StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well this is something I started to think when the board culture started to go sour and visious, not rules per se (hence the quatation marks), but kind of a semi-official "code" to follow, breach of which wouldn't lead to disiplinary actions (with the descression of the staff ofc), but could be considered as a "black mark" in case of breaking the actual rules (thus preventing the "net nanny" complaint).

1. Be polite if possible. It's free and at times more effective then scraping the bottom of the barrel of what ever vile insults you can get
2. Be harsh should that be needed not vile. Nobody likes personal insults or other such stuff, why should we use them then, by all means call a moron what (s)he is, but leave the personal stuff where it belongs.
3. Be productive when debating. Again nobody likes being insulted and/or bullied, if you got nothing intelligent (or at least productive) to add, then by the Light shut the fuck up.
4. Be patient. There's still people who are honestly ignorant about the VS. debates (or other common subjects here), don't be too quick to roast next newbie for posting something that's been dealt with, (s)he could be ignorant of it being an old subject after all, only when said person displays willfull ignorance should you break out the flames.
5. last but not least. When talking to a moron, make certain (s)he's not doing the same.

comments are ofc welcome

I think personal attacks should never be used and any personal attacks will result in a immediate ban.

Come on, almost everyone hates to see politicans using personal attacks, yet at the same time, members of the public do the same thing as well.

We NEED to enforce tight regulations in regards to personal attacks, and attacks against a person family. We GOT to stop calling people's parents or relatives retards and so on. It is neither conductive, nor could it benefit the board's PR image.

Yes, a fundamentalist relative can have a wrong opinion on things, so we can say simply say that their opinion is wrong as opposed to calling them idiots or retards.

If we are going to ensure people stop insulting and making personal attacks against a homosexual member, or a transexual member of the board, we got to stop making personal attacks against a fundamentalist as well.

Over time, by allowing people to flame a fundamentalist means people can and will develop a mentality where they can act tough on people and make personal attacks on respected board member who disagree with them.

In order to prevent attacks against a person from a minority group, we need to prevent personal attacks against a person who holds a conservative and religious mindset.

ray245 wrote:I think personal attacks should never be used and any personal attacks will result in a immediate ban.

And you could point this out to people that can do something about this, with the many tools available, if it is breaking the rules.

Come on, almost everyone hates to see politicans using personal attacks, yet at the same time, members of the public do the same thing as well.

This has bearing how again?

We NEED to enforce tight regulations in regards to personal attacks, and attacks against a person family. We GOT to stop calling people's parents or relatives retards and so on. It is neither conductive, nor could it benefit the board's PR image.

And you could point this out to people that can do something about this, with the many tools available, if it is breaking the rules.

Yes, a fundamentalist relative can have a wrong opinion on things, so we can say simply say that their opinion is wrong as opposed to calling them idiots or retards.

Having a dumb opinion and mixing up fact and fiction makes them an idiot on that particular issue. Really, that whole mockery escapes you, doesn't it?

If we are going to ensure people stop insulting and making personal attacks against a homosexual member,

Which results in a ban.

or a transexual member of the board,

Which was and is under discussion by the moderators and Mike.

we got to stop making personal attacks against a fundamentalist as well.

I believe again, you have no idea what you are talking of. If I call someone an idiot because they are claiming the sky is green, they are an idiot. There's a world of difference between using a homosexual slur and calling someone a dumbass, cupcake.

Over time, by allowing people to flame a fundamentalist means people can and will develop a mentality where they can act tough on people and make personal attacks on respected board member who disagree with them.

If it disobeys a logical rule or is against board rules, use one of the many tools to report such.

In order to prevent attacks against a person from a minority group, we need to prevent personal attacks against a person who holds a conservative and religious mindset.

Your statement above is gross oxymoron. And you are blantantly appealing to both emotion and golden mean with a dash of very poor black and white.

This has bearing how again?

It feels like double standard to me.

