Poll

33 votes (40.74%)
21 votes (25.92%)
10 votes (12.34%)
9 votes (11.11%)
8 votes (9.87%)

81 members have voted

Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15036
February 16th, 2014 at 10:03:46 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

The rules were fine as they were. The moderators are just a bit sensitive sometimes.



How could you say that!?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 228
  • Posts: 12537
February 16th, 2014 at 10:13:15 AM permalink
I think the best thing to do is realize that a private forum is not subject to needing everything quantified. Maybe instead of/in addition to S&W policy the admins could take the famous Supremes definition of pornography being "I know it when I see it." No need to over-codify things.

Think of it as a "Gentlemen's Club" where men (just for the example, I know there are women here) might come to socialize. A new member comes in and is loud in the bar area, uses foul language, and does not put away his towels in the sauna (yes, it is a really nice club!) So instead of booting him an elder takes him aside and says, "hey, son, let me explain how we behave around here." When the kid says, "I don't see that in the rulebook!" the old guy says again, "we don't have a rule for everything, there are some things gentlemen don't do because they are things gentlemen don't do, get it?"

I for one prefer "soft rules" to a rule for every last thing.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
tilt247
tilt247
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 37
February 16th, 2014 at 10:16:17 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I agree with the reasoning behind your general position, but enforcement pursuant to same is nearly impossible as it would require banning/Suspending based on a collective body of work rather than an individual post. It is simply more manageable to ban or not ban based on individual posts, otherwise, Administration would have to keep an actual attempt at quantitative (though, subjective) data in deciding to ban or not ban someone at any given time.

Please don't misunderstand, we do look at collective body of work in some cases, but that's mainly to decide whether or not to permanently ban an individual.





I completely understand. Moderating must be fun!!!
Wait, it's a long term advantage?
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15036
February 16th, 2014 at 10:25:15 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I think the best thing to do is realize that a private forum is not subject to needing everything quantified. Maybe instead of/in addition to S&W policy the admins could take the famous Supremes definition of pornography being "I know it when I see it." No need to over-codify things.

Think of it as a "Gentlemen's Club" where men (just for the example, I know there are women here) might come to socialize. A new member comes in and is loud in the bar area, uses foul language, and does not put away his towels in the sauna (yes, it is a really nice club!) So instead of booting him an elder takes him aside and says, "hey, son, let me explain how we behave around here." When the kid says, "I don't see that in the rulebook!" the old guy says again, "we don't have a rule for everything, there are some things gentlemen don't do because they are things gentlemen don't do, get it?"

I for one prefer "soft rules" to a rule for every last thing.



See, AZDuffman, but you're a Conservative, so of course you would call for less Government.

(I can say that, now, as argument, but could not under the proposed new Rule)

Just for the record: AZDuffman and I are friends outside of this Forum, so I knew I could get away with that.

I really don't want to invoke a Rule of, "I know it when I see it," because that is essentially already the Rule that we invoke with the Statler and Waldorf Standard and it has been shown to work sub-optimally.

In other words, and in the most recent case, I did not know it when I saw it...at least, not according to the majority.

However, I do know that would constitute an insult. Wizard used the word, "Insult," in that thread when describing it, the only question is whether or not it was an insult as permitted by the Rules. I said no, most people said yes, Wizard included, which is what matters most as he is the only person that could actually overrule me...though I have reconsidered positions before based on public perception.

Anyway, I want as little to be subjective and open to interpretation as possible. That is my goal. "These are the Rules, they are not ambiguous, (as S&W undoubtedly is) please follow them and thank you."

I am not seeking to become MORE strict, I'm seeking a lack of ambiguity. As an unintended consequence of this desire for a disambiguated set of Rules comes either the Forum becoming more strict or less strict. You could alternatively reduce the, "No personal insult," Rule to simply be, "No name-calling," and the Forum will be worse for it...but it will still be less ambiguous than the S&W standard.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
chickenman
chickenman
Joined: Nov 1, 2009
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 997
February 16th, 2014 at 10:41:11 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

See, AZDuffman, but you're a Conservative, so of course you would call for less Government.

(I can say that, now, as argument, but could not under the proposed new Rule)


Oh? Could not? Geez, that comment would have to be categorized under "saccharine" if anything is. But if you said, "you write like a conservative" that's OK? I must be wrong on this...

