Attn Dave: Some things the ENTIRE posting community needs to know

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the forum moderation is going in the opposite direction of what >80% of non-Mods (just check the polls created as of late) believe it should go...and the more the community voices their concern, the faster it seems to headed in the opposite direction.

So, I think I can speak for the majority opinion by asking you to communicate the following:

1) what is your "vision" for this forum that we keep hearing about?
2) what was "wrong" with the way the forum used to be...what need was there for instituting an infraction system that a) hasn’t banned anyone who wouldn’t have been banned under the old system, and b) has divided the forum between Mods and non-Mods thus making adversaries out of, what were previously, friends?

We understand the need to protect the site from internet filters and therefore profanity and porn have to be banned…but what we don’t understand is why we can’t playfully dig at each other.  This is not a forum discussing photography as a hobby, rather it is a political forum – meaning this forum’s community, by nature, is hard-headed, thick-skinned, opinionated, and full of people who love to debate and tussle.  Not only are we big enough to handle the jabs, we enjoy it and call it “fun”.  And >80% of non-Mods believe the “fun” is being sucked out of this forum.

[afleitch]

What's ironic is that the without the current system you wouldn't still be here

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What's ironic is that the without the current system you wouldn't still be here

You make no logical sense - It's as if you're saying my reception of 100 death points made it more likely I would NOT be banned.

But you're purposely digressing from the points of my opening post - a common tactic by the Mods when these questions have been asked...but, in any case, since the majority of the forum feels it has been given the run-around in regard to these questions, I directed this thread to Dave's attention.


 

[© Tweed the Younger]

I PM'd Dave earlier (the content of which I will indefinitely keep sealed from the public), expressing similar concerns and sentiment.  one thing is clear: we are witnessing the transition of the community of-itself to the community for-itself.  and regardless of what becomes of this, seeing it happen makes me proud.

[Dave Leip]

Hi,
None of the following is anything new: I have always wanted for this site to be a place where many people of differing opinions could discuss politics and elections - without anyone getting personally attacked over their point-of-view.  I want it to be fun, entertaining, educational, maybe even some people will even change their minds after a good discussion.  I have no problem with clever wit and even some jabs - assuming that both parties consider the exchange fun.  One issue with the written word is that tone and spoken inflection can often be missed by a third party reading the posts - so for some comments that could be interpreted as literal, I recommend adding some form of indication that it is not. If you believe that the mods are being a bit too zealous, please pm me some examples and I'll have a look.

Is the problem with the infraction system itself or how it is being applied?

Thanks,
Dave

[The Mikado]

The points system (both the mods and many posters feel) needlessly aggravates tensions by condemning otherwise good posters, thus leading to posters who are in no actual danger of banning throwing fits about "I got six points for THIS" or whatever when, in reality, to non-repeat infractors the actual number doesn't mean anything.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hi,
None of the following is anything new: I have always wanted for this site to be a place where many people of differing opinions could discuss politics and elections - without anyone getting personally attacked over their point-of-view.  I want it to be fun, entertaining, educational, maybe even some people will even change their minds after a good discussion.

And I think, for the most part, it has always been that.

---

I have no problem with clever wit and even some jabs - assuming that both parties consider the exchange fun.  One issue with the written word is that tone and spoken inflection can often be missed by a third party reading the posts - so for some comments that could be interpreted as literal, I recommend adding some form of indication that it is not. If you believe that the mods are being a bit too zealous, please pm me some examples and I'll have a look.

It’s really not even a matter of being too zealous…see below.

---

Is the problem with the infraction system itself or how it is being applied?

I think everyone, both Mods and non-Mods, would agree the system has neither banned nor spared anyone that would not have been banned or spared under the previous system.  

