Posting restrictions. When does a site lose the fun because of them?

[Dips]

It's perfectly OK to not like the rules on the site or avoid posting there becuase the atmosphere is not to your taste.

It doesn't make you right and owner/moderators of the site wrong. Nor does it make you wrong or the owner/moderators right.

It just is what it is. The owner/mod team has free choice to set whatever rules they want. And people have the free choice to join and participate under those rules or take their business elsewhere.

The internet is a big place. There are plenty of forums out there. It's a good decision to stay away from a forum if you find it too restrictive and can't enjoy yourself there.

I, for one, understand completely that members come and go for many reasons. A reason for leaving isn't even necessary. I certainly wouldn't dream of holding it against anyone for leaving because they don't like the rules, any more than I would hold it against someone for leaving because they are busy and don't have time to post.

[Ree]

I can never tell if you're messing with me, or intentionally being snarky

I'm intentionally being snarky, of course. (The use of the tongue sticking and winking smileys is just a cover.)

[Hobbs]

I'm intentionally being snarky, of course. (The use of the tongue sticking and winking smileys is just a cover.)

Why must you answer me that way? Why not answer honestly and properly?

[MadMike]

On the other hand, I see what the OP is saying. I've seen some threads get closed just because the nature of the post was controversial or may offend people. Sure, threads get derailed and people turn it into a political debate, but not all have been like that. Some have been closed when people actually stay on topic, just because the instance is a "fratching subject". That really does put limits on the discussions that can be had. Sure, the purpose of the site is to vent, but when people aren't allowed to vent about certain things because it may offend some people, than it isn't as fun.

There was a time, up to my early days as a moderator, that we allowed pretty much any topic, even the controversial ones. We figured we'd keep an eye on them and close them down if they became a problem. But "if" almost always became "when", and it just caused too many headaches. So now we shut them down as soon as we see them.

I believe one of the other mods mentioned that a lot of the seemingly harmless threads that we shut down were because we recognized the start of a pattern that we've seen go bad countless times in the past.

[Ree]

Why must you answer me that way? Why not answer honestly and properly?

OK then.
Obviously, I was not being snarky, since I used both this smiley and this smiley as well as this smiley in an attempt to underscore that I was joking.

Of course we don't have a banning lottery that singles out random members for banning. That would just be stupid and ridiculous.

The fact that you didn't grasp the joke and then accused me of being snarky could have pissed me off, but it didn't.
I once again, apparently unwisely, chose to come off as lighthearted in an attempt to show you how off base you were with that assumption.

The fact is, your original claim that you were banned based on only one post and one situation was absolutely ludicrous.
The mods do not ban lightly, and not without a great deal of discussion, both among the team and with the member.

If you were banned, it was because of more than one single problematic case of failing to see the suck by questioning another member, and I think you already know that.

[Hobbs]

The banning was not discussed by me, nor was I warned that I was under threat of banishment.

I understood you were joking, and was merely asking for an honest and serious answer instead. Previously, you have only given me snarky/joking answers when I really wanted a professional answer.

[Hyena Dandy]

In general, I prefer sites with more freedom as to who can post what. Despite that, I do like this site and CS (even if I don't have much to contribute to the latter). There are a lot of interesting topics that if I can't post on, I can at least view.

The way I look at it, CS is a venting site, which is intended as a safe haven to vent without being judged or ridiculed. It may not be perfect (I've seen some judgmental behavior), but for it's purpose, it's better than a lot of the alternatives. I've seen some really sucky and hateful behavior from sites which allow too much freedom. Someone will post a rant and get flamed to high hell for it. They'll get called stupid, irresponsible, childish, and some will go as far as to tell them to kill themselves. Yeah, people who could very well be on the brink of suicide getting beaten down, real classy behavior. I know that shit would never slide at CS or here and for that I am grateful.

On the other hand, I see what the OP is saying. I've seen some threads get closed just because the nature of the post was controversial or may offend people. Sure, threads get derailed and people turn it into a political debate, but not all have been like that. Some have been closed when people actually stay on topic, just because the instance is a "fratching subject". That really does put limits on the discussions that can be had. Sure, the purpose of the site is to vent, but when people aren't allowed to vent about certain things because it may offend some people, than it isn't as fun.

I think in those instances, moderation makes the forum too controlled. You need some freedom as to what you can post. When moderators come into threads and tell people "don't discuss this, discuss that", it can become discouraging. I understand that we want to keep things on track, but it can really kill potential discussions when people get chastised for discussing something.

That's my two cents.