And you could point this out to people that can do something about this, with the many tools available, if it is breaking the rules.

Agreed.

Which results in a ban.

Ok.

Which was and is under discussion by the moderators and Mike.

Why doesn't it result in a immediate ban?

I believe again, you have no idea what you are talking of. If I call someone an idiot because they are claiming the sky is green, they are an idiot. There's a world of difference between using a homosexual slur and calling someone a dumbass, cupcake.

The things is, over time some people may not be able to distinguish the difference between mocking a person with a wrong view and mocking a person for who they are, in this case, a Transexual.

I mean, a person can get used to flaming people and fundamentalist that he can forget the fact that it is against the rules to flame and mock a Transexual. And the problem is even worse if the person doing it is a long time member. A long time member may form a cult of personality around him, hence people may not be able to response in a quick manner.


Perhaps I make more sense now. I hope.

While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.

Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.

Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.". What shouldn't happen, and what people so gloss over is just because a person has a fundamentalist position or positions on subjects, that it colors everything they say. You break each one down if they are wrong or illogical, not just because what you think of a particular facet of them.

Again, this is not the core of the issues as much as people tend to forget these things and gloss over with what they think is happening versus the very thing that does and is happening.

As for Ray's bit. No you didn't clarify anymore then blither your personal wants as some sort of board ruling. Literally you are implying that these very small changes will change the tide of an effect that has been here for a very long time, and has sadly rooted into play. That particular thought is that people are labeling people with extremely broad strokes and using this as to portray all actions. And as I said, that is what is is a poor assumption to make and makes for drama out of molehills.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.

Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.". What shouldn't happen, and what people so gloss over is just because a person has a fundamentalist position or positions on subjects, that it colors everything they say. You break each one down if they are wrong or illogical, not just because what you think of a particular facet of them.

what meant is that you should mock fundamentalist for being fundamentalist but rather for holding views that were outdate in the dark ages (even if only fundamentalists hold those opinions), it's a small and seemingly insignigant difference but a vital one IMHO.

Lord Revan wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.

Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.". What shouldn't happen, and what people so gloss over is just because a person has a fundamentalist position or positions on subjects, that it colors everything they say. You break each one down if they are wrong or illogical, not just because what you think of a particular facet of them.

what meant is that you should mock fundamentalist for being fundamentalist but rather for holding views that were outdate in the dark ages (even if only fundamentalists hold those opinions), it's a small and seemingly insignigant difference but a vital one IMHO.

And it is against a variety of rules the board has, and a great deal of logical fallacies. This is why there is a way of literally telling those in power to ask them when this occurs.

We cannot and have never been able to patrol every inch, and making new rules that are just rewords of old is a tad redundant.

I am getting really sick and tired of "needing to regulate niceness." You know why? Because theres a large set of rules that already cover this. PR4,PR5, PR6, DR3. You don't get to make most personal attacks (mod discretion), you don't get to vendetta a member, etc. What the hell do you guys want? An extra "try to be nice" rule?

Ace Pace wrote:I am getting really sick and tired of "needing to regulate niceness." You know why? Because theres a large set of rules that already cover this. PR4,PR5, PR6, DR3. You don't get to make most personal attacks (mod discretion), you don't get to vendetta a member, etc. What the hell do you guys want? An extra "try to be nice" rule?

I have come down pretty much in favour of the understanding that our current problems are the fact that most of the current mods are absentees, and that nothing is being done about replacing them, let alone increasing the overall numbers of mods, which is necessary for a community this active. People are just talking in circles about this because the only effective change will come from the Administration adding more moderators and replacing the current minimally active ones.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I have come down pretty much in favour of the understanding that our current problems are the fact that most of the current mods are absentees, and that nothing is being done about replacing them, let alone increasing the overall numbers of mods, which is necessary for a community this active. People are just talking in circles about this because the only effective change will come from the Administration adding more moderators and replacing the current minimally active ones.

This has been discussed at various times, and yet we're not seeing action. Fact of the matter is that without vigilant moderation a place this large is going to hold itself toguether about as well as lolbertarian utopias. The effectiveness of good discussion moderation was just recently illustrated in the HoS by Edi here and here. We need more active mods.

Adrian Laguna wrote:This has been discussed at various times, and yet we're not seeing action. Fact of the matter is that without vigilant moderation a place this large is going to hold itself toguether about as well as lolbertarian utopias. The effectiveness of good discussion moderation was just recently illustrated in the HoS by Edi here and here. We need more active mods.

Mike's apparently checked out or resigned from moderating and the Senate is just a fancy reward with out any real power. The board is and always has been Mike's personally and he's more or let it drift. There's not a lot to be done with out him and there's no point talking that to death as he either acts on it or doesn't.

There are some things that probably ought to be done. But virtually everything comes back to having some sort of actual leadership and that's sorely lacking.

Stormbringer wrote:
Mike's apparently checked out or resigned from moderating and the Senate is just a fancy reward with out any real power. The board is and always has been Mike's personally and he's more or let it drift. There's not a lot to be done with out him and there's no point talking that to death as he either acts on it or doesn't.

There are some things that probably ought to be done. But virtually everything comes back to having some sort of actual leadership and that's sorely lacking.

Well, at least our best and brightest have time to make threads like Chancellor's Questions.

Stormbringer wrote:

Adrian Laguna wrote:This has been discussed at various times, and yet we're not seeing action. Fact of the matter is that without vigilant moderation a place this large is going to hold itself toguether about as well as lolbertarian utopias. The effectiveness of good discussion moderation was just recently illustrated in the HoS by Edi here and here. We need more active mods.

Mike's apparently checked out or resigned from moderating and the Senate is just a fancy reward with out any real power. The board is and always has been Mike's personally and he's more or let it drift. There's not a lot to be done with out him and there's no point talking that to death as he either acts on it or doesn't.

There are some things that probably ought to be done. But virtually everything comes back to having some sort of actual leadership and that's sorely lacking.

Here's the flip side to that problem which is that since this isn't just Mike's on terms of personality and leadership its also his property legally so without a firm basis on which to act there are a lot of us that are hesitant to do so.

I know a lot of folks think my rule chewing and such is a pointless distraction to the Seante but I firmly believe unless we create a firm basis for authority (aside from direct appointment by Mike) then we will never get firm leadership that doesn't come from the personal intervention of Mike.

I would expect an (ex?)-military member to be quite conscious of the fact that titles and rank do not bestow leadership. The Senate is far more a popularity contest or an old boys' club than a stable, functional, competent body of leaders.

erik_t wrote:I would expect an (ex?)-military member to be quite conscious of the fact that titles and rank do not bestow leadership. The Senate is far more a popularity contest or an old boys' club than a stable, functional, competent body of leaders.

That's partially, I think, because it has become a reward for longevity and [perceived] coolness. It is now seen as a goal to attain by the rest, and there also seems to be a notion that the ability to flame creatively and loudly, as much as possible, is the path to that reward, civility and standards aside.

I agree with the overall notion here (ie, Ace Pace and others) that much of what we're all dancing around here is stuff already covered in the rules, and people are basically trying to find a nice way to say that there are some people with personality problems poisoning the well and a nice, new, impersonally-applied rule can be used as a convenient patch on that without having to name names and get hands dirty.

The deeper part of this problem is that I'm certain that not everyone's primary targets are the same people. Isn't it always tha case..?

Undoubtedly. Only liars would claim that they don't have a list of twenty folks they'd ban. I bet you'd find two hundred people populate those lists of twenty.

I'll be the first to admit that I would not shed a single tear if certain members were banned. That said, I think a good guideline is that in any given thread, give people the benefit of the doubt first and address their arguments in a calm and rational manner without insults first. Only if ignored or dismissed out of hand, pull out the flamethrower. Too many people pull it out right up front as the first option.

