Guideline Modification Suggestion and Poll
53.33%
• 8 votes •
Naw
46.67%
• 7 votes •
Yup
Guideline Modification Suggestion and Poll
MadameLavender said:
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?
ML - that would be ideal, yes. But not without modified guidelines. All you have to do is go back through my covid I & II threads ( where all I fucking did was ask for a link to verify credibility ) to see the assholes who personally attacked us, repeatedly spammed, refused to provide links, and so forth.
NOTHING can be amicable in this environment due to LESS than a handful of members who are repeatedly demonstrating negative behaviour. Not UNLESS guidelines are modified to address behaviour issues.
How many times do discussions like this have to happen before it becomes apparent that guidelines need to be modified? What is so bad about an OP being able to have guidelines that other members should adhere to ( outside of any exclusionary language which would affect part of the membership, of course ).
I am sick of being attacked for being a democrat. I am sick of amicable discussion threads interrupted by the same people spewing hate language, spam, fake news, and soliciting attention. You want Utopia? Then actually address the assholes, please.
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?
ML - that would be ideal, yes. But not without modified guidelines. All you have to do is go back through my covid I & II threads ( where all I fucking did was ask for a link to verify credibility ) to see the assholes who personally attacked us, repeatedly spammed, refused to provide links, and so forth.
NOTHING can be amicable in this environment due to LESS than a handful of members who are repeatedly demonstrating negative behaviour. Not UNLESS guidelines are modified to address behaviour issues.
How many times do discussions like this have to happen before it becomes apparent that guidelines need to be modified? What is so bad about an OP being able to have guidelines that other members should adhere to ( outside of any exclusionary language which would affect part of the membership, of course ).
I am sick of being attacked for being a democrat. I am sick of amicable discussion threads interrupted by the same people spewing hate language, spam, fake news, and soliciting attention. You want Utopia? Then actually address the assholes, please.
anna_grin
ilchruthach
Forum Posts: 3365
ilchruthach
Dangerous Mind
15
Joined 24th Mar 2013
Forum Posts: 3365
scuse me lav im in fight mode. you think i act like this unprovoked ? im sweet as pie. look what they made me do.
MadameLavender
Forum Posts: 5348
Guardian of Shadows
77
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5348
Ahavati said:
ML - that would be ideal, yes. But not without modified guidelines. All you have to do is go back through my covid I & II threads ( where all I fucking did was ask for a link to verify credibility ) to see the assholes who personally attacked us, repeatedly spammed, refused to provide links, and so forth.
NOTHING can be amicable in this environment due to LESS than a handful of members who are repeatedly demonstrating negative behaviour. Not UNLESS guidelines are modified to address behaviour issues.
How many times do discussions like this have to happen before it becomes apparent that guidelines need to be modified? What is so bad about an OP being able to have guidelines that other members should adhere to ( outside of any exclusionary language which would affect part of the membership, of course ).
I am sick of being attacked for being a democrat. I am sick of amicable discussion threads interrupted by the same people spewing hate language, spam, fake news, and soliciting attention. You want Utopia? Then actually address the assholes, please.
I agree, and to modify the guidelines needs to be done by the Webmiss, as mods do not have the ability to edit anything that's been set up as part of the website postings and such, that was originally done by her.
Unfortunately though, we can have all the guidelines we want, but there will always be those who ignore them. We have guidelines about spamming, plagiarizing , and everything else, that's not cool, but yet we still have people who think those guidelines don't apply to them and do it anyway.
With thread limits, personally, I myself could keep track of the BS, a little better--there have been times that there are so many threads going with forum reports and issues, getting a link to here and there, that yeah--sometimes I miss a few because of how many to dig through.
ML - that would be ideal, yes. But not without modified guidelines. All you have to do is go back through my covid I & II threads ( where all I fucking did was ask for a link to verify credibility ) to see the assholes who personally attacked us, repeatedly spammed, refused to provide links, and so forth.
NOTHING can be amicable in this environment due to LESS than a handful of members who are repeatedly demonstrating negative behaviour. Not UNLESS guidelines are modified to address behaviour issues.
How many times do discussions like this have to happen before it becomes apparent that guidelines need to be modified? What is so bad about an OP being able to have guidelines that other members should adhere to ( outside of any exclusionary language which would affect part of the membership, of course ).