But it has led to some unintended consequences:  
1)   It seems to have isolated the Mod team and made them more withdrawn from the normal discussion of the forum.  This is NOT a good thing as their friendship and previous level of contribution are sorely missed.
2)   At times it seems the TOS is the only thing being discussed.  It has led to endless debates over parts of the TOS that are unavoidably subjective (e.g. “trolling”), and these subjective debates really revolve around an individual’s personality traits, so that one person’s interpretation may actually make another poster’s entire personality infractionable.  But some posters are just natural jokers, and want to be able to “let their hair down” on the Off Topic and Forum Community Boards.

Basically, the TOS should protect the site from filters (no porn or blatant profanity), promote an exchange of ideas without fear of incrimination, etc…while NOT throwing a wet blanket on the personalities of the posters, esp on the OT and FC boards.


The solution…

I’m not sure what form the proposed solution should take, but whatever it ends up being, the majority of the Mods and non-Mods need to be in agreement with it.  

The majority is currently in agreement that a) the current infraction system has been ineffective in creating a better forum and b) there is the basic necessity to protect the forum from porn/profanity filters and promote a fair exchange of ideas.    

Maybe the Mods need to create a thread on the FC board for proposals for a better system…once the list of proposals have been assembled, the Mods could take it to the Mod board and eliminate which ones the Mods oppose as unproductive, then bring that whittled down list back to the FC board for posters to vote on through a survival poll.  Then submit the winning proposal (one that has the backing of both the Mods and the non-Mods) to you for your stamp of approval.  If you disapprove of the winning proposal, then they could give you the runner up, and so on, until we find one that is acceptable to you.  If none are acceptable to you, then the current system would remain in place.

It would require very little of your time, and would be a fun exercise in a three-tiered government:  with the current infraction system representing current law on the books, the Posters representing Congress, the Mods representing the Executive Branch with veto power, and the Dave (who is appointed for life) representing the SCOTUS.

It would bring a lot of germane excitement to the forum.  And the final system would be the product of the entire Forum.

---

Thanks,
Dave

No, thank you for responding and taking the time to listen.

[For Oklahoma]

Hi,
None of the following is anything new: I have always wanted for this site to be a place where many people of differing opinions could discuss politics and elections - without anyone getting personally attacked over their point-of-view.  I want it to be fun, entertaining, educational, maybe even some people will even change their minds after a good discussion.  I have no problem with clever wit and even some jabs - assuming that both parties consider the exchange fun.  One issue with the written word is that tone and spoken inflection can often be missed by a third party reading the posts - so for some comments that could be interpreted as literal, I recommend adding some form of indication that it is not. If you believe that the mods are being a bit too zealous, please pm me some examples and I'll have a look.

Is the problem with the infraction system itself or how it is being applied?

Thanks,
Dave

First off, thank you for dropping by.

I can't speak on behalf of anyone other than myself, but I feel as though I am walking on eggshells on some boards because I want to post something, I'm afraid that I'd be infracted for it. It's come to the point where even the slight barbs and light-hearted jabs have been criminalized and thus the fun has been sucked out of it. I personally believe we shouldn't be so offended by these jabs--for instance, with the recent locking of the Deluge of Ignorance and Bad Posts, people have gone over the edge--the moderator's have reached into our fun and stripped it from us in some senses--we feel we are no longer allowed to "have fun" because it's almost become an infractable offense. It's been proposed that all moderators be stripped of their power and an election be held within the forum to pick new moderators for each board. This could also really spice up the Atlas Fantasy Elections section. Some of the moderators aren't even active anymore, so I feel this is the person solution to the problem.

Thank you.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

I have a suggestion. Since profanity, and other things (Deluge) make the forum look bad to lurkers or to people who come to Atlas from school, maybe you could make the forum community/off topic board visible to registered members if possible?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I have a suggestion. Since profanity, and other things (Deluge) make the forum look bad to lurkers or to people who come to Atlas from school, maybe you could make the forum community/off topic board visible to registered members if possible?

if we attempt to convince Dave to allow profanity, we will get no where.  Profanity will directly threaten Dave's intentions of keeping the Forum off of web filters' radars.

it's a complete non-starter

[Paul Kemp]

Thank you for the input, Dave.

