54 votes (79.41%)
14 votes (20.58%)

68 members have voted

Joined: Oct 8, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 207
July 16th, 2012 at 3:21:35 PM permalink
I voted abolish it, but I don't have a very strong preference either way.

If the intent of the rule was just to keep it a friendly community, I think there would be other ways of doing this. I think it is reasonable to ban someone or at least warn them if 10 people complain about someone over and over again.

I have to assume there were quite a few complaints against Jerry. If you got rid of the rule, do you think those complaints never would have happened?
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
July 16th, 2012 at 3:25:02 PM permalink
I vote to absolutely keep it. This place is one of only two that I frequent that are civil, I'd hate to possibly lose that.

I think the current policy is just about perfect. Occasionally, some junk slips through, and sometimes people get knicked for somewhat minor infractions, but the sum of it all is a nice environment. Keep it.

I've been the target of jabs, ranging from friendly to down right vicious. In all cases, my very next reply was such that it ended right there. No need to play into it and make it bigger than it was. For what it's worth, my first reaction to Nareed's comment was "Oh, you jerk", although with a smile and a wink. SOOPOO beat me to it, and neither my nor his comments were anything that I took as purposely offensive, more like ribbing with friends. No need to adjust things because SOOPOO forgot an emoticon.

Take away the rule, and I picture Frank Costanza and Festivus' airing of grievances - "I got a lot of problems with you people, and now you're going to hear them!" ;)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 8716
July 16th, 2012 at 4:22:32 PM permalink
Quote: Face

For what it's worth, my first reaction to Nareed's comment was "Oh, you jerk", although with a smile and a wink. SOOPOO beat me to it, and neither my nor his comments were anything that I took as purposely offensive, more like ribbing with friends.

Suspend Face!

(just kidding)
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
July 16th, 2012 at 4:28:24 PM permalink
I voted to keep it, and I think the Wizard's judgement, when required, is usually reasonable and just. In the recent SOOPOO/Nareed situation, I think it was obvious enough that it was a good-natured jab that I agree it didn't warrant a suspension, or even a warning really. But that's my opinion, in general I agree the Wiz has a good perspective on borderline incidents.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
Joined: Jun 16, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 73
July 16th, 2012 at 4:57:03 PM permalink
I voted to keep the rule. I do believe in no personal insults but if one has an opinion that is controversial is that a problem? I don't see why it should be. I see debate as an interesting form of entertainment. I welcome debate as I may learn from it. I also welcome a direct come back to me (my post) if I say something that is misunderstood because it is in part incomplete and I may have a rejoinder I would like to make on a "challenge". This is how we learn to appreciate different opinions and also learn how to handle them and change our minds possibly.

I am learning that this is a closer "community" than i thought when I first joined. I know I "blew it " on a post shortly after I joined.

I believe one of my posts was not liked and if I offended anyone I am truly sorry (I wish I could now take a few words out of that post seeing how "tight" this community really is). I wish no one grief here or anywhere else for that matter. I am not a "wise guy". I grew up in the city and worked in a major City for many years. To much of the "bad side" rubbed off on me and at times surfaces if I put my guard down- and I did.

I think I could say more but I just want to apologize if I have been controversial in a messy way.

I open myself up to "voluntary expulsion from this community" if I have been a topic of conversation for the Wizard with others. He can email me privately and I will leave and take out my posts if it is possible ----although I hope that does not happen. But let the chips fall as they may I don't want my "faults" to drive anyone away from his business venture.

Peace to all.


I hope I am totally mistaken??? Really not sure??
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
July 16th, 2012 at 5:39:56 PM permalink
I voted to keep the rule. It helps keep this forum civil in the face of some that do not care to be so.

I also realize it is a pain in the behind for the moderators and I appreciate that someone may get banned for a bit without actually meaning anything very insulting at all. It's okay--most of us have other things we can do during an enforced vacation from the site!! The ones that don't...well...

There is a huge difference in my mind between

"___________ is being a dork"


"You are the biggest flippin' idiot in the world, you dork-faced jackwad"

I am confident that the Wizard, in his role as keeper of the kingdom, can easily recognize that...you have been consistent and fair from what I have seen.

Ban me and I'll get really peeved...

Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
July 16th, 2012 at 5:45:11 PM permalink

My 'dork' comment about Nareed was made after he subtly made fun of another poster for not knowing what the chemical structure of water was.

Just for the record, I am not the insulted party. I thought Nareed's subtle jabbing was funny.
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
July 16th, 2012 at 5:58:04 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

It's like sexual harassment, the recipient gets to define the boundaries.

Which also presents a large set of problems....

Wizard, if I ran a forum, I would just have the rule "Don't be an idiot. If you do something I don't like, you are gone. Welcome to BigFoot66's forum, I get to decide.".
Vote for Nobody 2020!
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
July 16th, 2012 at 6:21:03 PM permalink
I find it a bit demeaning to the forum members that you feel necessary to have a rule like this. We are not children, and any civilized adult should be expected to possess suffiecient understanding of the common courtesy and accepted social norms to render such a rule entirely unnecessary. And for those who are not civilized, there is always the "nuclear option". Even when there is a rule, you will have to decide on a case by case basis whether or not a particular post constitutes "a personal insult". You could as easily just do away with the rule and simply use your common sense. I think, it would also significantly reduce the amount of drama going on around those suspensions. "X is suspended for violating rule #1" opens the door for a huge discussion of whether there was actually a violation, or whether Y has done much worse yesterday and got away with it. Whereas, "I decide to suspend X using my discretion" is much simpler, and there is nothing to discuss.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 5
July 16th, 2012 at 8:16:54 PM permalink
Thanks for asking us, Wizard. It's nice to know that you care enough to ask and that you are trying to preserve appropriate and perhaps even friendly communications.

In-person spoken communication is difficult enough in terms of the high likelihood of one speaker misperceiving the other, but when you start getting into telephone calls, and then e-mails, and then posts, and then texts, the possibility to misinterpret is endless - especially for those who tend toward the insecure side. (I am one of those people. In the past, what I have done when I have felt insulted online is to speak up appropriately and say so. Right or wrong, I have communicated my 'truth.' What happens after that is out of my hands. I can also e-mail the moderator.)

In my view, there are 3 problematic scenarios.

Situation #1: author did not intend to be hurtful but the 'victim' felt hurt.

Situation #2: author did intend to be hurtful and the 'victim' felt hurt.

Situation #3: author did intend to be hurtful but the 'victim' did not feel hurt.

In Situation #1, the author did not intend to be hurtful, but the 'victim' still felt hurt. This is the most difficult situation, in my opinion, to handle. First of all, how do we indeed measure the truthfulness of the person claiming that their words were not intended to be malicious. It seems to me that keeping track, over the long run, of complaints against certain posters may be helpful - kind of like how "E-Bay" keeps statistics on the percentages of people have been satisfied with a seller's business practices over the long haul. Then, perhaps when you reach a certain #, such as 10 complaints within one year, you can take action such as issuing a warning of some sort. The motivation of the author is largely irrelevant. If I physically step on someone's foot, my obligation to apologize is not contingent upon whether or not I meant to step on their foot. If I accidentally stepped on their foot, I should still apologize.

Situation #2 seems pretty 'cut and dry.' Hurtful behavior does not need to be tolerated - it is negative and breeds other negative behaviors.

Finally, there is Situation #3, when the intent was malicious but the 'victim' did not perceive it as malicious. Again, hurtful behavior should not be tolerated, even if the 'victim' states that he/she was not offended. If I purposefully step on someone's foot, my responsibility to apologize is not contingent upon whether or not she/he thought it was offensive. I still need to 'right the wrong.' What if a bank robber robs a bank and then the bank owners say, "Oh, let's not press charges against the bank robber." The bank robber is no less guilty, and, by the way, the likelihood of the bank robber re-offending is probably higher if she/he is not held accountable.

Wizard, I appreciate all your contributions. In your post you seem to be saying that you are getting frustrated because you are spending too much time and/or energy moderating. One suggestion is to 'hire' 'volunteer' readers of your site who seems to be very level-headed and reasonable, long-term visitors to your site. These volunteers could moderate for you. Yes, they will make mistakes in both their issuing of warnings and when they occasionally ban someone from your site. But no system is perfect. Just take a look at our justice system: run by flawed people who sometimes make mistakes but who, by and large, hopefully want to do the right thing.

  • Jump to: