great offence at being labelled a troll, and I know if others' posts were labelled trolling when they were very definitely not intended to be so, they would be a tad upset too.
In Nagasaki they like bukkake. |
|
Bizzybear
Nobler Donor
Location: Lake George, New York
Gender: Female
Doesn't play well with others
| | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 13 on 5/3/2004 9:08 PM >
| | | | I do agree with Knowledge a bit. I tend to be sarcastic on occasin and it may be difficult to infer my "tone" from reading a post. Would I be branded a troll or flamer because I occasionally like to ride people a little? Or would it only be people who do it an overwhelming majority of the time?
http://sybilsden.com/bizzybear/main.html[/ur |
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 14 on 5/3/2004 9:15 PM >
| | | | Posted by kn0wledge
Besides, it is plainly obvious when one is flouting the rules, intentionally insulting someone or posting nothing but unadulterated crap (read: masher). I would say let the discipline be handed out to them, fair and square.
|
I don't think you're a troll kn0wledge, even though I may not agree with some of the things you have said in the past, I think your posts are for the most part a reasonable opinion and not meant to be inflammatory. Masher is an obvious example of where these rules should be applied, as would be chikote/mousey. The point of this is to set some standards on what kind of action to take with those kinds of people.
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
orangeindiana
Noble Donor
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Meh.
| | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 15 on 5/3/2004 10:03 PM >
| | | | Knowledge brings up a good point... flames are sometimes objective and some mods are more inclined to get set off than others. Besides, history's shown that the real problematic people will get dealt with anyways -- Intalex/Mousey/Etc is gone, for example. I don't think the rule will really do much in the way of deterrence... if you want to get in a flame war, you will. If you don't stop, you'll get banned eventually, rule or not. Things are fine as they are.
|
|
The Hitman's Daughter
Account Closed
Location: ottawa, canada
Gender: Female
hot pavement.
| | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 16 on 5/3/2004 10:13 PM >
| | | | It would have to be for a good reason.
Sometimes arguing can be a good thing. This isn't fucking sesame street. Sometimes it is necessary for people to argue things out.
But when it comes down to just plain name calling, that's flaming.
richellesart.com
From now on and until the end of time, "Hip To Be Square" will conjure images of bloody bodies being hacked apart with axes.
|
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 17 on 5/3/2004 10:38 PM >
| | | | Posted by The Hitman's Daughter
It would have to be for a good reason.
Sometimes arguing can be a good thing. This isn't fucking sesame street. Sometimes it is necessary for people to argue things out.
But when it comes down to just plain name calling, that's flaming.
|
Yes, this would NOT be used for just people who argue. It's not about that, it's not even about the name calling (although that's getting a bit closer to it).
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
The Hitman's Daughter
Account Closed
Location: ottawa, canada
Gender: Female
hot pavement.
| | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 18 on 5/4/2004 12:13 AM >
| | | | Posted by Shane
Yes, this would NOT be used for just people who argue. It's not about that, it's not even about the name calling (although that's getting a bit closer to it).
|
I get it.
People who have nothing to contribute besides snarky comments and insults, right?
I thought we already didn't want those here.
Heh.
richellesart.com
From now on and until the end of time, "Hip To Be Square" will conjure images of bloody bodies being hacked apart with axes.
|
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| | | | | | Re: Anti-Troll/Flaming Rule
<Reply # 19 on 5/4/2004 12:47 AM >
| | | | Posted by The Hitman's Daughter
People who have nothing to contribute besides snarky comments and insults, right?
|
Yes, exactly. The people who bring absolutely nothing to the table but pissing off other users. Some normal people do occasionally make some negative posts that could fall under trolling behavior, but this is not for those people and it is the reason that a person will get several chances before any permanent actions will be taken.
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 109 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 740104867 pages have been generated.
|
|
