Rule #12 - Debate

12. Anyone who brings up a member's past errors that have been dealt with by the mods or anyone who brings up allegations that have been dealt with by the mods for the purpose of harassment or stirring up site drama will be penalized henceforth.

-

What do you think of this rule? Should it be revised? Is it fine as is? Should we take it out altogether? Is it relevant to anything recent, and could it be in the future? Do you think it served a positive purpose in the past?

Give us your insight.

This rule brings more drama to the website than any other argument, as what we have seen time and time again in different situations,

Talking about the past can only enhance your future, I mean sure, if someone is delibertily bringing the past just to create havoc, then i'm all up for it, but if someone is just bringing up the past so we can all learn and benefit from it as a community, then I don't see why this rule still applies, it's doing more harm than good,

It never served a good purpose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless someone makes him/herself the lawyer of the devil or even the devil himself, by harassing just to annoy.

I'm not sure which post to answer in Jane as you addressed an issue I was involved in on the other thread and then opened this one so....I will wait guidance from yourself or another mod before I say anything further.

Hellon, I would say this is safe haven to discuss the issue.

Ok...Cool (I hope). What I said that got edited out was.. that when a member (I never named this member but she did come forward with her identity almost immediately and...I would like to say without any prompting or egging on from me..I've never really spoken to this member in the past) provided a link into the old judges forum I took advantage and had a look. There were many things said that I didn't like but...of course, the one that caught my eye was a discussion about one of my own poems that had been nominated. It was written in colloquail language and one judge said it gave her a headache and she didn't even read it. Abalone defended my poem so...I'm grateful for that...needless to say..it didn't win.

Another thing I found disturbing was that...later on there seemed to be only two judges left and..while there was a ruling that you could not vote your own poem..you could suggest that the other judge did and....it happened.

Now...why am I bringing all this 'past'history up well....one of these judges has accepted a second term and....if I had been given the chance on the other thread I would have stated this.

Hope I have no spelling errors because I'm afraid of a time out here.

This topic reminds of an episode of South Park where one of the children ask chef why do people die . Chef answers " because god is still pissed off over something that happened over seven thousand years ago.Though I love each and every mod and member I have a problem in creating a dream world where there was either never any drama or it has been delt by the mods. We are all human and should learn from the past

I can imagine a ste where the one aslo known as "Mistake" humbly working beside Janis as an administrater of any rules not written in stone and that do prohibit the casting of them.

I think there is confusion or ambiguity between what is bringing up the past to improve the future of the site, or what is bringing up the past to do otherwise. Often there is a thin line between the two and its up to the mods discretion to decide, and its hard to see how that will change.

Often it isnt necessary to bring up the past when the problem has been solved. Bringing up past issues then just causes more unnecessary trouble.

OMG..Michael...you have turned coat for sure? Aren't you the one who can bring up threads from 1M BC...or is that another Michael?

Sorry Colm...I missed your post...what problem was solved? I have a definate issue with a previous judge accepting a second round and I've given good reason why.. and...it hasn't been solved.

Hellen aka Mistake perhaps I did not make my self clear that no issue is too large or small to be delt with by constructive debate. You guessed that I am an ASS ( Asperger Sydrome Symptoms) and have worked on controlling my desire to be understood . I am in favor of rules being enforced equally, and strongly believe that nothing can be gained by confusing even the neuro typical members

Yes...I'm sorry Mike and yes...I did guess (after a while) that you are an ASS :) but..I also learned you are one of the funniest people on this site so...I know this would not have offended you.

Hellon I wasnt being specific, I was just stating that in general, Ive seen a few cases where the past was brought up when the matter had been dealt with.

In relation to your posts on the other thread, it wasnt that clear with what you were getting at for a while, but if a judge who was found to be 'corrupt' or not doing the job with integrity accepted again, then that is an example of a problem from the past that could effect the future. I presume and hope that the mods access each nomination for their eligibility, and they take all these things into consideration.

I'm assuming you read all my posts then...before they were deleted?

Some of them I think, yes, I cant remember exactly

Thank you Hellon
When Will Rogers said" everytime they make a joke it is a law and everytime they make a law it is a joke" his statement was not deleted by an act of congress. It seems there has always been drama between politics and the religious origins of freedom of speech. I am not angy that my account was supended for comparing mods to gods. The creator did not show any wrath when his account was supended . Perhaps it is our mod given right to express ouself as they see fit

Now, as far as I can recall, the rule was put in place because some .. not all... but some people had a hard time of letting past mistakes go.

Even when the mods handled the issue of those mistakes it felt as though the members, more than one, were still being chastised and punished by the other members who refused to let things go.

