A small idea.

It looks like Bob's idea for having a select group rewrite the rules has gone askew with no clear way to actually choose the people.

So I think if we take one rule, just the one and discuss how it should be applied it will keep things more focussed, all jump in now fair and square.

"1. The first and most important rule is to be respectful to all members. Being disrespectful to other members will not be tolerated."

Everyone I hopeshould agree with this rule as an idea to aim for, it's just good tennis darlings.

The problem, aside from each Mod having their own ideas about what constitutes disrespect is what they do when they feel someone has been rude.

At the moment, I believe there is no set system. Each Mod, when they feel someone has crossed the line is free to Moderate them in any way they see fit, anything from a simple edit, part of the post or all of it...to a penalty ponts and even a ban. I'd love to be corrected by I think this is how it is.

I think there should be a structured system to how each Mod reacts to potential rudeness. The obvious exceptions of course are case of rascism, sexism, sexual harrassment or name calling. These are not subjective cases and should be dealt with more severely. However most people do not post these kinds of things and get Moderated for saying things not inherantly malicious within heated debates. Here is a potential system, which I know one Mod actually follows already pretty much.

The first time someone steps over the line the Mod edits out only the part of the post that as innapropriate and says why, they also ask nicely for that person to calm down or reword their message. At this point the person should be able to discuss the editing publically in reference to the thread, eg "I was saying that becuase of A....B....C...and this is why...

If that person, within a short space of time, say a day or so posts another message that is again not very nice, they have their whole post edited out and a message from the Mod left in it's space saying why and that if they want to discuss it, to PM them. They are also informed that any further infraction within the next week or so wiill result in instant penalty points and a deleted post and this will be standard response until they show they are posting with respect for a few weeks at least.

I see this as being a very fair and balanced system which gives everyone the benifit of the doubt, and as a plus to the Mods takes away any suggestion of powertrips and over zealous Moderation.

I'll say again that anyone who is horribly rascist or really hurtful should not be given these chances...but then those kinds of posts are quite rare.

I hope no one views this thread as an attack or criticism of the Mods or rules....it really is about making things easier for everyone.

I'd love to hear what you all think...I promise to listen nicely and I hope this doesn't turn sour.

I don't really know if this would work or not because some people are more open with their opinion on what is offensive or rude, so some people easily offended would take it a different way. so the person could get the whole thing in the clear, say something like it again the next day (because to them, that is reasonable and inoffensive) and someone else have a problem with it. some people are naturally outspoken and this can be taken as being rude, whether their intentions were wrong or not, so some people with strong opinions might get a bit ticked off with their posts constantly being edited out. i'm not necessarily sure they'd have to be edited constantly for them to not be rude but still. some people have different judgment on what is rude and what isn't.

Illuminatix I do not wish to change the rule my friend, i said that quite clearly. I only wish to discuss, not the rule but how it is enforced and there is a very important difference.

You say that we all know the definition of respect and rudeness, yet if you don't mind me saying, you yourself were Moderated only a few days ago for name calling. Now you only had the offending section of you post removed, which is the first stage I suggested and was fair I felt.

Many other people have had their whole posts removed and even been given penalty points for similar rudeness, which is clearly unfair, and why is that? Because there is no regulation of the application of rule 1....which I'll say once more I think is a very good rule that is simple to understand and should stay as is.

Ps Bob, I could post examples that suit my ideas too, it's nota hard thing to do....but I'd rather discuss without pulling up cases and upsetting people, which I'd suggest you do too...otherwise this thread will become like the others you know?

Would you then be prepared Illuminatix to back up your belief that people should get a verbal warning before any Moderation takes place, by actually advocating such a guideline be written into the Mod faq?

Do you mean you will put it forward as standard Moderator practice? I think that is what new ideas need you know, not just mods being ok or not against the notion..but actually and actively supporting decent ideas.

I know one Mod already who agrees with this idea. I'm not pitching for votes...but only you guys can actually do it.

