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: 15017
February 16th, 2014 at 1:56:34 PM permalink
In retrospect, I might have said, "Limited ad hominem," but then I'm back to things being subjective. Certainly, "No ad hominem," would be ideal for the presentation of the Forum, but would be a major stumbling block for anyone uneducated in formal argument.

I am for a Rule of, "No personal insults whatsoever," though.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 228
  • Posts: 12528
February 16th, 2014 at 2:00:03 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I'm not questioning the store's right to do so, I'm saying that I don't know that every store necessarily would do so without giving the person a warning first. Here's another example, what if it is a restaurant, but it's your absolute best customer who rents out the entire establishment two days a week such that you would profit just with him but lose money without him.



Clearly it would depend on the store and manager on duty at the time. In my first job I saw a guy cut off a woman at the checkout and called her an "old bag" with the manager right there. The manager seemed to figure it was best just to get the guy out the door as peacefully as he could.

In your example would likewise be a manager's call. Of course unless the store could profit with *only his business* they *should* boot him because he will eventually drive the rest of the trade away and they will lose money anyways.

"Bar Rescue" has had a few episodes like this. Bar gets afraid to drive off the immature power-drinkers because they are the regulars driving the business. But because they are such jagoffs new customers may come once but never return. Catch-22.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
February 16th, 2014 at 2:09:18 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I am for a Rule of, "No personal insults whatsoever," though.



I voted for "no ad hominem at all", but this ("no personal insults") is what I assumed was meant by that.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 173
  • Posts: 10367
February 16th, 2014 at 2:09:55 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

In retrospect, I might have said, "Limited ad hominem," but then I'm back to things being subjective. Certainly, "No ad hominem," would be ideal for the presentation of the Forum, but would be a major stumbling block for anyone uneducated in formal argument.

I am for a Rule of, "No personal insults whatsoever," though.



Thought I was done, but guess not.

Is it possible to let each starter of a new thread set the degree of civility on the first post. Someone who wants no personal attacks at all in the thread can set the High civility and it is indicated on the first post. Whereas if a thread has no indicator, it's as it is now.
Everything is in high definition today except Bigfoot and UFOs
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
February 16th, 2014 at 2:12:33 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

It is our goal to keep the forum a friendly place to have intelligent discussion primarily about things related to gambling.


(emphasis mine)

Now, this is a rule that I would like to see.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15017
February 16th, 2014 at 2:25:51 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine



Is it possible to let each starter of a new thread set the degree of civility on the first post. Someone who wants no personal attacks at all in the thread can set the High civility and it is indicated on the first post. Whereas if a thread has no indicator, it's as it is now.



Inefficient, I'd have to re-read the OP of every single thread just to Administrate it, lest I forget what the Rules for that thread are.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Transcend
Transcend
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 363
February 16th, 2014 at 2:31:03 PM permalink
I think the rules are just fine as they are, the world will always have extremist. You can't try to please just the minority while forgetting about the majority.

Granted I understand all too well what kind of strain this puts on a moderator, which by the way, this forum is by far one of the best moderated I have ever been on. I believe if anything, not a change of rules is necessary, but another moderator added. There is a very large number of posters here and very few moderators, you cannot expect to have nothing fall through the cracks.

Also this is the internet, yes it would be ideal to keep this board professional, but if you cannot handle what someone may say about you on the internet, you may not belong on the internet. Allowing someone with no bearing on your life to cause you emotional distress is a sign of a much greater psychological problem that may need professional help and a break from the internet might be beneficial to those people.
Part of it went on gambling, and part of it went on women. The rest I spent foolishly. -George Raft
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 173
  • Posts: 10367
February 16th, 2014 at 2:36:07 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Inefficient, I'd have to re-read the OP of every single thread just to Administrate it, lest I forget what the Rules for that thread are.



Hmm. How about in the title of the thread. For instance:

(HC) About craps at Bozo's casino < -----(HC) being the indicator.

vs

About craps at Bozo's casino.
Everything is in high definition today except Bigfoot and UFOs
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15017
February 16th, 2014 at 2:42:35 PM permalink
Quote: Transcend



Granted I understand all too well what kind of strain this puts on a moderator, which by the way, this forum is by far one of the best moderated I have ever been on. I believe if anything, not a change of rules is necessary, but another moderator added. There is a very large number of posters here and very few moderators, you cannot expect to have nothing fall through the cracks.



Thanks for the compliment to Administration, as a whole!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 181
  • Posts: 3833
February 16th, 2014 at 2:55:30 PM permalink
If you think about it, stricter and stricter rules is how we wind up with "three strikes" laws and grade school kids getting expelled for drawing pictures of guns. Rules are written to try to remove gray areas, when in reality the world is all gray and rules try to discern degrees of black and white.

Leave the rules where they are and allow some discernment. I suggest removing the Martingale as a hard rule for offenses, it doesn't allow any flexibility and it is already applied situationally anyhow. Allow the moderator to decide the severity, ranging from an edit and PM warning to nuke, depending. No sense banning a drunkpost, no sense giving a troublemaker a second chance.
NO KILL I

  • Jump to: