Posted: 1/31/2004 11:43:28 AM EDT
Well, been nice knowing you guys!  Is it possible to put Updated in red in the CoC at the top??? The new rules and such I am not up on until something is locked with the quote of the rule... (didn't there used to be only 4 or 5?) And the part in red, shouldn't that amend/replace rule #6??? First Part: No “trolling”. This means posting controversial or “valueless” topics In my (short) time on board, approximately 40% of the topics in General Discussion could be classified as "valueless to some, but fun" (The FYA thread, which was about the coolest thing in GD for a while), the Dinner Pix (what "value" do they have other than some 'fun'), there are many more examples, and the number of moderators/staff inevitably will have a different interpretation of each. Some threads locked for "AWOB" (A Waste Of Bandwidth) have many pictures, the bandwidth is from 3rd party sites, not this board itself (it only provides the link, which is usually < 20 characters) Second Part: "...simply to gain attention or anger other members. This is another one that leaves a huge grey area for interpretation. To wit: Abortion threads, 1GR's "Union Rally" thread (which, BTW, inspired this post), Ford vs. Chevy, 9mm vs. .45 (of which the latter is the obvious choice), etc. etc. These types of topics do usually have an element of "fun" in them, eventually, anyway. Simply put: I can't keep up with the changes of rules, and read the minds of the people interpreting said rules. I would ask that the "updated" be noted with the date prominatly in title. (instead of having to look at date of post on right and reading each day...) Now, before you lock this thread (and my account...), please realize that I am NOT trashing ARF (or 1GR) in any way. I just find some rules redundant. Some are Very Specific (i.e. Rule #1), leaving little room for interpretation error. There are others (#6 and #7) which leaves too much of a "judgement call" to mods and staff and posters. I know that the possibility of going into ridiculous specifics would be kinda dumb, but general concepts that everybody (posters, mods, staff, etc.) follows would be cool. Rule #7 could be split into addendums to rules #1, #3, and #6, making them more specific, instead of a new rule you need to mix in with the other rules. (I feel I need a lawyer to validate this post after reading the revised CoC). I know that "Have FUN, and (try to) Play NICE" is entirely too broad, but that is the general concept, isn't it? The rest of the rules continue to revise "FUN" and "NICE". I love this board. I see some topics locked that (I felt) had value (jvics free 30rd mag thread) locked twice, and other threads, typically decent threads that turned into abortion debates or calling people liberals, or something else. Can't we move these to The Pit once they become "the name calling" and have it settled proper? I actually had a IM discussion with Helio and we exchanged views, and he held to his word, with Integrity. I was impressed, and I now believe that things CAN be settled via IM in a professional way (a mod sending IM to person as to WHY thread was locked), for example, so another thread isn't started asking "Why was my thread locked" (how many times have we seen this?) <Humor> Can we add "CoC check" to the "Spell Check" option??? </Humor> Please do not lock/delete this thread, and more importantly, my account, I feel this needs to be clarified, and I am not trying to be an attention/post whore. |
|
Quoted: IBFL... I agree, but i have NO say because i haven ponyed up the $20.00 yet, Still working on it [headbang] FYI, You don't need to be a Team Member to state your opinion. In addition, being a Team Member provides you no immunity from having your account/thread locked. [b]Balzac72[/b] is a prime example of this. |
|
I think what this was in response to was that [i]someone[/i] [rolleyes] posted over 25 MEGABYTES worth of pictures in a thead because the [b]FOOL[/b] was too stupid to carry on an argument and thought that he'd just jam the thing up with worthless pictures. Valueless thread - how many of them have you seen locked? How many? I locked 25 of them posted by the same poster one night in a row. IIRC they were 25 of the same topic posted 30 seconds apart. I have never locked a "controversial" topic until it dropped down into name calling by several members. When the discussion stops and the vial name calling starts I think it's the duty of a MODERATOR to try to settle things down. We use to be able to delete postings by individuals now we only can edit them. After the name calling has been quoted a few times the tread gets locked. |
|
Quoted: I think what this was in response to was that [i]someone[/i] [rolleyes] posted over 25 MEGABYTES worth of pictures in a thead because the [b]FOOL[/b] was too stupid to carry on an argument and thought that he'd just jam the thing up with worthless pictures. Valid Point, considering those trying to read thread on dialup. Valueless thread - how many of them have you seen locked? How many? Very Few, but at least one this week (jvic wanting to give away a 30rd magazine, twice) I locked 25 of them posted by the same poster one night in a row. IIRC they were 25 of the same topic posted 30 seconds apart. This was appropriate, as "that guy" was OBVIOUSLY trying to disrupt the entire site. There was Zero "fuzzy judgement" there. I have never locked a "controversial" topic until it dropped down into name calling by several members. When the discussion stops and the vial name calling starts I think it's the duty of a MODERATOR to try to settle things down. We use to be able to delete postings by individuals now we only can edit them. After the name calling has been quoted a few times the tread gets locked. I agree. You have all valid points. To "summarize" my question (greatly elaborated above): A) The CoC is always at the top, with no information that it is different from yesterday, I only note this when a thread is locked due to "valueless" and that text is put into thread. (Which, BTW, I [b]LIKE[/b], rather than a thread locked with no post/explanation by person locking the thread) B) I do not understand the need for rule #7, as it only rehashes previous rules, but combined into one. This is the reason for this thread. Why can't the existing rules (which I think cover most everything in the first 5) be "amended" a bit to be more specific/broad rather than adding more rules? I know common sense should dictate posting, and I am at fault for screwing around now and again with +1 threads, but I am not as eloquent as [b]EricTheHun[/b], and many people [b]do[/b] judge you by your postcount... The moderators have been doing a nicer job of late by posting in a thread to maybe change it to a bit more "proper" track instead of simply locking it. I don't mean to point fingers, but it seems staff should follow that example. (oops, I just pointed a finger). |
|
I see your point, and I'm wondering if this isn't just a typo (or maybe I missed something). from the CoC today: 6.) No “trolling”. This means posting controversial or “valueless” topics or posts simply to gain attention or anger other members. There is a big difference in a “trolling” topic and a thread started just to have fun! 7.) Absolutely no BOTD threads or posting of BOTD pics, including links hot OR cold, except in the Team Members area. Also no posting of "Id Hit It" type threads. Threads of these nature will be locked and moved to the trash .) No “trolling”. This means posting controversial or “valueless” topics or posts simply to gain attention or anger other members. There is a big difference in a “trolling” topic and a thread started just to have fun!area, posters will be warned and subsequent violations will be grounds for their accounts to be locked. Isn't RULE #6 pretty much just replicated (with some slight elaboration) in RULE #7. It does seem like brasspile has a point, in terms of the redunancy, at least w.r.t. RULE #6. I kind of like the clarification, though - pointing out that wee can have fun, and can enjoy silly topics, but outright waste of bandwidt (like +1 threads) or threads DESIGNED to provoke or anger, are explicitly banned. Of course it also depresses me that we NEED increasingly specific rules to accomodate the small number of children, and adults with children's brains, that cannot just use common sense and courtesy on the site. |
|
Quoted: ....but outright waste of bandwidt (like +1 threads) or threads DESIGNED to provoke or anger, are explicitly banned. c'mon, from 2-5 am there is plenty of bandwidth to waste... and some think it is fun to do the +1, with [i]style[/i] of course, which in some minds is fun. It is all kept within one thread... And it doesn't happen more than once every month or so.... (usually a "hey, I made my 3,000th post! or something thread, an obvious "bump postcount" thread...) |
|
Some moderators just love to lock topics way too much, others don't. WOBW is a funny one...I can't think of the last topic I wrote that was worth anything other than a funny. And to some mods my funnies aren't funny so they get locked for WODW. Whatever................. Sgtar15 |
|
Quoted: Hopefully remaining in topic... ... what's "+1" indicative of? What's it mean? Just trying to keep up, thanks. Postcount. You add 1 to your postcount everytime you post. Some people judge others' opinion based upon their post count. (they look second at "time on board") +1 in Pure Form is simply "+1" and no other substantial text. +1 with style is a bit of humor, or Very Small Picture (smiley). +1 in a dumb way is screencap sized photos and a paragraph of text nobody cares about. |
|
Quoted: I've said it before and will say it again... mods are dipshits... proof?... just read the rules and look at examples of interpretation. We're dipshits but we didn't write the rules or examples [lol] All moderators - there's like a hundred and something of them - had inputs but the owners of this site (that you're freeloading on BTW [:)]) set's the rules for both of us. |
|