Thankyou.

Kevin,

Are you saying that if Bob gives Joe a warning and within the next few days I see Joe acting rude once again that I should give him a warning? I mean... Bob gave the first wanring, not me.

So therefore, would I have to warn Joe after Bob before I , edit, delete, or penalize?

If this is what you are saying then my answer is No.

However, if it is someone that I think has not had a warning before by another mod then I do give them a warning.

After that first warning from any mods then that is it. There should not be anymore warnings allowed.

That's my two cents anyways

--Sher

I guess Sherry, what I'm getting at is that not everyone means to be rude and if they get a warning and stop, then yes, if on another occasion they are thought to be rude again, it shouldn't be assumed they are meaning to hurt anyone and so should be given the chance to calm down again. Unless of course they are persistantly name calling etc.

If we follow your way then all we get is one warning, and then what? No more chances for the rest of our lives?...one warning and that is it....get a little too passionate in a debate, or misunderstand something and you get Moderated? That is doesn't seem very fair.

I believe you even advocated that because people read the rules and know they shouldn't be rude at all, then that is their chance and they don't need any more.

I think this is a very unforgiving way of Moderating and so do some of the Mods.

"I believe you even advocated that because people read the rules and know they shouldn't be rude at all, then that is their chance and they don't need any more."

If this is how it appeared to you all then that is a shame. I never said that they don't deserve the chance.

In fact I believe it was more along the lines of everyone knows the rules and has agreed to the rules when they signed up. This in itself is a warning.

I also said that not knowing does not make it ok. If you break the law and then you tell the judge that you did not know it was a law ... well, you still get probation, fine, community service, jail, or what ever the judge sees fit.

As far as the other mods, well, Kevin, you know I have never backed down from a good feather ruffle and I will not do it now. If they think that I am being unfair then they can discuss that with me.

I have never stated personally what I do, nor will I; yet, I have looked and presented this situation from the legal (or whatever) standpoint.

I could also present from a mother's viewpoint using a different situation...

Two brothers are out playing one day and come across a fire pit that is burning. The oldest child decides that he wants to see how hot the fire actually is and if it will burn him, so he jumps in the fire and suffers severe burns.

Now, in my mind this warns the younger brother not to do the same thing. But, instead of jumping in the fire he just puts his hand in real fast and yanks it back out.

Now the younger brother has a burn, but it is not as severe as the older brother. The younger brother is crying "Why didn't anyone tell me?"

All along he was warned... maybe only a visual warning, but still a warning and he ignored it.

His punishment might not be a severe, but that is because he did not "jump" in the fire.

Read, write, say any way you want. The poinbt is that everyone on this site has witness some type of warning; maybe they are the little bro who was warned with a "visual", but the warning was still there.

When you want to ask me how I handle things personally then that will be a different story from how things are written on how to handle them.

I will state that you know for a fact I do not just start handing out penalties. You know that I do warn people first; unless it is a flat point verbal assault or something like that.

I remember talking to you in the mod forum about another member who was coming across as being rude and asked if you thought it would be ok for me to send that certain member a warning in a PM.

Don't go telling me how I act and what I do. Do not put words and actions on me that are not there.

There is a difference between saying what a mod may or may not do and what a mod does or does not actually do.

Best Wishes....

I think I will go read my bible on the part about forgiving, not judging, and gossip...

Have a good one

--Sherry Lynn Hull Richardson

The title of this thread is a LIE. Small? HA!

Hey Sherry deary. First off, I did not mean to suggest some of your fellow Mods think you are out of order, quite the opposite from the stalking inquiries into your favourite foods etc that I have made ; ). I just meant that some of the Mods are applying the rules in a way very close to the ideas I've offered, and some aren't. I was trying to show to problem this presents and not anything about you.

Why just the other day in the Club I was saying how much I like you [well I said I had a soft spot for you]

I think these ideas can be taken out of context by rather extreme examples, which of course they would not be appropriate in dealing with.

what I'm talking about is that, within a debate, perhaps a heated one about important issues if someone says something, within context and on topic about the post of someone else say, and a Mod takes it as offensive then it should not be assumed to have been intended that way....and a polite warning should be offered as a standard Mod practice, after that then you can get more serious if they don't listen to you. I can see no fairer way of dealing with the passionate members we have here without limiting discussions.

And of course, if you were to warn someone this way and they listened to you, perhaps said sorry and reworded their post, for example. If then a short time later they were involved in another thread and again within context and on topic they once more were viewed to be slightly over the line....I see no weakness in the Mod who again politely advises them that once more they are coming across as rude.

Clearly if a person is a serial offender and is trying to take advantage of the Mods good natures, then a post stating such observations or a PM after the fact, should be issued and warned that no more friendly warnings will be given, more direct action can be applied. But really, people like this, the Ken's and JPM are very rare.

I hope this makes sense. I think, rather than some Mods saying they do this and some saying they do their own thing, it would be better to have, whether it's my ideas or someone elses a more defined method of applying rule one...that is all I'm saying....because it's the most subjective one to use.

I wish Britt I didn't have to write like a lawyer, really I do.

I'm glad you agree with the basics of the idea. I wonder where the other Mods are, surely they have seen this.

There is no logical way to track it all...

It is just impossible and that is what I have said all along.

Ah, I see your points ladies, fair comment.

I don't want anyone to get hung up on the date time specifics of the idea, that was me trying to flesh the general notion out a bit.

I'd be happy with the Mods all agreeing to give each person in this website the benifit of the doubt and the chance, unless they are being really horrible, to tone it down or reword what they are saying before their whole post vanishes because of a few silly words.

Once more the standard disclaimer of my not including cases of extreme nastiness or isms...

For example, Britt warned me recently about saying something she percieved I'd written to bait Bob into an argument. She could have deleted my words but she chose to gave me a warning first and I listened to her and the thread cruised on respectfully. if she had deleted my post without any warning i might have been angry and ruined the thread trying to find out the why's and whats....her good judgement made me aware of how my words looked to other people and let everything move on smoothly.

I might need warned again, maybe even tonight or a week from now and I think, if I'm in a debate and not trying to hurt someone I and everybody else deserve those repeated chances to change our attitude or wording.

On the plus side as well for you guys, giving everyone standard fair warning will cut suspicion of Moderator abuse down to size, because if everyone is given their warning before Moderation, how can they then complain if they don't listen at the time and keep being offensive and find they have points etc?

it will shut me up for a spell at least.

Easily, easily eh?....I hope not tooooo easy Brittany....just wait til you drop your first big baddy...I swear you will hulk out and become a dervish of Moderation for a few days...it happens to every Mod!!!

It seems I'm the only peep non Mod in on this one. It would be ace, if at all possible if some of you could suggest, if you don't agree with my ideas, other ways in which a system to regulate and make fair the application of penalties and such could put to work.

After all, Mods encourage website users to not complain about things unless they are prepared to offer alternative ideas or improvements....

I think so too. It should at least be understood if the debate is heated and passionate and not dealt with harshly.

Oh, do spill the gossip deary...

Pm me with the goss...come on..you can't tease us like that!!

So there's at least one thing that hasn't been decided yet; there have been several references to locking threads or deleting comments right away only when they're "really horrible," or "obviously derogatory," and the like. I want to know what you guys think of this. Does everyone have the same understanding of what a deletable post is, and so it should be left to common sense, or should there be a mutually understood and clear standard?

Cool beans, Britt : ). I expect that's how it's usually run, which I think works quite well. Thanks for the response. I'm just wondring how you guys would determine what counts as a post that -would- be worthy of upright deletion? I don't have a clear opinion myself on the matter, so I'm wondering what you all have thought about it.