Guideline Modification Suggestion and Poll
53.33%
• 8 votes •
Naw
46.67%
• 7 votes •
Yup
Guideline Modification Suggestion and Poll
I suggest a modification of site guidelines to honor an OP's thread guidelines ( like the competition and game threads are conducted ); or, at least define what is considered unacceptable behaviour by members who continuously troll, bait, spam, and/or post hate speech .
As it stands, certain posters can violate an OP's request, hiding behind lack of site guidelines as well as freedom of speech. Thus they can wreak havoc, disrupting a thread's original intent for an amicable discussion.
I would like to guage the member's opinions, thus the poll. If you vote no, I would love to know your reason/s why. You can message them privately if you do not wish to share publicly.
As it stands, certain posters can violate an OP's request, hiding behind lack of site guidelines as well as freedom of speech. Thus they can wreak havoc, disrupting a thread's original intent for an amicable discussion.
I would like to guage the member's opinions, thus the poll. If you vote no, I would love to know your reason/s why. You can message them privately if you do not wish to share publicly.
ayy i get where youre coming from but i personally enjoy wreaking a bit of havoc. i would prefer if the guidelines for what constititutes shithole behaviour were updated instead
it comes down for me to what work we can reasonably expect mods to do. i mean they might not act like it but they are humans with lives.
i also don't think self-moderation would work as some would abuse the privilege. its been seen.
i want clear guidelines for what type of behaviour is and isnt allowed and for that to be held to.
it comes down for me to what work we can reasonably expect mods to do. i mean they might not act like it but they are humans with lives.
i also don't think self-moderation would work as some would abuse the privilege. its been seen.
i want clear guidelines for what type of behaviour is and isnt allowed and for that to be held to.
anna_grin said:ayy i get where youre coming from but i personally enjoy wreaking a bit of havoc. i would prefer if the guidelines for what constititutes shithole behaviour were updated instead
I don't mind it either, but not to the point of hate speech, etc by the same people out of spite. I suggested revisions to membership behaviour in Viddax's now defunct How to Behave thread.
Something needs to be done either way. This shit has to stop. We agree on that at least.
Either there are site guidelines for honoring a host's rules or there aren't—across the board.
I don't mind it either, but not to the point of hate speech, etc by the same people out of spite. I suggested revisions to membership behaviour in Viddax's now defunct How to Behave thread.
Something needs to be done either way. This shit has to stop. We agree on that at least.
Either there are site guidelines for honoring a host's rules or there aren't—across the board.
there would then have to be guidelines for what would be reasonable guidelines to follow. eg no democrats allowed would be a non constitutional guideline.
it's doable, it's a lot more legislation than just adding one line into the site rules tho
am gonna vote yes on the basis that it can at least be tried
it's doable, it's a lot more legislation than just adding one line into the site rules tho
am gonna vote yes on the basis that it can at least be tried
anna_grin said:there would then have to be guidelines for what would be reasonable guidelines to follow. eg no democrats allowed would be a non constitutional guideline.
it's doable, it's a lot more legislation than just adding one line into the site rules tho
am gonna vote yes on the basis that it can at least be tried
Been thinking about your comments, so edited the OP to include either/or adherance to thread guidelines or defining unacceptable behaviour.
I would've never thought about the point you raised in regards to acceptable guidelines; however, it would've never occurred to me to post 'No Republicans EVAH!' because I know too many ( who now are former Republicans ) who can actually call a spade a spade—
and wished they had done so sooner.
it's doable, it's a lot more legislation than just adding one line into the site rules tho
am gonna vote yes on the basis that it can at least be tried
Been thinking about your comments, so edited the OP to include either/or adherance to thread guidelines or defining unacceptable behaviour.
I would've never thought about the point you raised in regards to acceptable guidelines; however, it would've never occurred to me to post 'No Republicans EVAH!' because I know too many ( who now are former Republicans ) who can actually call a spade a spade—
and wished they had done so sooner. 
Threads are always going to veer off topic, no matter what the rules are in the opening post--it's just the nature of the beast. Conversations and opinions should not be fitted into tidy little boxes that follow a hopscotch pattern down the thread, rigidly adhering to only on-topic posts. Yes, baiting and trolling issues should be addressed, but my own personal thought, is to have a limit on the number of threads, across all forums, per week, that everyone can start--like maximum of 2, including competitions.
A quick glance of just one of the forums, shows the same handful of people, blowing out thread after thread. Setting a limit would serve a number of purposes:
1. Cut down on clutter
2. Make people choose more wisely, their topic/thread if they know they only get 2 per week
3. Get more variety of threads
4. Might cool down tempers a bit, if people know they can't start 200 threads at once because "this thread or that thread, doesn't allow me to express my opinion per the guidelines, so I'm gonna create one for every opinion out there, on the same topic"
We're only allowed to start 2 comps at a time, so why not bring that forum wide, and if you use both your options to start 2 comps, or 2 threads, or 1 comp & 1 thread, then you don't get to start anymore threads until the next week.
Just a thought.
A quick glance of just one of the forums, shows the same handful of people, blowing out thread after thread. Setting a limit would serve a number of purposes:
1. Cut down on clutter
2. Make people choose more wisely, their topic/thread if they know they only get 2 per week
3. Get more variety of threads
4. Might cool down tempers a bit, if people know they can't start 200 threads at once because "this thread or that thread, doesn't allow me to express my opinion per the guidelines, so I'm gonna create one for every opinion out there, on the same topic"
We're only allowed to start 2 comps at a time, so why not bring that forum wide, and if you use both your options to start 2 comps, or 2 threads, or 1 comp & 1 thread, then you don't get to start anymore threads until the next week.
Just a thought.
Thank you for your input, ML. We realize topics will veer, which is why there is no mention of ' stay on topic '. We merely desire the right to conduct a * discussion * thread in an amicable way sans all the hate speech.
We realize that a lot comes down to moderator opinion of a post. Such example would be runaways mindtrain's hate speech toward democrats in general. We don't understand why his threads are locked, but his posts ( an echo of his thread content ) are allowed to remain in a discussion thread.
It appears the discussion threads are the only threads where certain members can wreak havoc, while the word game threads and comps ( understandably so ) are adhered to.
There's an imbalance here. That's all we're trying to highlight.
In regards to your forum-limit suggestion ( which I had previously suggested during a conversation with someone weeks or months ago ) only has one consideration ( as far as I can see ) that would need to be addressed: a person can still have dozens of threads by waiting until the next week, because threads take months at times to reach the maximum limit to be locked ( unless it's an official DU function, such as NaPo ).
We realize that a lot comes down to moderator opinion of a post. Such example would be runaways mindtrain's hate speech toward democrats in general. We don't understand why his threads are locked, but his posts ( an echo of his thread content ) are allowed to remain in a discussion thread.
It appears the discussion threads are the only threads where certain members can wreak havoc, while the word game threads and comps ( understandably so ) are adhered to.
There's an imbalance here. That's all we're trying to highlight.
In regards to your forum-limit suggestion ( which I had previously suggested during a conversation with someone weeks or months ago ) only has one consideration ( as far as I can see ) that would need to be addressed: a person can still have dozens of threads by waiting until the next week, because threads take months at times to reach the maximum limit to be locked ( unless it's an official DU function, such as NaPo ).
Here is is. It was a discussion with anna on potential measures to prevent spam.
Ahavati said:
You are only allowed to have two competitions running at the same time, this includes when comps are locked for public vote. There are some here who continually start threads ( particularly political ) which could be combined ( I'll not name them because I don't want to point anyone specific out ). Or, whenever a thread gets ( justifiably ) deprioritized ( meaning it won't show up in the forum list at the bottom of your page ), they create another to surpass the deprioritization.
Outside of Official DU functions, perhaps only two active threads per member? Particularly politcal threads.
Also, some members post entire pages of consecutive posts in a day, which fills the threads up. Perhaps a limit on daily consecutive posts in a single thread? This will allow other threads to circulate to the top vs the same threads being bumped by the same member/s repeatedly.
As much as the ego part of me would LOVE to never see certain faces and their threads EVER again, the higher part of me knows it's better to learn to overcome vs hide them. That they may trigger me is simply an indication that I have self-work to do.
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/forum/suggestions/read/11710/30/
Ahavati said:
You are only allowed to have two competitions running at the same time, this includes when comps are locked for public vote. There are some here who continually start threads ( particularly political ) which could be combined ( I'll not name them because I don't want to point anyone specific out ). Or, whenever a thread gets ( justifiably ) deprioritized ( meaning it won't show up in the forum list at the bottom of your page ), they create another to surpass the deprioritization.
