Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Colton, by "complaints against," do you mean "disagreement with?"
By "do you mean," do you mean "my knowledge of semantics is better than yours?"
Colton, by "complaints against," do you mean "disagreement with?"
Take my word for it: he does, within the context specifically of board discipline and rules. Disagreements with moderators on gay marriage and similar topics can continue to be posted in the appropriate threads.
Rules said:Arguing with Moderators: Vehement arguing or abusive comments directed at moderators after having received an infraction may lead to an immediate additional infraction.
So, it's not a rule until after it is applied multiple times? Once? Because there is a relatively lax enforcement policy? I disagree. If it is a policy that, under the current process, can lead to warnings/infractions/banishment, it is most certainly a rule, even if one that most people will comply with naturally.
You're probably right, Eric, but I'll wait for Colton's official word on it. It doesn't really seem like the "backseat moderating" rule he is citing is designed to cover that. If it were, this rule, which immedately follows the backseat moderating rule, would seemingly never have been written:
Rules said:Arguing with Moderators: Vehement arguing or abusive comments directed at moderators after having received an infraction may lead to an immediate additional infraction.
I've always kinda understood "backseat moderating" to be trying to act like you're a moderator yourself, by telling other poster what to do, or how to do it.
It's not a rule until it's a rule. Right now it's not a rule, so it's not a rule. Is that really so complicated?
So, should myself, Hopper, or anyone choose to use quotation marks instead of quote tags, even after we have been asked not to, there will be no warnings or infractions based on that alone?
So, should myself, Hopper, or anyone choose to use quotation marks instead of quote tags, even after we have been asked not to, there will be no warnings or infractions based on that alone?
moevillini said:https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/500-The-Random-Question-Thread?p=33209&viewfull=1#post33209
In answer to the above question, I certainly can't tell you that. Even on the old board where a user's warning count was shown, there was not an indication of the post that warranted the warning. I will tell you that there are far more posts reported than get infractions. The mods essentially have three choices for any report: Ignore, Warning, and Infraction.
For many reports, the vote is to ignore. This doesn't mean that every mod voted to ignore - I believe I mentioned that it varies, some posts will get three unanimous votes fairly quickly, others may get the entire range of votes and it may take a couple of days before the votes for any single option totals the three needed to close the report.
Also, reports are made by a wide range of posters - and some who "report' a post actually do very little posting themselves....
[NOTE: I've omitted the discussion about a couple of specific posts that had been reported]
Even though these RULES are from another site, it might be HELPFUL to you to review them and follow them because for the most part, I think they apply here as well. In particular, take note of #5) Stay on topic, do not be repetitive, limit your replies, use quotes correctly.
https://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forums/faq.php?faq=il_rules_01#faq_il_rules_respectful
Also, the RealGM forum rules make some pretty specific points that would apply here as well:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=812773
In particular, take note of #5) Stay on topic, do not be repetitive, limit your replies, use quotes correctly.
https://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forums/faq.php?faq=il_rules_01#faq_il_rules_respectful
Depends whether you are doing it to troll, I suppose. That would necessarily be a judgment call of the moderators. I could easily see a situation where you, or Hopper, or someone else, would format their post in a completely bizarre way in order to thumb their noses at the moderators. That would likely result in a warning or infraction. On the other hand, if it was not a deliberate nose-thumbing, I doubt the moderators would call it trolling.
Rules said:Trolling: Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling.
Thanks for that clarification, Colton. Could I ask one more question about "trolling?" The rule, as written, clearly limits what is considered to be trolling to DELIBERATE attempts to disrupt, etc.:
Rules said:Trolling: Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling.
As I have understood some moderators in the past, this part of the rule is to be ignored, so that, in effect, anything a moderator doesn't like is "trolling," deliberate, or not. If I understood Mo correctly, at one point she said she had undertaken to have the rule rewritten, so as you eliminate any consideration of a poster's intent. Apparently the rule has not been rewritten, as of yet, anyway. Yet, from her comments, I get the feeling that she feels it has been, somehow. Can you clarify this situation?
In addition, as I stated in my post immediately above this last one of yours, I provided you with rules from other forums that would most likely apply as well on this forum. I advised you to review those rules and to follow them.
AS I STATED:Hopper said:Mo, although I appreciated your attempt to help, I didn't feel like it would do me any good to go around to various messages boards to see what THEIR rules were, at least if I was not planning on joining that group. My concern is with what the rules are HERE, not THERE.
So yes, the moderators should judge whether something was deliberate or not, when thinking about issuing an infraction for trolling.
Thank you especially for that clarification, Colton. I don't mean to be presumptous, but do you mind if I request that mods be formally notified of the proper interpretation of this rule? Like I said, there seems to be some confusion about this. Also, I would like to "suggest" that if intention to disrupt is an issue, the mods could as least ask the poster about what he was thinking. Not that they have to believe him, but again, what might seem "obvious" to a moderator might not be so obvious if they actually informed themselves about what the poster was thinking, rather than assuming they know, without inquiry.
I don't mean to be presumptous
This whole thread is one giant troll.
Damn you for ruining yet another thread, Taint.
This whole thread is one giant troll.
Damn you for ruining yet another thread, Taint.