[Platypus]

I think a lot of people are just whingeing, to be honest. I've done over 7 years here with two or three moderated posts and no infractions - basic civility, even when you disagree with someone very strongly (see me v phil, 2005-06) isn't really that hard.

Also, things like the whole Mercado crud ARE trolling, as is insulting an idiot's intelligence. For better or worse.

Don't attack people's fundamentals, don't troll, don't post porn and don't swear too much.

If you can't do that, why should you be allowed on the forum?

[Sibboleth]

Do you like the idea of being volunteered next time the issue of another mod comes up?

[patrick1]

I think a lot of people are just whingeing, to be honest. I've done over 7 years here with two or three moderated posts and no infractions - basic civility, even when you disagree with someone very strongly (see me v phil, 2005-06) isn't really that hard.

Also, things like the whole Mercado crud ARE trolling, as is insulting an idiot's intelligence. For better or worse.

Don't attack people's fundamentals, don't troll, don't post porn and don't swear too much.

If you can't do that, why should you be allowed on the forum?

Great post. However, I would disagree with the attacking the fundamentals bit. Gather enough people in a room and people will have fundamental conflict, and a politics oriented site only increases the volatility. As you said civility is required.

[King]

I'm perfectly fine with being infracted for Lief, Eraserhead, Keystone Phil, and WalterMitty's antics.

You can also add BRTD and jmfcst to my tab for posts made in the Forum Community section, except those where BRTD is the thread starter for obvious reasons.

[big bad fab]

I think a lot of people are just whingeing, to be honest. I've done over 7 years here with two or three moderated posts and no infractions - basic civility, even when you disagree with someone very strongly (see me v phil, 2005-06) isn't really that hard.

Also, things like the whole Mercado crud ARE trolling, as is insulting an idiot's intelligence. For better or worse.

Don't attack people's fundamentals, don't troll, don't post porn and don't swear too much.

If you can't do that, why should you be allowed on the forum?

Yeah ! Thanks for this simple but sound post.
Let's grow up a bit, damn it !
And stop whining and stop thinking life is here (oh, I see, real life is empty or missed, so you compensate by making noise here ?) and stop saying the Fundamental Liberties are at stake just because people are prevented from posting supreme stupidities that almost nobody read...
This is pathetic and insulting for those who fight in real life...

[Platypus]

Do you like the idea of being volunteered next time the issue of another mod comes up?

I don't really have the time for it, but I wouldn't say no to intgen. No interest in FC/OT/2012 etc.

[Platypus]

I think a lot of people are just whingeing, to be honest. I've done over 7 years here with two or three moderated posts and no infractions - basic civility, even when you disagree with someone very strongly (see me v phil, 2005-06) isn't really that hard.

Also, things like the whole Mercado crud ARE trolling, as is insulting an idiot's intelligence. For better or worse.

Don't attack people's fundamentals, don't troll, don't post porn and don't swear too much.

If you can't do that, why should you be allowed on the forum?

Great post. However, I would disagree with the attacking the fundamentals bit. Gather enough people in a room and people will have fundamental conflict, and a politics oriented site only increases the volatility. As you said civility is required.

I meant fundamentals of personality etc. Attacking political views, or even religious views, or sexuality etc is fine, ish, if you do it civilly and in a way to actually understand more or persuade rather than insult. I still avoid attacking religion or sexuality myself, but political views... go for it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

fyi...I will deal with you weenies after we hear back from Dave.  In the meantime, just keep talkin'.

[Torie]

Hi,
None of the following is anything new: I have always wanted for this site to be a place where many people of differing opinions could discuss politics and elections - without anyone getting personally attacked over their point-of-view.  I want it to be fun, entertaining, educational, maybe even some people will even change their minds after a good discussion.  I have no problem with clever wit and even some jabs - assuming that both parties consider the exchange fun.  One issue with the written word is that tone and spoken inflection can often be missed by a third party reading the posts - so for some comments that could be interpreted as literal, I recommend adding some form of indication that it is not. If you believe that the mods are being a bit too zealous, please pm me some examples and I'll have a look.