Everyone began complaining about how things from five years ago or whatever was being brought up and thrown in their face at every turning point.

We all felt as though we had to constantly defend ourselves and it brought the morale and integrity of the site down. Everyone was leaving the boards except to come out and fight or read the juicy he said she said.

Yes, I believe that bringing up the past as a whole to learn from is okay, but bringing up the past in a negative way against one or two individuals is boarding the grounds of harrassment and provokes more harm then good.

Hellon, as far as the contest, when Bob ran it, we other mods were kept in the dark. We did not have access to the judges forum that was created outside of this site. Bob took the contest over and that was that.

If you feel or felt slighted I wish you would have brought it to a mod. Even now, if you think a judge is unfair, biased, and not suit to fill the role then I wish you would have pm'd a mod to let us know.

Now, to be honest, if a pm goes to the mod account I never see it until another mod brings it to the mod room. I have my own account with the same powers as the mod account so I do not have to log in between the two to handle the skills of the main account. My account is a super mod account as well.

I have never mentioned Bob or named anyone else in my discussions?

All I said was a former judge who I think should never sit it that seat again has accepted...don't koow if the application was approved, however.

My hope is that I am never seen as one who holds on to negativity. It is said that no matter how fast light travels the darkness is already there. Would anyone deny that the higher your rank and activity level is, the more pronounced is the mark you leave on any organization?

I get what Sherry is saying... None of us at the time knew what was going on. We couldn't have fixed any corruption going on because we were not involved in the runnings of the contest, Bob was the one who took that over for us. But now things are different, judges aren't supposed to know who other judges are, everyone votes individually and anonymously, so I think everyone hopes the same corruption isn't happening now. I think Sher was trying to say she wishes you would have PMd a mod saying hey, person x did this is the past and I don't think he/she will be a good judge for that reason. This is a matter that should be discussed privately in my opinion, as it has to do with information mods keep private (who the judges are), until the end of their term. I know you like to keep things out in thr open, but this is definitely a situation that is best handled by PM.

I'm a member who haaaates seeing the past get drug up when its to rub in someone's face or use as an insult. It seems some people can't move on, and when its something this site has rehashed a billion times, it is just annoying. As for history being known to newbies.. new people don't need to know specific drama that is just that, drama. If I were new and heard about all the crap in the past, I would delete my account before I got addicted.

Hellon,

I mentioned Bob, and not in a negative way. It is common knowledge that he ran the contest for a while.

Now, outside of that, I will confess that there are times I start to read a poem and can not get into it for some reason... It just is not my style, so I do not finish reading it.

It is nothing against the author, just different taste in writing styles.

Without reading the thread that you speak of, I can not say that this person refused to read the poem altogether as a personal vendetta against you, or if (which is more my thought) this individual just did not feel a connection, or did not like your poem so he or she moved on with out finishing it up.

If a judge has ten poems before them and three to pick from.. Let's say they already found two that they prefer over yours and your piem is the 7th one they start to read... Well, chances are that if you fail to catch them and draw them in within the first stanza then any judge will more than likely move on to read the next poem.

It is the same way with movies. If you fail to capture youre audience with in the first couple of minutes, they are going to change the channel.

As a matter of fact many members have deleted their accounts, fewer would not return if they knew the site has got past some BS politics.

In regards the concept of changing channels I agree it is more important to focus on the present expansion of the ten commandments on PQ
So if any mod or member past or present feel singled out I am sure we are all sorry

Without getting into deep do do I would also like to say that I believe the original rules were designed to these forums more compatible with the masses. I can see how the rules and guidlines could confuse those that are ignorant to their history

Mods eterpret rules as they see fit

I just want Hellon to know she inspired my latest posted poem without breaking rule 9

I'm here with my half shaved head to simply say...that I see nothing wrong with that rule.. xoxo

Xoxo to you too

Lmfao

Lol .. thank God and Bill Gates for search engines

:x shhhttt..we are going off topic XD

I would like to bring up another point about the confusion that creating new rules or adding to the original rules and guidelines causes

I am not thinking of or never have thought of deleting my account due to the worst site
drama

The point I would make is that these dicussions are helpful to those of us who signed terms of agreement that constantly need modifying

In other words if a modification is unacceptable in the past the only option was to change channels if you know what I mean

We have a saying if you don't like the climate stick around

Just a passer by with his insignificant opinion, rules (laws) are made with a consensus to keep people civil. People who do not follow the rules, pay for it or become celebrities. Dissent is natural in a democracy, but when one enforces a rule, the consensus was applied, and the dissentor was outvoted by a majority. If the dissentor chose to appeal, the appeal should be heard, if reasonable. But when the appeal is finally denied, the rule is the law, but when the appeal is granted the council should pay a restitution. But to ask for a re-opening of the case (spill the old dissent in our present) when the statute of limitation has passed, would only open up a can of worms, buried in the past.

The rule, in my opinion, is a wise one, speaks volumes to its drafters, to help keep sanity in a self governing society, to enforce a consensus well thought of. Yes, there will be always outliers, as this is a democratic society.

Point taken , but if you google' unnecesary censorship sesame street" you may better understand the issues it could possibly create

Can you say funny?

^ Can you say funny?

Did you mean , can I be funny Michael? A little bit, did you read my poem, "THE HOUMMOUS DIPLOMACY" here:
http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/discussion/topic.html?topic_id=132944

But you are the master humorist. Will Rogers.... master comedian, humorist, social commentator, vaudeville performer, American cowboy, film actor, I agree was one of the world's best-known celebrities in the 1920s and 1930s. Must have been your idol.
But, thankfully was not elected to the Presidency, or else we may have had a country full of comedians with celebrity status, so when I say dissentors can become celebrities, you know what I mean!

Sorry, I got to stay off this thread, or I will be poking my nose in matters I know little about. You are a "celebrity" Michael! Let the lawmakers make the rules, just stick to your celebrity status, and have "pun" (at their expense, just like Will!).

I think the rule is just fine how it is. There is no reason to have to bring up past mistakes, only learn from them and to make sure to not have the same errors occur again. Undoubtedly if we are allowed to bring things from the past up, someone is going to take offense or get hurt. Senseless drama is all that will be created. At least that's what happen whenever we do.

Just my opinion though. :]

A lonely soul just demonstrated how easily things
are taken out of context

I know I am an ASS and I get a check from social security for my certfied status

If you were familiar with sesame street, which is more my speed than yours, my friend, you would know I was quoting Mr Rogers " can you say ...."
Yes I am a huge fan of Will Rogers Roy Rogers and Mr Rogers but" I" am not the topic here in this civil discussion

Are personal pronouns also to be banned from the forums?

'The distinction between the past present and future is only a stubborn persistant illusion"
Albert Einstien also had Aspergers Syndrome Syptoms

I could take a lonely soul's promotion to celebrity status as disrespectful sarcasm, but those who know me know I won't, because I am an ASS

Sorry for interrupting.

All the posts written/read are irrelevant. The past wasnt brought up until recently. The new rule is unnecessary. In case if any user attacks another with past issues, the monitoring moderator can issue a warning to the user which in the future could lead to a penalty. May be a week of suspension, or something equivalent.

Lately it seems, the genesis of this drama has caused a haywire for the mods. The mods do have a physical life to lead. I have noted, the mods have been trying to remedy the situation day and night, but the situation is causing a ripple effect, in turn creating further obstruction for a solution.

So please pipe down on the drama. The mods keep an eye on most threads. Should they feel for any post to be offending or inappropriate they will notify that particular user and upon adequate negotiation, decide to delete the post.

Mods do have a life of their own, so limit their duties to just monitoring and occasional problem solving.

Should any member/user have a genuine problem, please carry it out with a moderator. If felt necessary, the user can bring forward the situation and discuss it with multiple moderators. I am positive the moderators will do everything within their power to right the wrong.

No offense to any user that stumbles upon this post.

"The past wasnt brought up until recently. The new rule is unnecessary."

It's not a 'new' rule.. it's a rule that has been in effect since about this time last year, because it was consistent BS back and forth with throwing in past issues.. Don't know where you've been :)

May we assume there has never been any drama in the mod room because they take it to to main message forum like the rest of us?

As to the civil statements I must agree to Ghandi's response to the reporters question to him "what do you think of western civilization"
I also think it would be a good idea....

"May we assume there has never been any drama in the mod room because they take it to to main message forum like the rest of us?"

Hahahaha.

^ Britt

Unlikely. A site functioning for the past 8 years as per Janis's profile, contains a protocol established or effective just over a year ago. The rule could be deemed as a "new" rule. But time scale is subjective when it comes to information processing.

I was not a regular until recently, so pardon any of my ignorances. But I stand corrected for now.

In any other case, do correct me.

I'm just messin' with ya! I think a rule from a year ago wouldn't be a new rule, because it seemed like a long time ago, if that makes sense? Actually it seems like 5 years ago. Yikes.

^ Britt.

My bad. I tend to be serious at times ^^,

I just look forward to the end of this drama, so something productive could be discussed.

Edit - Plus the moderators must be in pain by now, because of the drama.

I don't think this thread could be considered any drama. I see it as a nice discussion about something we have in place that may need to be tweaked now, or at least better understood by all.

P.S. I'm usually joking or messin' with people 95% of the time. :P