Feedback on today's announcement

All looks fair and agreeable to me. Hopefully it'll see some of the repeat offenders either modify their behaviour or be dealt with accordingly.
 
I think you'll just have to see how everything works in practice and go from there?
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
I might be in the minority with this opinion, but isn't the whole point of discussion to expose yourself to different views, to have your mind changed, and/or to change minds? I'd argue that it is more healthy to be around people that hold opposing views than it is to surround yourself with people who nod in agreement to your every utterance. Would you prefer a "Agree with the OP or GTFO" section? I'm sure it can be arranged; us mods have nothing better to do after all :p
Click to expand...

Careful Zefan, you could be in danger of having an open mind - you never know what horrible new ideas could flourish and damn you for eternity. Much better to be absolutely certain about all the important tenants of your life as early as possible so that you can be certain that you are right. Of course once you have realised the beauty of simple thoughts you do not have to trouble yourself to try and understand any other perceptions because you are on the path to happiness.

God but I hate religion.
 
Gilly said:
It's not about being overbearing or officious. It's a response to something we've seen over time and hopefully will have some positive impact.

The intention behind the statements is actually diametrically opposed to officiousness.
Click to expand...

And that neatly sums up the problem with "intention". How do you determine another person's intention? It's often possible with criminal law (e.g. if person A gets a knife, searches for person B and stabs them repeatedly it can reasonably be concluded that person A intended to kill person B) but it's another matter entirely with a forum post. robfosters thought the announcement was intended to be officious. So did I. You say the intention wasn't just different but diametrically opposed. So it comes down to who has the authority to decide what the intention was. Who is that?

If the new rules are (as some people think) the same as the old rules, why have the new rules?

If the new rules are different to the old rules...what are they? I didn't see any clear statement of rules in the announcement, only clear statements regarding the power of moderators and a lot of "mission statement" type text, which is always ambiguous enough to be effectively meaningless and rarely bears any resemblence to what will actually happen. That seems to be the point of mission statements.

So my main feedback is a question: Are the rules changing or not?
 
Angilion said:
And that neatly sums up the problem with "intention". How do you determine another person's intention? It's often possible with criminal law (e.g. if person A gets a knife, searches for person B and stabs them repeatedly it can reasonably be concluded that person A intended to kill person B) but it's another matter entirely with a forum post. robfosters thought the announcement was intended to be officious. So did I. You say the intention wasn't just different but diametrically opposed. So it comes down to who has the authority to decide what the intention was. Who is that?

If the new rules are (as some people think) the same as the old rules, why have the new rules?

If the new rules are different to the old rules...what are they? I didn't see any clear statement of rules in the announcement, only clear statements regarding the power of moderators and a lot of "mission statement" type text, which is always ambiguous enough to be effectively meaningless and rarely bears any resemblence to what will actually happen. That seems to be the point of mission statements.

So my main feedback is a question: Are the rules changing or not?
Click to expand...
The way the Charter read to me was that, no, the Rules haven't changed. And because they haven't, the person having to judge if a post is intended to offend is the person making the post.

It is, if I understand it, an attempt to lay out a standard we should hold ourselves to.

So while making a statement someone else finds offensive is okay as long as that wasn't your intent when you made it. We can't always predict how someone is going yo take a comment. But you would not be living up to the Charter if you said something that, while maybe not a rule break, was deliberately intended to upset or offend.

It seemed to me to be summed up as "be polite, courteous and respectful".

Again, I may be wrong but I interpreted the Charter not as something mods are going to hold us to account for complying with but rather, something each and every one of us should be trying to hold ourselves to account for.

It amounts, in large part, to being told to "play the ball, not the man". Or in a way that might be a bit patronising to comply, being told "play nice, now, children".

One way to discuss something is to debate issues, challenging claims, citing facts and giving sources. Another is to be dismissive, patronising, condescending, using straw man techniques to portray someone as believing or even having said something they didn't so as to be able to knock it down, and so on. The first is in the spirit of the charter and the second is not.
 
Aldav said:
The way the Charter read to me was that, no, the Rules haven't changed. And because they haven't, the person having to judge if a post is intended to offend is the person making the post.

It is, if I understand it, an attempt to lay out a standard we should hold ourselves to.

So while making a statement someone else finds offensive is okay as long as that wasn't your intent when you made it. We can't always predict how someone is going yo take a comment. But you would not be living up to the Charter if you said something that, while maybe not a rule break, was deliberately intended to upset or offend.

It seemed to me to be summed up as "be polite, courteous and respectful".

Again, I may be wrong but I interpreted the Charter not as something mods are going to hold us to account for complying with but rather, something each and every one of us should be trying to hold ourselves to account for.

It amounts, in large part, to being told to "play the ball, not the man". Or in a way that might be a bit patronising to comply, being told "play nice, now, children".

One way to discuss something is to debate issues, challenging claims, citing facts and giving sources. Another is to be dismissive, patronising, condescending, using straw man techniques to portray someone as believing or even having said something they didn't so as to be able to knock it down, and so on. The first is in the spirit of the charter and the second is not.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
tres said:
It seems rather petty to make such a big deal out of common sense.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately common sense seems to be the least common of all the senses.
I agree with the charter; the written word can sound harsh or even aggressive because we cannot see a facial expression to associate the mood in which the words are written.
A little more care being taken in the way we write our comments would go a long way.
I work for a Blue Chip company and they sometimes feel the need to remind people about the way messages/emails are written.
 
From a quick read the first 3 points are basically the oposite of most of the forum lol oh and


We will respect each others boundaries where apparent and not intentionally encroach on the privacy of other members
Click to expand...


Whoops :o
 
Fuzz said:
TL;DR :p :D
Click to expand...

In know in this case the guy's just joking but generally it's the kind of attitude why people get into trouble and the reason why people throw their toys out of the pram when they are suspended, banned or even warned. In my experience, the repeat offenders are those that either 1 . never bother to read the rules, 2. will never accept that they have made a mistake and learn by it. 3. tend not use any common sense.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
In know in this case the guy's just joking but generally it's the kind of attitude why people get into trouble and the reason why people throw their toys out of the pram when they are suspended, banned or even warned. In my experience, the repeat offenders are those that either 1 . never bother to read the rules, 2. will never accept that they have made a mistake and learn by it. 3. tend not use any common sense.
Click to expand...

I have been suspended for 2 days for breaking a rule and fully accepted responsibility, even though I thought it was a bit harsh.
I emailed the mod concerned with a personal apology, unfortunately didn’t get a reply.;)
 
Admiral Huddy said:
In know in this case the guy's just joking but generally it's the kind of attitude why people get into trouble and the reason why people throw their toys out of the pram when they are suspended, banned or even warned. In my experience, the repeat offenders are those that either 1 . never bother to read the rules, 2. will never accept that they have made a mistake and learn by it. 3. tend not use any common sense.
Click to expand...


"Tend not to use any common sense"

That implies you think we have any :p
 
Participant said:
Some of that is people being too precious though. That angle never seems to be considered.
Click to expand...

Some people are. I've also seen other people at the opposite end of the scale that are far too abrasive and are often proud of that fact. Treading the middle ground here is what is being asked for I think.
 
justintime2001 said:
I have been suspended for 2 days for breaking a rule and fully accepted responsibility, even though I thought it was a bit harsh.
I emailed the mod concerned with a personal apology, unfortunately didn’t get a reply.;)
Click to expand...

I've been suspended for a week, I fully deserved the suspension, had a chat with the mod that suspended me and apologised not only to that mod but also to the person I'd had a run-in with.

It was my fault, I walked outside the correct path and I took my medicine for doing so.

Participant said:
As long as Zefan is now prevented from perma-banning JanesyB just because he doesn't like the cut of his gib, I'm happy! #wewillremember
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all that was :)
 
justintime2001 said:
I have been suspended for 2 days for breaking a rule and fully accepted responsibility, even though I thought it was a bit harsh.
I emailed the mod concerned with a personal apology, unfortunately didn’t get a reply.;)
Click to expand...

Same here.. back in 2004 I think.. I was livid and annoyed but I learnt that if i wanted to be part of these forums, then I needed to think about what i was posting.

Not everyone thinks this way and like you unfortunately. We do get a lot of personal emails which can go astray and i'm just as guilty for this. This is why the new dispute forum is a good idea that such matters (even positive comments) can bee seen by all mods. Even if it's a "handsup" acknowledgement or an apology.. Crikky, even we make mistakes and have apologised. I know I have ... we're are still people and members after all.. Apart from Maccy, he's a cyborg. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom