xxx The Political Forum Three Strikes Rule xxx - Page 3

VinVega · 09-05-06, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grundle

How many strikes do I have so far?

How many times have you been politically exiled?

VinVega · 09-05-06, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

Also, if I'm offending people, I need to know that--other than from the mods. I don't like people notifying mods of every single damn post I make, and then I hear about it from the back-end. I'd appreciate either the mods being more elaborate in their reasons for citing me for political misconduct (seems like a redundant term but anyway) and mentioning who exactly doesn't like my posting (because it would explain a lot) and they should be discussing the matter with my directly.

The problem with the "you've offended me" post within a thread is that the dialog will go as follows:

Poster1: "Well I think blah blah blah..."
Poster2: "That's incredibly offensive."
Poster1: "Suck it. If you don't like it, stay out of this thread!

"

By keeping things anonymous with the "Report this post to the mods" function, it keeps the thread from getting overly heated and possibly getting locked and it allows the mods to take a closer look at the thread and the comments within.

VinVega · 09-05-06, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds

I once ate a really big pizza all by myself. Does that count?

YES! One strike for Vandelay.

Tracer Bullet · 09-05-06, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

You can have one of mine. Actually, two if you're interested.

I think mosquitobite said a few things which need to be applied more. For example, she mentions if newbie political arguees come into the forum, they should be a little more tough-skinned. I agree with that. She also mentions that political discourse gets heated sometimes. Of course it does.

Also, if I'm offending people, I need to know that--other than from the mods. I don't like people notifying mods of every single damn post I make, and then I hear about it from the back-end. I'd appreciate either the mods being more elaborate in their reasons for citing me for political misconduct (seems like a redundant term but anyway) and mentioning who exactly doesn't like my posting (because it would explain a lot) and they should be discussing the matter with my directly.

For the record, I've complained about no one. If I get out-witted in a post or lose an argument outright, I leave. But I think others would rather "report" a post and get back at a person that way, than confronting the person directly with better pros. The more reporting that goes on, the more the person lacks pros and arguing skills. IMO. All you'll have left in the politics forum, is a bunch of tattle tales.

And I think the 3 strikes rule is awkward for veteran posters, because I post in here A LOT. And so do a few others. We should have something like a monthly strike thing and your banned for a month. But not permanently. Because this isn't like Other where you rarely confront people. In here, it's all the time.

To me, this sounds like, "I've been getting in trouble a lot. Can we change the rules so I don't get banned?"

Have you even ever been Politically Exiled? I don't remember you being given that honor, but I could have missed it.

grundle · 09-05-06, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinVega

How many times have you been politically exiled?

None that I am aware of.

VinVega · 09-05-06, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grundle

None that I am aware of.

There you go. No strikes for you.

NCMojo · 09-05-06, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinVega

NO STRIKES FOR YOU.

VinVega · 09-05-06, 04:13 PM

That VinVega, he really is a Soup Nazi.

dtcarson · 09-05-06, 04:20 PM

While certainly newbies should be somewhat tough skinned to start with, there's a fine line between being toughskinned, taking abuse, and perceiving people bitchslapping each other--and the newbie--and leaving, either the subforum or the forum as a whole. I don't think people need to tiptoe around so as to avoid hurting their feelings, but there's no sense scaring them away, either [unless we don't want new members?]. That's my thinking on the 'let legacy members get away with more', as well-there's 'personal styles' then there's 'inside jokes/references', and if people rely too much on the latter, it becomes a closed club to newbies, or even semi-lurkers [I'll admit, though I can tell with some posters, I miss some as well, and I'm not a newbie]. Again, if that's what's desired, a closed-club, fine, but one thing that has appealed to me about DVDtalk since the beginning is an open-arms type policy [obvious exceptions notwithstanding, such as when the new members are spammers or trolls].

We've seen examples of what Vin says, and the tone of this thread, even, approaches that ["if the newbies can't handle it, they shouldn't be reading Poli".] I also support keeping it anonymous--just because someone reports a post, doesn't mean the poster is automatically sanctioned [I wouldn't think]. And the lack of anonymity would either cause posts that do deserve sanctioning, to go unreported, or there might be some retribution on the report-er.

I think lots of people do debate/discuss, either until they have nothing more to say that's relevant, or until the discussion just naturally winds down. But some keep it going by randomly tossing a 'flame' back on the fire, and do not respond in kind to a well-thought out response. I'd rather that person submit an anonymous, off-thread "Report" than waste his time and mine with "Yeah, well you suck too" type posts. Do the mods keep track of who reports, in addition to who is reported? Maybe there is, or should be, a 'cry wolf' sanction, where if the same person reports X posts in a row, falsely, *he* gets the boot [no offense to any of X's posts].

Political debates can--and should--get 'heated'. That's not a bad thing, that can mean people care passionately about the topic. But they don't have to devolve into arguments, insults, and mass negative stereotypes. Not to be a flowers-and-bunnies type person, but I think almost every post in a Poli thread should add something positive to that thread--not 'positive' in outlook, but positive in that its presence adds something that wasn't there before, either new facts, new logic, or a new way of looking at the topic. "You're just saying that because you're one of those *blanks*", for example, would not meet that criteria.

grundle · 09-05-06, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinVega

There you go. No strikes for you.

Thanks for answering!

VinVega · 09-05-06, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtcarson

Do the mods keep track of who reports, in addition to who is reported? Maybe there is, or should be, a 'cry wolf' sanction, where if the same person reports X posts in a row, falsely, *he* gets the boot [no offense to any of X's posts].

We don't keep a statistical report on who uses the "Report to" function and who doesn't and how many times they do it. Just from watching the emails flow in, you notice some people use the function more than others and that's fine. There's no cry wolf policy, but moderating is not an exact science (yeah yeah, that's my line and I'm sticking with it

), so we can't guarantee that we'll agree with your call on a "report to" click. I will guarantee that we will look at the post and thread in question and judge whether action should be taken or not.

dick_grayson · 12-01-07, 05:55 PM

is this 'rule' still in effect? I noticed a recent banning which appeared uncalled for, aside from the fact that I thought the poster was spot on. Perhaps I missed something.

X · 12-01-07, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dick_grayson

is this 'rule' still in effect? I noticed a recent banning which appeared uncalled for, aside from the fact that I thought the poster was spot on. Perhaps I missed something.

You may have missed the half dozen times he's been banned before over the years. We did too for a while.

TimJS · 12-01-07, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dick_grayson

is this 'rule' still in effect? I noticed a recent banning which appeared uncalled for, aside from the fact that I thought the poster was spot on. Perhaps I missed something.

I must've missed it too, wonder what the specific thing he did was wrong? I'd hate to do the same thing!

I've never had even a warning, but don't want to do anything wrong!!

X · 12-01-07, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimJS

I must've missed it too, wonder what the specific thing he did was wrong?

Returning after being banned is a specific thing that is wrong and just gets you banned again.

09-05-06, 04:13 PM	#58
VinVega Moderator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Stuck in the middle with you Posts: 21,085	That VinVega, he really is a Soup Nazi. __________________ History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity. - Cicero

09-05-06, 04:20 PM	#59
dtcarson DVD Talk Limited Edition Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Triangle, NC, USA Posts: 7,310	While certainly newbies should be somewhat tough skinned to start with, there's a fine line between being toughskinned, taking abuse, and perceiving people bitchslapping each other--and the newbie--and leaving, either the subforum or the forum as a whole. I don't think people need to tiptoe around so as to avoid hurting their feelings, but there's no sense scaring them away, either [unless we don't want new members?]. That's my thinking on the 'let legacy members get away with more', as well-there's 'personal styles' then there's 'inside jokes/references', and if people rely too much on the latter, it becomes a closed club to newbies, or even semi-lurkers [I'll admit, though I can tell with some posters, I miss some as well, and I'm not a newbie]. Again, if that's what's desired, a closed-club, fine, but one thing that has appealed to me about DVDtalk since the beginning is an open-arms type policy [obvious exceptions notwithstanding, such as when the new members are spammers or trolls]. We've seen examples of what Vin says, and the tone of this thread, even, approaches that ["if the newbies can't handle it, they shouldn't be reading Poli".] I also support keeping it anonymous--just because someone reports a post, doesn't mean the poster is automatically sanctioned [I wouldn't think]. And the lack of anonymity would either cause posts that do deserve sanctioning, to go unreported, or there might be some retribution on the report-er. I think lots of people do debate/discuss, either until they have nothing more to say that's relevant, or until the discussion just naturally winds down. But some keep it going by randomly tossing a 'flame' back on the fire, and do not respond in kind to a well-thought out response. I'd rather that person submit an anonymous, off-thread "Report" than waste his time and mine with "Yeah, well you suck too" type posts. Do the mods keep track of who reports, in addition to who is reported? Maybe there is, or should be, a 'cry wolf' sanction, where if the same person reports X posts in a row, falsely, he gets the boot [no offense to any of X's posts]. Political debates can--and should--get 'heated'. That's not a bad thing, that can mean people care passionately about the topic. But they don't have to devolve into arguments, insults, and mass negative stereotypes. Not to be a flowers-and-bunnies type person, but I think almost every post in a Poli thread should add something positive to that thread--not 'positive' in outlook, but positive in that its presence adds something that wasn't there before, either new facts, new logic, or a new way of looking at the topic. "You're just saying that because you're one of those blanks", for example, would not meet that criteria. __________________ Books I've read this year Books I've read last year Books I've read 2007 My dvds 360 Gamertag: dtcarson I don't blog, but my 360 does. Last edited by dtcarson; 09-05-06 at 04:28 PM.

12-01-07, 05:55 PM	#62
dick_grayson DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Lyon Estates Posts: 10,491	is this 'rule' still in effect? I noticed a recent banning which appeared uncalled for, aside from the fact that I thought the poster was spot on. Perhaps I missed something.