Quoted: Brass, I know that you have been sent by "[b]The Coalition[/b]".... Actually, this post isn't related to the other post, I just mentioned it. For my True View, look 2/3rds down on [url=http://www.pre-ban.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9855]This Page[/url] for my post. Nobody "sent me". In addition, I do feel I have a Very Valid Question. (edited quote to fix [b]EricE[/b]'s spellin... [;D]) -- Edited post to fix my own board code... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And to some mods my funnies aren't funny so they get locked for WODW. Whatever................. Sgtar15 umm, what is "WODW"??? [b]-Absolut-[/b] Stop it! This is a serious issue!!! don't lock it! Waste of Band Width Isn't that WO[b][i]B[/b][/i]W ? [%|] BTW, the roolz are there to try and maintain some order, I assume. That happens imperfectly at best, but I'd expect little else in the real world. Overall, it seems to work pretty well, IMO. I think the best way to help those who complain about the rules is to give them the task of enforcing them. Always an interesting exercise in enlightenment, I think. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And to some mods my funnies aren't funny so they get locked for WODW. Whatever................. Sgtar15 umm, what is "WODW"??? [b]-Absolut-[/b] Stop it! This is a serious issue!!! don't lock it! Waste of Band Width Isn't that WO[b][i]B[/b][/i]W ? [%|] BTW, the roolz are there to try and maintain some order, I assume. That happens imperfectly at best, but I'd expect little else in the real world. Overall, it seems to work pretty well, IMO. I think the best way to help those who complain about the rules is to give them the task of enforcing them. Always an interesting exercise in enlightenment, I think. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And to some mods my funnies aren't funny so they get locked for WODW. Whatever................. Sgtar15 umm, what is "WODW"??? [b]-Absolut-[/b] Stop it! This is a serious issue!!! don't lock it! Waste of Band Width Isn't that WO[b][i]B[/b][/i]W ? [%|] Not in my world. Sgtar15 |
|
Quoted: Agreed. Any complainers want to step up. No, you couldn't pay me enough to be a GD mod (well, maybe ya could, but that is beside the point...) Again, I am not complaining about any 'restrictions' outlined in the rules. I am only asking if #7 is actually necessary, and why can't we amend 1-6 with the additional (2 ideas ish?) contained in #7? (which is moslty #6, and a touch of #1 and #3) A more "Compact, easy to read" CoC, if you will. Rather than having to look at subsection D of the CoC, then flip to the appendix to check if any new rules have been appeneded that modify the rule you read, then you are ok to post.... (yeah, it isn't that bad... yet...) I agree with [b]DK-Prof[/b]. It is sad that we need to continually "Narrow Down" the rules for specific instances. It is sad that some can't just "play nice" here. However, you do need some rules for a site this size, with the sponsors it has, and the exposure it does get. I would just like to know when those rules are updated, and I would like them easy to understand at a glance... |
|
Quoted: OK what brought all this on in the First place? Well, I was a bit confused after reading the rule, so I thought I would ask... Secondly, how many of you (yes, you) have since read the [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/announcement.html?b=1&f=5&id=25]CoC Thread[/url] BECAUSE of this question??? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: OK what brought all this on in the First place? Well, I was a bit confused after reading the rule, so I thought I would ask... Secondly, how many of you (yes, you) have since read the [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/announcement.html?b=1&f=5&id=25]CoC Thread[/url] BECAUSE of this question??? What? I am lost. I thought there was porn in this thread? TRG |
|
Quoted: I've said it before and will say it again... mods are dipshits... proof?... just read the rules and look at examples of interpretation. Mods don't write the rules, dipschitt. Talk about asking for someone to ban you...just start calling names. I dare you to start calling the Avila's names..go ahead. This should be fun.[devil] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I've said it before and will say it again... mods are dipshits... proof?... just read the rules and look at examples of interpretation. Mods don't write the rules, dipschitt. Talk about asking for someone to ban you...just start calling names. I dare you to start calling the Avila's names..go ahead. This should be fun.[devil] Hey! [b]GoatBoy[/b], [b]EdSr[/b], [b]Edward[/b], What is your take on Rule #7??? I am just going to go ahead and assume it is all good, since it is still there... You know, I will never turn down a dare. [:P] So [b]NAKED-GUNMAN[/b], [b]EricE[/b], and [b]TRG[/b], have YOU read the updated [b]CoC[/b]???? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And to some mods my funnies aren't funny so they get locked for WODW. Whatever................. Sgtar15 umm, what is "WODW"??? [b]-Absolut-[/b] Stop it! This is a serious issue!!! don't lock it! Waste of Band Width Isn't that WO[b][i]B[/b][/i]W ? [%|] Not in my world. Sgtar15 Your world? [img]http://sssup1.sssup.it/~giorgio/movies/gort.jpg[/img] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully remaining in topic... ... what's "+1" indicative of? What's it mean? Just trying to keep up, thanks. Postcount. You add 1 to your postcount everytime you post. Some people judge others' opinion based upon their post count. (they look second at "time on board") +1 in Pure Form is simply "+1" and no other substantial text. +1 with style is a bit of humor, or Very Small Picture (smiley). +1 in a dumb way is screencap sized photos and a paragraph of text nobody cares about. |