a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

A failed experiment whereby board users were invited to advise the Senate, and instead attempted to replace the Senate.
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11248
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Lord Revan » 2008-11-29 06:58am

Well this is something I started to think when the board culture started to go sour and visious, not rules per se (hence the quatation marks), but kind of a semi-official "code" to follow, breach of which wouldn't lead to disiplinary actions (with the descression of the staff ofc), but could be considered as a "black mark" in case of breaking the actual rules (thus preventing the "net nanny" complaint).
  1. Be polite if possible. It's free and at times more effective then scraping the bottom of the barrel of what ever vile insults you can get
  2. Be harsh should that be needed not vile. Nobody likes personal insults or other such stuff, why should we use them then, by all means call a moron what (s)he is, but leave the personal stuff where it belongs.
  3. Be productive when debating. Again nobody likes being insulted and/or bullied, if you got nothing intelligent (or at least productive) to add, then by the Light shut the fuck up.
  4. Be patient. There's still people who are honestly ignorant about the VS. debates (or other common subjects here), don't be too quick to roast next newbie for posting something that's been dealt with, (s)he could be ignorant of it being an old subject after all, only when said person displays willfull ignorance should you break out the flames.
  5. last but not least. When talking to a moron, make certain (s)he's not doing the same.
comments are ofc welcome
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7139
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by ray245 » 2008-11-29 11:21am

I think personal attacks should never be used and any personal attacks will result in a immediate ban.

Come on, almost everyone hates to see politicans using personal attacks, yet at the same time, members of the public do the same thing as well.

We NEED to enforce tight regulations in regards to personal attacks, and attacks against a person family. We GOT to stop calling people's parents or relatives retards and so on. It is neither conductive, nor could it benefit the board's PR image.

Yes, a fundamentalist relative can have a wrong opinion on things, so we can say simply say that their opinion is wrong as opposed to calling them idiots or retards.

If we are going to ensure people stop insulting and making personal attacks against a homosexual member, or a transexual member of the board, we got to stop making personal attacks against a fundamentalist as well.

Over time, by allowing people to flame a fundamentalist means people can and will develop a mentality where they can act tough on people and make personal attacks on respected board member who disagree with them.

In order to prevent attacks against a person from a minority group, we need to prevent personal attacks against a person who holds a conservative and religious mindset.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Ghost Rider » 2008-11-29 11:40am

ray245 wrote:I think personal attacks should never be used and any personal attacks will result in a immediate ban.
And you could point this out to people that can do something about this, with the many tools available, if it is breaking the rules.
Come on, almost everyone hates to see politicans using personal attacks, yet at the same time, members of the public do the same thing as well.
This has bearing how again?
We NEED to enforce tight regulations in regards to personal attacks, and attacks against a person family. We GOT to stop calling people's parents or relatives retards and so on. It is neither conductive, nor could it benefit the board's PR image.
And you could point this out to people that can do something about this, with the many tools available, if it is breaking the rules.
Yes, a fundamentalist relative can have a wrong opinion on things, so we can say simply say that their opinion is wrong as opposed to calling them idiots or retards.
Having a dumb opinion and mixing up fact and fiction makes them an idiot on that particular issue. Really, that whole mockery escapes you, doesn't it?
If we are going to ensure people stop insulting and making personal attacks against a homosexual member,
Which results in a ban.
or a transexual member of the board,
Which was and is under discussion by the moderators and Mike.
we got to stop making personal attacks against a fundamentalist as well.


I believe again, you have no idea what you are talking of. If I call someone an idiot because they are claiming the sky is green, they are an idiot. There's a world of difference between using a homosexual slur and calling someone a dumbass, cupcake.
Over time, by allowing people to flame a fundamentalist means people can and will develop a mentality where they can act tough on people and make personal attacks on respected board member who disagree with them.
If it disobeys a logical rule or is against board rules, use one of the many tools to report such.
In order to prevent attacks against a person from a minority group, we need to prevent personal attacks against a person who holds a conservative and religious mindset.
Your statement above is gross oxymoron. And you are blantantly appealing to both emotion and golden mean with a dash of very poor black and white.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7139
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by ray245 » 2008-11-29 12:11pm

This has bearing how again?
It feels like double standard to me. :?
And you could point this out to people that can do something about this, with the many tools available, if it is breaking the rules.
Agreed.
Which results in a ban.
Ok.
Which was and is under discussion by the moderators and Mike.
Why doesn't it result in a immediate ban? :?
I believe again, you have no idea what you are talking of. If I call someone an idiot because they are claiming the sky is green, they are an idiot. There's a world of difference between using a homosexual slur and calling someone a dumbass, cupcake.
The things is, over time some people may not be able to distinguish the difference between mocking a person with a wrong view and mocking a person for who they are, in this case, a Transexual.