I'd then have to say "no" to the new rule proposal as my opinion if the level of strictness will prohibit even light banter. S&W has been applied unevenly it seems many agree, and to lower the threshold to where truly harmless statements are elevated to personal attacks is unworkable. Yes, I need less government just like AZD...;-)
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 181
  • Posts: 3833
February 16th, 2014 at 10:42:57 AM permalink
I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.
NO KILL I
chickenman
chickenman
Joined: Nov 1, 2009
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 997
February 16th, 2014 at 10:45:21 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.


+10. A point liberally ignored by most in the JJ thread.
POY, so far...
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 20042
February 16th, 2014 at 10:54:17 AM permalink
If the moderators (Mission seems to to a great job,) are taking the time to read most of the posts. For the most part I think things are how they should be. If you tighten up the rules things may become bland, if you let it go things will turn into chaos.

I don't know why, if their is something you feel that is over the line, it can simply be deleted along with some timeout feature that automatically sends a PM to their inbox asking them to cool it or else, have it so they can't post until they have read the email. If someone blatantly goes on a rant spewing intentional hatred that's a different story. A dig here and their should not be excluded from the site IMO.

I have a feeling If you added a special feature that let members Choose and it indicated somehow whether or not they were open to participate Staler and Waldorf type comments between others that have opted in as well, most members would select this option.

People seem to be fine with reading and participating in slightly over the line banter, until it's directed at them.

I know you might know want to hear this, but I have a feeling if not for some of the drama and allowing S&W, some of your biggest contributors would fade away. People come for the gambling information and stay for the drama.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
February 16th, 2014 at 10:55:25 AM permalink
I rather like being insulted. I think "no personal insults" rules, enforced too strictly, create a certain culture of circumlocution that's really no more healthy for discussion than Youtube-style "no ur the retard!" flamewars. Often it's difficult to separate the speaker from the message - certain positions really do have different implications depending on who holds them, and many positions are foul enough to some that it's difficult to express one's view of them without statements that impugn the speaker. What's more, many positions are cherished enough to some that it's difficult to comment on them without it being taken as an insult. I've also noticed that a number of posters come back to the same points again and again, ignoring or mocking counterarguments while failing to address them, and in this case there's really not much other recourse, since no matter how nicely you do it, saying "you're coming at this in bad faith" is basically an insult.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15036
February 16th, 2014 at 10:56:09 AM permalink
Quote: chickenman

Oh? Could not? Geez, that comment would have to be categorized under "saccharine" if anything is. But if you said, "you write like a conservative" that's OK? I must be wrong on this...



The thing about a Rule in which No Ad Hominem attacks are allowed is that if you start a sentence by way of counterargument with the word, "You," then you are probably going to want to closely examine that sentence to make sure that you are not making an ad hom attack.

Under the new Rule, the post I made in response to AZDuffman would undoubtedly be an ad hominem attack, that he is a Conservative or that Conservatives favor a Government that imposes fewer restrictions on the populace (in general) has no logical relevance to the specific argument. AZDuffman could reasonably remain a Conservative while maintaining that the message board should have stricter Rules, if that is the way he felt about it.

For example, to not allow abortion or gay marriage could be construed as a stricter law than an absence of law on the subject, so with respect to those two matters, Conservatives (again, generally speaking) are FOR a more restrictive Government, though they are typically categorized as being AGAINST a more powerful Government. Thus, from a logical standpoint, AZDuffman's political views are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Quote:

I'd then have to say "no" to the new rule proposal as my opinion if the level of strictness will prohibit even light banter. S&W has been applied unevenly it seems many agree, and to lower the threshold to where truly harmless statements are elevated to personal attacks is unworkable. Yes, I need less government just like AZD...;-)



Calling AZDuffman a Conservative is not a personal attack, he's a Conservative by admission. Stating that AZDuffman would prefer a less restrictive rule set BECAUSE he is a Conservative is argument ad hominem, so would violate that aspect of the rule rather than, "No personal insults."

It is also a non sequitur because it does not follow that, because AZDuffman is a Conservative (even if he is one who would prefer a less restrictive Government) that he would want a less restrictive message board for the same reason.

It is also a strawman, because I would be attempting to divert the actual subject of conversation by forcing AZDuffman to defend the legitimacy of his being a Conservative rather than address the original topic.

If I pervasively made this argument against AZDuffman, specifically, it would be trolling & baiting, which are Rule violations.

If pervasive, and in the same thread, it is also Hijacking, as it forces the thread off-topic.

In other words, if I actually intended to use that argument, it would be a garbage argument and therefore a garbage post that we do not need here. I'm not saying it can't be here, because presently, it can, but it is certainly a non-necessity.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219

  • Jump to: