|
|
|
Knight
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:18 PM
Posts: 87,
Visits: 834
|
|
| Ok, I'm not speaking for the silent majority or anything here, I'm just kicking around a few ideas and everything is very much just my opinion. I'll also point out that this is the waiting room so hopefully we will keep it clean and above the belt. I'll also mention the fact that these are Stu and James' boards and what they say goes and whatever people say here wont neccessaraly change anything. This will take for ever if I write it properly, so lets just tabloid it up. I think that on the whole people stay within the terms and conditions of rule 7. There are people who, while residing within the bounds of the law manage to create an undesirable atmosphere on the boards. I suggest that the boards institute a visible, democratic form of ASBO/lynching. If there was someone on the boards whos presence you felt is disruptive on the boards, you should start a thread suggesting that they be served with a Rule7 ASBO. If a (previously set) number of people publicly agreed with you opinion, less any who publically or privatly disagree (PMs to Mods) then that member should be punished, chastised worshipped in some way maybe banned for a week. It's a fairly simple system, it is probably hidiously open to abuse, and who doesn't like the stocks? I'm unsure if this would be terrribly divisive or not. But hey, what do you guys think? I am totally prepared to be convinced of the total wrongheadedness of this idea, so don't be surprised if I give way like a butter suspension bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Game Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
Posts: 426,
Visits: 1,926
|
|
Richard Brooks (8/16/2007)
these are Stu and James' boards snigger
RL: Stuart Maher
PD: Stuart Maher in a frock coat
LT: Stuart maher in orange hi-vis
Omega: Stuart Maher in a rat mask
BUTT: Stuart Maher in various crap costumes
EOS: Stuart Maher writing plot EOS - Book now, thank me later. I was going to copyright my posts... but then remembered this is an LRP forum!
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:18 PM
Posts: 87,
Visits: 834
|
|
| Oh dear. I must apologise. Allen. Allen and James. Not Stu. Whata mistaka to make
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:27 AM
Posts: 1,176,
Visits: 9,586
|
|
Right ASBO him....
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:41 PM
Posts: 1,980,
Visits: 8,368
|
|
Richard Brooks (8/16/2007)
I suggest that the boards institute a visible, democratic form of ASBO/lynching.
There's a term for this - particularly if you're pushing the democratic angle - it's called an 'ostracism': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
Richard Brooks (8/16/2007)
It's a fairly simple system, it is probably hidiously open to abuse
What would you consider to be an abuse in the context of this system?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:18 PM
Posts: 87,
Visits: 834
|
|
| Ostracism is the perfect word. Thank you Marios. Abuse only comes is you consider there to be a line between just being unpopular and being thought of as disruptive. The only other abuse could come from puppet accounts, and other jiggery pokery.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:39 PM
Posts: 1,141,
Visits: 3,626
|
|
| I think the problem here lies with the definition of what constitutes an ostracisable crime. If it is purely based on popular vote then you leave the way open for all sorts of problems in the form of people being victimised unfairly or getting off scot free because they have mates who back them up. It basically comes down to mob rule. Under the current system, the mods can suggest to someone that they may be skirting close to a rule violation or that they should tone down their comments. If this is not followed they can take further action which can include a ban - either temp or perm. Do you see that there is a problem with this system? If so, what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God... Ruins of Empire 1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:41 PM
Posts: 1,980,
Visits: 8,368
|
|
balor (8/17/2007)
I think the problem here lies with the definition of what constitutes an ostracisable crime. If it is purely based on popular vote then you leave the way open for all sorts of problems in the form of people being victimised unfairly or getting off scot free because they have mates who back them up. It basically comes down to mob rule.
But that is by definition was an ostracism means and that seems to be exactly what's being proposed. You don't have to support the proposal, but I don't think you can criticise it on lack of clarity.
balor (8/17/2007)
Under the current system, the mods can suggest to someone that they may be skirting close to a rule violation or that they should tone down their comments. If this is not followed they can take further action which can include a ban - either temp or perm. Do you see that there is a problem with this system? If so, what?
The whole point of an ostracism is that it's nothing to do with the rules/written law - it's an opportunity for a community to exclude (for ten years in the greek system) someone from their midst. There's no need to rationalise it with dodgy supralegal 'unwritten spirit of the law'.
Richard Brooks (8/16/2007)
There are people who, while residing within the bounds of the law manage to create an undesirable atmosphere on the boards.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:38 PM
Posts: 1,539,
Visits: 4,049
|
|
| Interesting idea. Under the current software I can restrict the access of any user from any one particular forum should it be required. The current method of complaint is to contact an admin or moderator who will look into that complaint all such complaints are handled in confidence. However, the amount of bad feeling curretly being alluded to on the forums in relation to any particular users is not borne out by the number of complaints. A great many people say they have a problem but then don't make a complaint therefore the administrators seem to be expected to act for them without a clear idea of what they feel is the issue. This then means we have to go back to the terms and conditions of posting. Most of the time users flout the posting guidace | | | |