In my experience, when someone makes a post that is a 'fratching subject' the moderators usually step in with something along the lines of 'avoid fratching in this topic'

When I make a post like that I try to suggest the same sort of thing.

For example, one post I made was complaining about a person at a party who stopped us watching Shaun of the Dead to lecture one of the party goers about how God doesn't exist (And I tried to make it clear I wasn't complaining about people saying God doesn't exist, I was complaining about people who decide that anyone saying something even in an off-hand way they disagree with merits a discussion*). The thread wasn't closed down, and I remember probably the first or second post was Raps saying "This is just venting, not Fratching, keep off the topic of whether or not God exists."






Now, I may be wrong, and maybe its changed, but it seems to me that usually the mods say "Keep off the fratching elements of this discussion" or words to that effect, and if people don't, it gets shut down. Mind you, I suspect my thread would have been shut down if I had been complaining about my friend being an atheist, since that WOULD be a total fratching topic.


*In this case, it was during the climax of the movie when a ricochet kills a zombie and one of the viewers commented "Thank you Jesus"

[HYHYBT]

---Quote (Originally by HYHYBT)---
I don't know how that could be put into rule form,
---End Quote---

Bingo!

Rapscallion

So why try? Why must there *be* an explicit rule trying to head off any potential problem, rather than saying "this has gone far enough" if and when it actually does so?

More to Ree's longish post than replying to yours, but why have the rules extended as far as they have in trying to spell out every little thing, when there's always going to be a point where "it's my site and my call to make" comes in?

I'm really not trying to be nasty or overly argumentative here: just trying to understand this better while the topic's still active. "If I say something that can be taken two ways, and one of those ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one." Actually, if that were more universally applied...

And I've realized something else: a good part of why this has been eating at me the last however many days was that usually-unbelievably-patient Ree never answered my PM asking about my post's removal. Upon realizing this, I looked again, and saw a very obvious reason for this: I didn't actually ASK! So my sincerest apologies for the background anger and confusion I've been holding towards you, and especially the part of it that's shown in these threads.

[Ree]

More to Ree's longish post than replying to yours, but why have the rules extended as far as they have in trying to spell out every little thing, when there's always going to be a point where "it's my site and my call to make" comes in?

Possibly because it's less grief in the long run to just go ahead and spell it out rather than spend hours going back and forth in PM's or having to respond to posts over here complaining because a policy wasn't spelled out clearly enough when a member has been called on something.

The "FTSTS" policy is a prime example.

Why must there *be* an explicit rule trying to head off any potential problem, rather than saying "this has gone far enough" if and when it actually does so?

You, yourself have questioned that one repeatedly because you did not understand why your post was removed.

We very clearly stated that we instituted that policy for a reason, and the mods are free to interpret that policy as we see fit. It is not an addition to the rules. It is only a notice in the "Site News" that we are asking people not to "FTSTS" anymore.
We did not give clear examples of what could potentially constitute "FTSTS" comments, but the policy has been in place for quite a while now, and we have acted on it numerous times without a lot of fuss and fanfare.

Suddenly, over the course of the past month or so, it was acted on in at least 3 threads.
All 3 of these members have now posted in the past few days over here, questioning the "FTSTS" policy, and claiming their comments did not fall into that range, and the mod was wrong.

I do wish that if CS is going to hold such posts to standards as to how far we have to pad the question "How is this sucky?" for it to be polite enough, we should have criteria.

Again...someone asking to have it spelled out because they did not agree with the mod interpretation of the policy.

Mods responded with what I would say was an "it's my site and my call to make" type answer, and yet, we are still having to answer to it 4 pages and 37 posts in.

[Hobbs]

OK then.
Obviously, I was not being snarky, since I used both this smiley and this smiley as well as this smiley in an attempt to underscore that I was joking.

...

The fact that you didn't grasp the joke and then accused me of being snarky could have pissed me off, but it didn't.
I once again, apparently unwisely, chose to come off as lighthearted in an attempt to show you how off base you were with that assumption.

I understand that you were joking. However, after the second time I asked, I thought it would be apparent I was asking for a more serious explanation. I actually percieve the "rolleyes" as a condescending gesture; as it is often a sign of disrespect.

The fact is, your original claim that you were banned based on only one post and one situation was absolutely ludicrous.
The mods do not ban lightly, and not without a great deal of discussion, both among the team and with the member.

If you were banned, it was because of more than one single problematic case of failing to see the suck by questioning another member, and I think you already know that.

The fact is that that is exactly what happened. I had been behaving, had no threat of even being infracted when I suddenly found myself bombarded by character attacks on Jester's thread. Then I was banned. I would like to know, were any of those members warned for their conduct after my ban? If not, I continue to hold my judgment of what happened.

Mods responded with what I would say was an "it's my site and my call to make" type answer, and yet, we are still having to answer to it 4 pages and 37 posts in.

I think it is exactly that type of attitude that gives people pause. There's no validity to the ruling except a Mod saying, "I said so!"

I think, regardless of ownership, those in power should be answerable to those they govern.

[Plaidman]

This place reminds me of Salamandastron Dance Hall.

Not that anyone here would know of that messageboard, it has been damn near 14 years since it was really active, and was on the old style messageboard of InsideTheWeb.


I was a member there. A famous one. It was a roleplaying board for Redwall.

People come and go. Just how it is.

Alot of people pine for the old days, back when we could post whatever we want, because everyone could keep it within reason, and not attack the other person.

Yeah, we've had some members that gleefully mentioned how horrible they gave service to someone because they thought they looked at them wrong, (When unknown to them, that poor customer was trying to hold in his fart, and mentally thinking please hurry so I may fart in peace), and yeah, it would be fine to call on them then. Most of them are gone, or at least gone to the way of lurking.

But we have new people coming every day. The old guard and people wish it was back in the day, because these new people while awesome, are just not the same. They have different views on life, on job service, on everything. Some are far more aggressive and far more of a bully that they have to over analyze every single detail a person did that they think they did wrong, but people are people. Not all people can write as awesome stories as others like Jester, or GK where you just feel the people stupid and pain they give out, thus the FTSTS. Other people may never have exerepenced the flash of anger that erupts. People have feelings, and sometimes it does just take minor detail to make a person snap at a customer. They may feel bad enough as it is. They may still write about while still fuming, and then they get attacked even more? They may know they were wrong but tehy WERE speaking in anger. It happens. People do stupid things when they are angry.

And some customers are just that insane. More then a few times I've had a person just flew over my counter to strangle me, or slash at me with a knife because I asked for their ID, or that I said no beer because they were ether drunk, had no ID, and the biggest one, that it was past legal hours. No amount of kindness can subdul a person like that. You could roll the carpet for them, pick of their check, have the most perfect models of their dream person(s) wiping their butt with the softest gold tissues while they are personally being carried around the store, and if you say sorry, you cannot buy this one thing due to X reasons, they would STILL ASSULT you because they are just freaking nuts and needing that beer.

Not all people may agree with the restrictings, but they can all be narrowed down to one simple golden rule.

Listen to your fellow posters, and respect their stories.

If ya don't like them, don't post a reply. We're all here to have a release and make friends.

[Ree]

but why have the rules extended as far as they have in trying to spell out every little thing, when there's always going to be a point where "it's my site and my call to make" comes in?

I think it is exactly that type of attitude that gives people pause. There's no validity to the ruling except a Mod saying, "I said so!"

I think, regardless of ownership, those in power should be answerable to those they govern.

And this is exactly why we have these kinds of issues.

On one hand, we have a member saying we need to stop spelling it out and just say, "That's the way it is", and on the other hand, we are being chastised for not spelling it out and saying, "That's the way it is."

"You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
*And, yes, I know this is actually a very famous misquote of something Abraham Lincoln said, but I like the misquote better in this case.

[Hobbs]

So does that leave no recourse if a member feels that they were infracted/warned without reason?

[Ree]

So does that leave no recourse if a member feels that they were infracted/warned without reason?

OMG...do we have to spell it out yet again?

2. Disputes against staff
This forum operates with a clear chain of command, and it shall be used for any member disputes against the board staff. Challenging a Customers Suck! moderator or administrator on the public forum is regarded as the poorest of personal and professional courtesy, and will not be tolerated. If you feel that a mod or admin has treated you unfairly or is behaving in an inappropriate manner, contact Rapscallion and discuss it with him.

Send a PM to Raps if you feel that way, but it's his site, so he can do as he pleases when it comes down to it.

Besides, why do you care? You were banned. It's irrelevant to you how the the place is run.

If you want your remaining portion of your membership fees reimbursed, send a self-addressed stamped envelope off to Rapscallion, and he will drop them in the post to you.

[Plaidman]

If you want your remaining portion of your membership fees reimbursed, send a self-addressed stamped envelope off to Rapscallion, and he will drop them in the post to you.

Does that mean that Raps would have to print every post that he did, delete it from site, then send said copies of posts to him? Is that how it works ?