Is the problem with the infraction system itself or how it is being applied?

Thanks,
Dave

Hi Dave.  

First I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your fantastic site, and your generosity in both creating and tolerating the forum. It has greatly enriched my life, and I mean that.

Here is the Achilles heel, or at least one of them, in the infraction system, and it is not hypothetical, but real, because it has happened, and is happening. There are some, very few, but some, who deliberately flaunt the rules of engagement around here, and personally insult other posters, but nevertheless are careful to do it in sufficient moderation that they keep their point count down below the muzzlement/termination zone. As points expire, they add new ones, sort of like a bathtub, where the water drains in at about the same rate as it drains out, but it is typically in a state just short of overflowing.  

For this sort of Machiavellian character, there is no adequate remedy. There needs to be some sort of sanction for those whose tub is  near overflowing as the norm.  For the chronic and "un-rehabilitatable" poster, who with malice aforethought is gaming the system, and the rules of engagement in this way, at some point enough is enough.  Perhaps Nym in whom you repose confidence should have the power, maybe after a warning, and maybe not, to effect a final separation of such poster from the rest of us.

Thank you again.

Best, Steve

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is the Achilles heel, or at least one of them, in the infraction system, and it is not hypothetical, but real, because it has happened, and is happening. There are some, very few, but some, who deliberately flaunt the rules of engagement around here, and personally insult other posters, but nevertheless are careful to do it in sufficient moderation that they keep their point count down below the muzzlement/termination zone. As points expire, they add new ones, sort of like a bathtub, where the water drains in at about the same rate as it drains out, but it is typically in a state just short of overflowing. 

I know exactly the type you're talking about and I 100% agree with your assessment.  To such a poster, I feel like saying, "Dude, why don't you reach down for a bigger set and just take it all the way to 100 death points?!"

[© Tweed the Younger]

I really really don't want to see the move here to start to witch hunt to ban more posters, particularly in a motion that reeks of ex post facto like Torie's idea above.

[Mr. Morden]

For this sort of Machiavellian character, there is no adequate remedy. There needs to be some sort of sanction for those whose tub is  near overflowing as the norm.  For the chronic and "un-rehabilitatable" poster, who with malice aforethought is gaming the system, and the rules of engagement in this way, at some point enough is enough.  Perhaps Nym in whom you repose confidence should have the power, maybe after a warning, and maybe not, to effect a final separation of such poster from the rest of us.

Nym already has the power to ban posters either temporarily or permanently, regardless of how many points they have.  Though it would be nice if he also had the power to put people on or take them off of mod review.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I really really don't want to see the move here to start to witch hunt to ban more posters, particularly in a motion that reeks of ex post facto like Torie's idea above.

yeah, all jokes aside, we need to restore fun to this forum, esp on the OT and FC boards.

---

Though it would be nice if he also had the power to put people on or take them off of mod review.

you are pretty moderate, but I think you've missed the cause, and thus the lesson, of this whole crisis.

[Torie]

I really really don't want to see the move here to start to witch hunt to ban more posters, particularly in a motion that reeks of ex post facto like Torie's idea above.

Apparently Nym already has the power so the ex poste facto issue is moot (and that was never my intent anyway). I think it useful however that it be more widely known that Nym has such power, and that just cruising along at 40 infraction points or whatever gaming the system does not constitute some safe harbor, and give the particular facts, and the source of the infraction points, and whatever else may be deemed relevant, may well in fact be steering your ship straight into the rocks.  

It seems that at bottom the infraction point system is more about just letting you know you have been naughty and caught. Irrespective of the infraction point thing, and for the chronic abuser of standards of civility in particular, perhaps the poster should be given a warning that he is in serious trouble, and Nym's patience is wearing thin, and it is time to get your act together or get out. Just a thought.