I mean, a person can get used to flaming people and fundamentalist that he can forget the fact that it is against the rules to flame and mock a Transexual. And the problem is even worse if the person doing it is a long time member. A long time member may form a cult of personality around him, hence people may not be able to response in a quick manner.


Perhaps I make more sense now. I hope. :D
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11248
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Lord Revan » 2008-11-29 12:27pm

While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Ghost Rider » 2008-11-29 12:37pm

Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.
Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.". What shouldn't happen, and what people so gloss over is just because a person has a fundamentalist position or positions on subjects, that it colors everything they say. You break each one down if they are wrong or illogical, not just because what you think of a particular facet of them.

Again, this is not the core of the issues as much as people tend to forget these things and gloss over with what they think is happening versus the very thing that does and is happening.

As for Ray's bit. No you didn't clarify anymore then blither your personal wants as some sort of board ruling. Literally you are implying that these very small changes will change the tide of an effect that has been here for a very long time, and has sadly rooted into play. That particular thought is that people are labeling people with extremely broad strokes and using this as to portray all actions. And as I said, that is what is is a poor assumption to make and makes for drama out of molehills.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11248
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Lord Revan » 2008-11-29 03:02pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.
Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.". What shouldn't happen, and what people so gloss over is just because a person has a fundamentalist position or positions on subjects, that it colors everything they say. You break each one down if they are wrong or illogical, not just because what you think of a particular facet of them.
what meant is that you should mock fundamentalist for being fundamentalist but rather for holding views that were outdate in the dark ages (even if only fundamentalists hold those opinions), it's a small and seemingly insignigant difference but a vital one IMHO.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Ghost Rider » 2008-11-29 03:17pm

Lord Revan wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.
Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.". What shouldn't happen, and what people so gloss over is just because a person has a fundamentalist position or positions on subjects, that it colors everything they say. You break each one down if they are wrong or illogical, not just because what you think of a particular facet of them.
what meant is that you should mock fundamentalist for being fundamentalist but rather for holding views that were outdate in the dark ages (even if only fundamentalists hold those opinions), it's a small and seemingly insignigant difference but a vital one IMHO.
And it is against a variety of rules the board has, and a great deal of logical fallacies. This is why there is a way of literally telling those in power to ask them when this occurs.

We cannot and have never been able to patrol every inch, and making new rules that are just rewords of old is a tad redundant.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8347
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Ace Pace » 2008-11-29 03:42pm

I am getting really sick and tired of "needing to regulate niceness." You know why? Because theres a large set of rules that already cover this. PR4,PR5, PR6, DR3. You don't get to make most personal attacks (mod discretion), you don't get to vendetta a member, etc. What the hell do you guys want? An extra "try to be nice" rule?
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2008-11-29 04:02pm

Ace Pace wrote:I am getting really sick and tired of "needing to regulate niceness." You know why? Because theres a large set of rules that already cover this. PR4,PR5, PR6, DR3. You don't get to make most personal attacks (mod discretion), you don't get to vendetta a member, etc. What the hell do you guys want? An extra "try to be nice" rule?

I have come down pretty much in favour of the understanding that our current problems are the fact that most of the current mods are absentees, and that nothing is being done about replacing them, let alone increasing the overall numbers of mods, which is necessary for a community this active. People are just talking in circles about this because the only effective change will come from the Administration adding more moderators and replacing the current minimally active ones.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

Adrian Laguna
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4736
Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Adrian Laguna » 2008-11-30 12:21am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I have come down pretty much in favour of the understanding that our current problems are the fact that most of the current mods are absentees, and that nothing is being done about replacing them, let alone increasing the overall numbers of mods, which is necessary for a community this active. People are just talking in circles about this because the only effective change will come from the Administration adding more moderators and replacing the current minimally active ones.
This has been discussed at various times, and yet we're not seeing action. Fact of the matter is that without vigilant moderation a place this large is going to hold itself toguether about as well as lolbertarian utopias. The effectiveness of good discussion moderation was just recently illustrated in the HoS by Edi here and here. We need more active mods.

User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Stormbringer » 2008-11-30 01:36am

Adrian Laguna wrote:This has been discussed at various times, and yet we're not seeing action. Fact of the matter is that without vigilant moderation a place this large is going to hold itself toguether about as well as lolbertarian utopias. The effectiveness of good discussion moderation was just recently illustrated in the HoS by Edi here and here. We need more active mods.
Mike's apparently checked out or resigned from moderating and the Senate is just a fancy reward with out any real power. The board is and always has been Mike's personally and he's more or let it drift. There's not a lot to be done with out him and there's no point talking that to death as he either acts on it or doesn't.

There are some things that probably ought to be done. But virtually everything comes back to having some sort of actual leadership and that's sorely lacking.
Image

Falkenhayn
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2106
Joined: 2003-05-29 05:08pm
Contact:

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Falkenhayn » 2008-11-30 05:06am

Stormbringer wrote:
Mike's apparently checked out or resigned from moderating and the Senate is just a fancy reward with out any real power. The board is and always has been Mike's personally and he's more or let it drift. There's not a lot to be done with out him and there's no point talking that to death as he either acts on it or doesn't.

There are some things that probably ought to be done. But virtually everything comes back to having some sort of actual leadership and that's sorely lacking.
Well, at least our best and brightest have time to make threads like Chancellor's Questions.
Many thanks! These darned computers always screw me up. I calculated my first death-toll using a hand-cranked adding machine (we actually calculated the average mortality in each city block individually). Ah, those were the days.
-Stuart
"Mix'em up. I'm tired of States' Rights."
-Gen. George Thomas, Union Army of the Cumberland

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2008-11-30 11:52pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Adrian Laguna wrote:This has been discussed at various times, and yet we're not seeing action. Fact of the matter is that without vigilant moderation a place this large is going to hold itself toguether about as well as lolbertarian utopias. The effectiveness of good discussion moderation was just recently illustrated in the HoS by Edi here and here. We need more active mods.
Mike's apparently checked out or resigned from moderating and the Senate is just a fancy reward with out any real power. The board is and always has been Mike's personally and he's more or let it drift. There's not a lot to be done with out him and there's no point talking that to death as he either acts on it or doesn't.

There are some things that probably ought to be done. But virtually everything comes back to having some sort of actual leadership and that's sorely lacking.
Here's the flip side to that problem which is that since this isn't just Mike's on terms of personality and leadership its also his property legally so without a firm basis on which to act there are a lot of us that are hesitant to do so.

I know a lot of folks think my rule chewing and such is a pointless distraction to the Seante but I firmly believe unless we create a firm basis for authority (aside from direct appointment by Mike) then we will never get firm leadership that doesn't come from the personal intervention of Mike.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

erik_t
Jedi Master
Posts: 1108
Joined: 2008-10-21 08:35pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by erik_t » 2008-12-02 03:18pm

I would expect an (ex?)-military member to be quite conscious of the fact that titles and rank do not bestow leadership. The Senate is far more a popularity contest or an old boys' club than a stable, functional, competent body of leaders.

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Coyote » 2008-12-02 03:26pm

erik_t wrote:I would expect an (ex?)-military member to be quite conscious of the fact that titles and rank do not bestow leadership. The Senate is far more a popularity contest or an old boys' club than a stable, functional, competent body of leaders.
That's partially, I think, because it has become a reward for longevity and [perceived] coolness. It is now seen as a goal to attain by the rest, and there also seems to be a notion that the ability to flame creatively and loudly, as much as possible, is the path to that reward, civility and standards aside.

I agree with the overall notion here (ie, Ace Pace and others) that much of what we're all dancing around here is stuff already covered in the rules, and people are basically trying to find a nice way to say that there are some people with personality problems poisoning the well and a nice, new, impersonally-applied rule can be used as a convenient patch on that without having to name names and get hands dirty.

The deeper part of this problem is that I'm certain that not everyone's primary targets are the same people. Isn't it always tha case..? :?
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

erik_t
Jedi Master
Posts: 1108
Joined: 2008-10-21 08:35pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by erik_t » 2008-12-02 03:49pm

Undoubtedly. Only liars would claim that they don't have a list of twenty folks they'd ban. I bet you'd find two hundred people populate those lists of twenty.

User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12444
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Edi » 2008-12-02 05:02pm

I'll be the first to admit that I would not shed a single tear if certain members were banned. That said, I think a good guideline is that in any given thread, give people the benefit of the doubt first and address their arguments in a calm and rational manner without insults first. Only if ignored or dismissed out of hand, pull out the flamethrower. Too many people pull it out right up front as the first option.

I'll also admit that I have not managed to follow that particular advice all the time myself, but there you are. I try to do it, though.

And in some case it's certain duelist pairs going at each other and given the way explosives are so easily used on SDN, other participants often get caught in the blast, resulting in more drama/flames/unpleasantness than would otherwise ensue.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die

User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Stormbringer » 2008-12-02 11:05pm

Here's the flip side to that problem which is that since this isn't just Mike's on terms of personality and leadership its also his property legally so without a firm basis on which to act there are a lot of us that are hesitant to do so.

I know a lot of folks think my rule chewing and such is a pointless distraction to the Seante but I firmly believe unless we create a firm basis for authority (aside from direct appointment by Mike) then we will never get firm leadership that doesn't come from the personal intervention of Mike.
I'm not suggesting the Senate overthrow Mike or try to take the board out of his hands. As you say, that's simply not in the cards.

What I am trying to say is that this board has gotten to a point where it's too large, too active, and in some ways too contentious to be a one man show. When all is said and done, Mike has been the leader, organizer, judge, jury and executioner of this board for years. It's been Mike's fiat since day one and that hasn't changed; the Mods and now the Senate have all existed and acted at Mike's sufferance. Both groups have been limited to advise, adminstration, and some strictly limited decision making.

But as I said before, the leadership has all been Mike in the end.

Right now I think the pertinent question is where the board is going. Is it going to continue to be Mike's, with him as a very real Emperor, or is it going to become a more communal thing, with Mike as first among equals or some other power sharing arrangement. If it's the former, then this politicking is just so much hot air. Mike will either respond or not; things will either be sorted out or not.

The latter quite frankly, strikes me as being the only case in which any of this matters. SD.net is probably the largest and most active board I've seen that's run and operated directly by one person. And now days Mike seems to be less interested in the running of this board for whatever reason. If he's amiable, then it probably wouldn't hurt things any to look at some arrangement for delegating authority and possibly even transitioning this to a community run board. Something like HPCA or Divine Salamis (I believe that's how Marina and a few others ran it, yes?) might be better mold these days, if Mike is amiable to the idea. A trusted staff running things in consultation and with some generally agreed on rules. Not a willy-nilly free for all but a sort of representative oligarchy for lack of a better term.

But again, this all is so far subject to what Mike wants.
Image

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Coyote » 2008-12-02 11:33pm

Well, this is his hobby, and that means it serves as entertainment and fun. At some point I'm sure this has crossed some boundary and become a bit of a chore instead. Hence, a withdrawal into inactivity/low activity on his part. And in such circumstances, I can't say as I blame him.

If he's willing to kick back and let a bunch of others take over a number of the forums, I think he can kick back and enjoy it again. Maybe just float around as he feels the interest and simply advise those who do the real grunt work.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7139
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-03 12:12am

Bascially creates a Minster Mentor position? Having huge amount of political influence yet at the same time, not managing over the board in the direct sense? Yet at the same time, being able to step in whenever that is necessary?

I think Mike would like that idea.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Stormbringer » 2008-12-03 12:27am

Coyote wrote:Well, this is his hobby, and that means it serves as entertainment and fun. At some point I'm sure this has crossed some boundary and become a bit of a chore instead. Hence, a withdrawal into inactivity/low activity on his part. And in such circumstances, I can't say as I blame him.
I don't blame him. I can understand it and have gone through much the same thing regarding posting here. I'm not trying to cast blame or demand he spend more time here.

I'm simply trying to address what I see as one of the root issues with some of the recent and overblown drama. I'm also trying to put forward what I see as a logical solution to that problem.
Image

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Coyote » 2008-12-03 12:29am

That's why we're here! :D
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Ryan Thunder » 2008-12-03 09:57am

Ghost Rider wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.
Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.".
If you want to fix that, mockery probably won't work for just anyone. Probably safer to trot out your arguments politely at first, and then proceed (gradually!) to full-blown mockery as needed.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: a suggestion for behavioural "rules"

Post by Ghost Rider » 2008-12-03 10:22am

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.
Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.".
If you want to fix that, mockery probably won't work for just anyone. Probably safer to trot out your arguments politely at first, and then proceed (gradually!) to full-blown mockery as needed.
\

Thank you for demonstrating again, you not only do not read shit, but only want to insert your yabbering to try and show off your nonexistant skills.

But keep trying! One day you may actually reach a point instead of this cherry picking mess.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

Locked