Outside of Official DU functions, perhaps only two active threads per member? Particularly politcal threads.
Also, some members post entire pages of consecutive posts in a day, which fills the threads up. Perhaps a limit on daily consecutive posts in a single thread? This will allow other threads to circulate to the top vs the same threads being bumped by the same member/s repeatedly.
As much as the ego part of me would LOVE to never see certain faces and their threads EVER again, the higher part of me knows it's better to learn to overcome vs hide them. That they may trigger me is simply an indication that I have self-work to do.
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/forum/suggestions/read/11710/30/
Something just crossed my mind. . .the fact that these issues keep arising regarding spam, hate speech, forum thread limits and so forth demonstrates a need for guideline modification. I suggested the following on Viddax's How to Behave thread soliciting suggestions in regards to misbehaviour:
You may not. . .
disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real-time exchanges;
attack the character or damage the reputation of other users, name-call, insult, ridicule, mock, electronically stalk ( on or off-site ) or otherwise harass another user; use any member's name in a poem without their specific consent.
insult, attack, belittle, or ridicule the beliefs and life choices of other users;
collect or store personal data about other users;
engage in any activities that would violate the personal privacy rights of others, including but not limited to: interactions, whether publicly or privately as an undisclosed, alternate account; or, collecting and distributing information about other users without their permission, except as permitted by applicable law
I do not understand why the above would not be acceptable.
You may not. . .
disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real-time exchanges;
attack the character or damage the reputation of other users, name-call, insult, ridicule, mock, electronically stalk ( on or off-site ) or otherwise harass another user; use any member's name in a poem without their specific consent.
insult, attack, belittle, or ridicule the beliefs and life choices of other users;
collect or store personal data about other users;
engage in any activities that would violate the personal privacy rights of others, including but not limited to: interactions, whether publicly or privately as an undisclosed, alternate account; or, collecting and distributing information about other users without their permission, except as permitted by applicable law
I do not understand why the above would not be acceptable.
anna_grin said:wow that’s an original thought did you come up with that one all by yourself 👌🏻
As a matter of fact, I did--you can send my congratulatory plaque and commemorative prize, for that, anytime you want.
Ahavati-- thank you for your reply and my only thought was to basically stop a flood of threads all at once, by the same members because emotions and tensions are running high at any given time. Yes, we would still have any number of threads by anyone/the same member, just like now, but it would reduce a barrage of just spewing anything out all at once in the form of multiple threads--choose from the current threads available, start your own 2 or whatever limit, and discuss calmly and cordially.
Example: do we really need 3 or 4 separate threads on Biden, or can we just discuss Biden in one thread, any opinions, no specific topic to do with Biden, and just not be assholes about it to each other?
As a matter of fact, I did--you can send my congratulatory plaque and commemorative prize, for that, anytime you want.
Ahavati-- thank you for your reply and my only thought was to basically stop a flood of threads all at once, by the same members because emotions and tensions are running high at any given time. Yes, we would still have any number of threads by anyone/the same member, just like now, but it would reduce a barrage of just spewing anything out all at once in the form of multiple threads--choose from the current threads available, start your own 2 or whatever limit, and discuss calmly and cordially.
Example: do we really need 3 or 4 separate threads on Biden, or can we just discuss Biden in one thread, any opinions, no specific topic to do with Biden, and just not be assholes about it to each other?
Ahavati said:Something just crossed my mind. . .the fact that these issues keep arising regarding spam, hate speech, forum thread limits and so forth demonstrates a need for guideline modification. I suggested the following on Viddax's How to Behave thread soliciting suggestions in regards to misbehaviour:
I do not understand why the above would not be acceptable.
Because some people can't seem to control themselves, and having a thread limit might serve to better be able to keep watch on this sort of thing, as opposed to having 50 thousand threads on the same or similar topic, to slog through, to find where the issues are that need addressing.
I do not understand why the above would not be acceptable.
Because some people can't seem to control themselves, and having a thread limit might serve to better be able to keep watch on this sort of thing, as opposed to having 50 thousand threads on the same or similar topic, to slog through, to find where the issues are that need addressing.