I am sick of being attacked for being a democrat. I am sick of amicable discussion threads interrupted by the same people spewing hate language, spam, fake news, and soliciting attention. You want Utopia? Then actually address the assholes, please.
I agree, and to modify the guidelines needs to be done by the Webmiss, as mods do not have the ability to edit anything that's been set up as part of the website postings and such, that was originally done by her.
Unfortunately though, we can have all the guidelines we want, but there will always be those who ignore them. We have guidelines about spamming, plagiarizing , and everything else, that's not cool, but yet we still have people who think those guidelines don't apply to them and do it anyway.
With thread limits, personally, I myself could keep track of the BS, a little better--there have been times that there are so many threads going with forum reports and issues, getting a link to here and there, that yeah--sometimes I miss a few because of how many to dig through.
MadameLavender said:
I agree, and to modify the guidelines needs to be done by the Webmiss, as mods do not have the ability to edit anything that's been set up as part of the website postings and such, that was originally done by her.
Unfortunately though, we can have all the guidelines we want, but there will always be those who ignore them. We have guidelines about spamming, plagiarizing , and everything else, that's not cool, but yet we still have people who think those guidelines don't apply to them and do it anyway.
With thread limits, personally, I myself could keep track of the BS, a little better--there have been times that there are so many threads going with forum reports and issues, getting a link to here and there, that yeah--sometimes I miss a few because of how many to dig through.
I do greatly appreciate your reception to this, and agree with the majority of what you say. At least guideline modifications wouldn't allow certain members to hide behind the fact that there are none to prevent them from acting as such.
It's flat out disrespectful how they've acted; and if I am not mistaken, that IS against guidelines to interfere with another's enjoyment of the site. I can't even have a discussion thread for being called a "Jim-Crow slave owner democrat" etc. THAT is derogatory, name-calling, and SHOULD be against the guidelines of this site.
I honestly had hopes Viddax's How to Behave thread would garner results; however, I am beginning to feel that was just a bandaid slapped on the membership until the storm passed. And, well, here we are, yet again.
Again, thank you.
I agree, and to modify the guidelines needs to be done by the Webmiss, as mods do not have the ability to edit anything that's been set up as part of the website postings and such, that was originally done by her.
Unfortunately though, we can have all the guidelines we want, but there will always be those who ignore them. We have guidelines about spamming, plagiarizing , and everything else, that's not cool, but yet we still have people who think those guidelines don't apply to them and do it anyway.
With thread limits, personally, I myself could keep track of the BS, a little better--there have been times that there are so many threads going with forum reports and issues, getting a link to here and there, that yeah--sometimes I miss a few because of how many to dig through.
I do greatly appreciate your reception to this, and agree with the majority of what you say. At least guideline modifications wouldn't allow certain members to hide behind the fact that there are none to prevent them from acting as such.
It's flat out disrespectful how they've acted; and if I am not mistaken, that IS against guidelines to interfere with another's enjoyment of the site. I can't even have a discussion thread for being called a "Jim-Crow slave owner democrat" etc. THAT is derogatory, name-calling, and SHOULD be against the guidelines of this site.
I honestly had hopes Viddax's How to Behave thread would garner results; however, I am beginning to feel that was just a bandaid slapped on the membership until the storm passed. And, well, here we are, yet again.
Again, thank you.
Anonymous
MadameLavender said:
I agree, and to modify the guidelines needs to be done by the Webmiss, as mods do not have the ability to edit anything that's been set up as part of the website postings and such, that was originally done by her.
Unfortunately though, we can have all the guidelines we want, but there will always be those who ignore them. We have guidelines about spamming, plagiarizing , and everything else, that's not cool, but yet we still have people who think those guidelines don't apply to them and do it anyway.
With thread limits, personally, I myself could keep track of the BS, a little better--there have been times that there are so many threads going with forum reports and issues, getting a link to here and there, that yeah--sometimes I miss a few because of how many to dig through.
I reckon best give the owner of the thread the ability to just delete the blatant and obviously off topic, off guidelines posts. It's their house,their rules. Including posts and spam posts designed to siderail the topic of the thread. And for posts of criminal nature or threads of criminal nature ,mods you're there aren't ya?
I agree, and to modify the guidelines needs to be done by the Webmiss, as mods do not have the ability to edit anything that's been set up as part of the website postings and such, that was originally done by her.
Unfortunately though, we can have all the guidelines we want, but there will always be those who ignore them. We have guidelines about spamming, plagiarizing , and everything else, that's not cool, but yet we still have people who think those guidelines don't apply to them and do it anyway.
With thread limits, personally, I myself could keep track of the BS, a little better--there have been times that there are so many threads going with forum reports and issues, getting a link to here and there, that yeah--sometimes I miss a few because of how many to dig through.
I reckon best give the owner of the thread the ability to just delete the blatant and obviously off topic, off guidelines posts. It's their house,their rules. Including posts and spam posts designed to siderail the topic of the thread. And for posts of criminal nature or threads of criminal nature ,mods you're there aren't ya?
cold_fusion said:
I reckon best give the owner of the thread the ability to just delete the blatant and obviously off topic, off guidelines posts. It's their house,their rules. Including posts and spam posts designed to siderail the topic of the thread. And for posts of criminal nature or threads of criminal nature ,mods you're there aren't ya?
Thank you.
I reckon best give the owner of the thread the ability to just delete the blatant and obviously off topic, off guidelines posts. It's their house,their rules. Including posts and spam posts designed to siderail the topic of the thread. And for posts of criminal nature or threads of criminal nature ,mods you're there aren't ya?
Thank you.
MadameLavender
Forum Posts: 5348
Guardian of Shadows
77
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5348
cold_fusion said:
I reckon best give the owner of the thread the ability to just delete the blatant and obviously off topic, off guidelines posts. It's their house,their rules. Including posts and spam posts designed to siderail the topic of the thread. And for posts of criminal nature or threads of criminal nature ,mods you're there aren't ya?
That would be an option too, but with that, it would require some re-coding of the site by the Webmiss, to allow for anyone starting a thread, to have sort of a mini-mod, functionality. Honestly, I know nothing about coding and programming, so I couldn't offer a solid answer as to whether or not this is possible to do.
And yes, the mods are here, for the big stuff, but there too, our numbers are dwindling--Lobo has stepped aside , no longer having the time to devote to this site, as a mod, due to life in the non-internet world, job, family, etc.
So there needs to be a way for us to effectively do our jobs, by streamlining and simplifying some things, hence my suggestion about the thread limit. Someone can report in "hey, there's a problem in the Biden thread, or the Things you've made thread, etc." and we know right where to go, instead of having to police multiple threads on the same political or non-political topic.
Short of having an anything goes, "DUP Thunderdome Thread: Enter at Your Own Risk and No Crying Like a Sissy Because You Asked for It" , where we can bitch each other out without repercussion (sign the electronic agreement first, folks), we need to keep having these discussions we are currently having, because we don't have a perfect world or website, and maybe some new ideas that work, will come out of it.
I reckon best give the owner of the thread the ability to just delete the blatant and obviously off topic, off guidelines posts. It's their house,their rules. Including posts and spam posts designed to siderail the topic of the thread. And for posts of criminal nature or threads of criminal nature ,mods you're there aren't ya?
That would be an option too, but with that, it would require some re-coding of the site by the Webmiss, to allow for anyone starting a thread, to have sort of a mini-mod, functionality. Honestly, I know nothing about coding and programming, so I couldn't offer a solid answer as to whether or not this is possible to do.
And yes, the mods are here, for the big stuff, but there too, our numbers are dwindling--Lobo has stepped aside , no longer having the time to devote to this site, as a mod, due to life in the non-internet world, job, family, etc.
So there needs to be a way for us to effectively do our jobs, by streamlining and simplifying some things, hence my suggestion about the thread limit. Someone can report in "hey, there's a problem in the Biden thread, or the Things you've made thread, etc." and we know right where to go, instead of having to police multiple threads on the same political or non-political topic.
Short of having an anything goes, "DUP Thunderdome Thread: Enter at Your Own Risk and No Crying Like a Sissy Because You Asked for It" , where we can bitch each other out without repercussion (sign the electronic agreement first, folks), we need to keep having these discussions we are currently having, because we don't have a perfect world or website, and maybe some new ideas that work, will come out of it.
anna_grin
ilchruthach
Forum Posts: 3365
ilchruthach
Dangerous Mind
15
Joined 24th Mar 2013
Forum Posts: 3365
we’re asleepin a
Anonymous
I’d enjoy a format makeover....top/best comments are seen first, and the other 50 pages of bile are down the bottom. Appreciate this is a fundamental change away from a conversation.
The forums have always been chaos.
An alternate idea would be a limit of 5 posts per hour in the forums....allows for conversation, but might take the heat out of wars, and would also mean people spent time forming their thoughts.
Right now you have;
Limited moderation
No posting limits
No ability of person who starts thread to keep it on track
Just those three variables = chaos.
The forums have always been chaos.
An alternate idea would be a limit of 5 posts per hour in the forums....allows for conversation, but might take the heat out of wars, and would also mean people spent time forming their thoughts.
Right now you have;
Limited moderation
No posting limits
No ability of person who starts thread to keep it on track
Just those three variables = chaos.
anna_grin said:we’re asleepin a
Heh. I felt half-asleep so thought I'd better delete that one until I was awake!
hemihead said:I’d enjoy a format makeover....top/best comments are seen first, and the other 50 pages of bile are down the bottom. Appreciate this is a fundamental change away from a conversation.
The forums have always been chaos.
An alternate idea would be a limit of 5 posts per hour in the forums....allows for conversation, but might take the heat out of wars, and would also mean people spent time forming their thoughts.
Right now you have;
Limited moderation
No posting limits
No ability of person who starts thread to keep it on track
Just those three variables = chaos.
Something definitely needs to happen to quell the same damn mosquitos from continually attempting to drain blood from the same members.
Heh. I felt half-asleep so thought I'd better delete that one until I was awake!
hemihead said:I’d enjoy a format makeover....top/best comments are seen first, and the other 50 pages of bile are down the bottom. Appreciate this is a fundamental change away from a conversation.
The forums have always been chaos.
An alternate idea would be a limit of 5 posts per hour in the forums....allows for conversation, but might take the heat out of wars, and would also mean people spent time forming their thoughts.
Right now you have;
Limited moderation
No posting limits
No ability of person who starts thread to keep it on track
Just those three variables = chaos.
Something definitely needs to happen to quell the same damn mosquitos from continually attempting to drain blood from the same members.
MadameLavender
Forum Posts: 5348
Guardian of Shadows
77
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5348
hemihead said:I’d enjoy a format makeover....top/best comments are seen first, and the other 50 pages of bile are down the bottom. Appreciate this is a fundamental change away from a conversation.
The forums have always been chaos.
An alternate idea would be a limit of 5 posts per hour in the forums....allows for conversation, but might take the heat out of wars, and would also mean people spent time forming their thoughts.
Right now you have;
Limited moderation
No posting limits
No ability of person who starts thread to keep it on track
Just those three variables = chaos.
I like the post limit idea-- goes along with a thread-starting limit . Also like the steering wheel given to the thread starter, to maintain their own threads. Some will no doubt, abuse that because it's a little power thing to delete the posts of people they just don't like , regardless of on topic/off topic-ness.
Current limited moderation --yep, there are only 4 of us left , 3 who log in daily/regularly . And then there's the line in the sand between doing our job as mods and getting the barrage of censorship accusations , so sometimes you gotta make an executive decision , "to mod or not to mod", each and every post.
The forums have always been chaos.
An alternate idea would be a limit of 5 posts per hour in the forums....allows for conversation, but might take the heat out of wars, and would also mean people spent time forming their thoughts.
Right now you have;
Limited moderation
No posting limits
No ability of person who starts thread to keep it on track
Just those three variables = chaos.
I like the post limit idea-- goes along with a thread-starting limit . Also like the steering wheel given to the thread starter, to maintain their own threads. Some will no doubt, abuse that because it's a little power thing to delete the posts of people they just don't like , regardless of on topic/off topic-ness.
Current limited moderation --yep, there are only 4 of us left , 3 who log in daily/regularly . And then there's the line in the sand between doing our job as mods and getting the barrage of censorship accusations , so sometimes you gotta make an executive decision , "to mod or not to mod", each and every post.
MadameLavender said:
I like the post limit idea-- goes along with a thread-starting limit . Also like the steering wheel given to the thread starter, to maintain their own threads. Some will no doubt, abuse that because it's a little power thing to delete the posts of people they just don't like , regardless of on topic/off topic-ness.
Current limited moderation --yep, there are only 4 of us left , 3 who log in daily/regularly . And then there's the line in the sand between doing our job as mods and getting the barrage of censorship accusations , so sometimes you gotta make an executive decision , "to mod or not to mod", each and every post.
What if they can't delete, but hide them? That way they can be reviewed by a moderator or admin if there's a complaint? Although, just as comps, if it's their thread, it's their thread.
I think this would be more popular than groups, actually, where directors have control over who are members, much less who posts.
I like the post limit idea-- goes along with a thread-starting limit . Also like the steering wheel given to the thread starter, to maintain their own threads. Some will no doubt, abuse that because it's a little power thing to delete the posts of people they just don't like , regardless of on topic/off topic-ness.
Current limited moderation --yep, there are only 4 of us left , 3 who log in daily/regularly . And then there's the line in the sand between doing our job as mods and getting the barrage of censorship accusations , so sometimes you gotta make an executive decision , "to mod or not to mod", each and every post.
What if they can't delete, but hide them? That way they can be reviewed by a moderator or admin if there's a complaint? Although, just as comps, if it's their thread, it's their thread.
I think this would be more popular than groups, actually, where directors have control over who are members, much less who posts.
MadameLavender
Forum Posts: 5348
Guardian of Shadows
77
Joined 17th Feb 2013
Forum Posts: 5348
Ahavati said:
What if they can't delete, but hide them? That way they can be reviewed by a moderator or admin if there's a complaint? Although, just as comps, if it's their thread, it's their thread.
I think this would be more popular than groups, actually, where directors have control over who are members, much less who posts.
Well, deleting is basically the same as hiding, as you may recall from Mod days, so the terms could be interchangeable as far as functionality . Mods can't outright delete anything, only hide it so it looks as if it's been deleted. So the same would apply here, but I get what you're saying -- hide a post and it would go to a section that would have to be created in the mod duties list-- "user hidden posts", then we would review from there just like when we get a forum or comment report .
But again, these are all things that need to be brought before the webmiss, as the solutions that are coming forward , require site reprogramming.
What if they can't delete, but hide them? That way they can be reviewed by a moderator or admin if there's a complaint? Although, just as comps, if it's their thread, it's their thread.
I think this would be more popular than groups, actually, where directors have control over who are members, much less who posts.
Well, deleting is basically the same as hiding, as you may recall from Mod days, so the terms could be interchangeable as far as functionality . Mods can't outright delete anything, only hide it so it looks as if it's been deleted. So the same would apply here, but I get what you're saying -- hide a post and it would go to a section that would have to be created in the mod duties list-- "user hidden posts", then we would review from there just like when we get a forum or comment report .
But again, these are all things that need to be brought before the webmiss, as the solutions that are coming forward , require site reprogramming.
Anonymous
MadameLavender said:
Well, deleting is basically the same as hiding, as you may recall from Mod days, so the terms could be interchangeable as far as functionality . Mods can't outright delete anything, only hide it so it looks as if it's been deleted. So the same would apply here, but I get what you're saying -- hide a post and it would go to a section that would have to be created in the mod duties list-- "user hidden posts", then we would review from there just like when we get a forum or comment report .
But again, these are all things that need to be brought before the webmiss, as the solutions that are coming forward , require site reprogramming.
one thing is absolutely clear...things need a change.
Well, deleting is basically the same as hiding, as you may recall from Mod days, so the terms could be interchangeable as far as functionality . Mods can't outright delete anything, only hide it so it looks as if it's been deleted. So the same would apply here, but I get what you're saying -- hide a post and it would go to a section that would have to be created in the mod duties list-- "user hidden posts", then we would review from there just like when we get a forum or comment report .
But again, these are all things that need to be brought before the webmiss, as the solutions that are coming forward , require site reprogramming.
one thing is absolutely clear...things need a change.