I'll also admit that I have not managed to follow that particular advice all the time myself, but there you are. I try to do it, though.

And in some case it's certain duelist pairs going at each other and given the way explosives are so easily used on SDN, other participants often get caught in the blast, resulting in more drama/flames/unpleasantness than would otherwise ensue.

Here's the flip side to that problem which is that since this isn't just Mike's on terms of personality and leadership its also his property legally so without a firm basis on which to act there are a lot of us that are hesitant to do so.

I know a lot of folks think my rule chewing and such is a pointless distraction to the Seante but I firmly believe unless we create a firm basis for authority (aside from direct appointment by Mike) then we will never get firm leadership that doesn't come from the personal intervention of Mike.

I'm not suggesting the Senate overthrow Mike or try to take the board out of his hands. As you say, that's simply not in the cards.

What I am trying to say is that this board has gotten to a point where it's too large, too active, and in some ways too contentious to be a one man show. When all is said and done, Mike has been the leader, organizer, judge, jury and executioner of this board for years. It's been Mike's fiat since day one and that hasn't changed; the Mods and now the Senate have all existed and acted at Mike's sufferance. Both groups have been limited to advise, adminstration, and some strictly limited decision making.

But as I said before, the leadership has all been Mike in the end.

Right now I think the pertinent question is where the board is going. Is it going to continue to be Mike's, with him as a very real Emperor, or is it going to become a more communal thing, with Mike as first among equals or some other power sharing arrangement. If it's the former, then this politicking is just so much hot air. Mike will either respond or not; things will either be sorted out or not.

The latter quite frankly, strikes me as being the only case in which any of this matters. SD.net is probably the largest and most active board I've seen that's run and operated directly by one person. And now days Mike seems to be less interested in the running of this board for whatever reason. If he's amiable, then it probably wouldn't hurt things any to look at some arrangement for delegating authority and possibly even transitioning this to a community run board. Something like HPCA or Divine Salamis (I believe that's how Marina and a few others ran it, yes?) might be better mold these days, if Mike is amiable to the idea. A trusted staff running things in consultation and with some generally agreed on rules. Not a willy-nilly free for all but a sort of representative oligarchy for lack of a better term.

But again, this all is so far subject to what Mike wants.

Well, this is his hobby, and that means it serves as entertainment and fun. At some point I'm sure this has crossed some boundary and become a bit of a chore instead. Hence, a withdrawal into inactivity/low activity on his part. And in such circumstances, I can't say as I blame him.

If he's willing to kick back and let a bunch of others take over a number of the forums, I think he can kick back and enjoy it again. Maybe just float around as he feels the interest and simply advise those who do the real grunt work.

Bascially creates a Minster Mentor position? Having huge amount of political influence yet at the same time, not managing over the board in the direct sense? Yet at the same time, being able to step in whenever that is necessary?

I think Mike would like that idea.

Coyote wrote:Well, this is his hobby, and that means it serves as entertainment and fun. At some point I'm sure this has crossed some boundary and become a bit of a chore instead. Hence, a withdrawal into inactivity/low activity on his part. And in such circumstances, I can't say as I blame him.

I don't blame him. I can understand it and have gone through much the same thing regarding posting here. I'm not trying to cast blame or demand he spend more time here.

I'm simply trying to address what I see as one of the root issues with some of the recent and overblown drama. I'm also trying to put forward what I see as a logical solution to that problem.

That's why we're here!

Ghost Rider wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.

Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.".

If you want to fix that, mockery probably won't work for just anyone. Probably safer to trot out your arguments politely at first, and then proceed (gradually!) to full-blown mockery as needed.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:While I kind of agree you shouldn't flame a fundamentalist for being a fundamentalist (the views and opinions (s)he holds is another thing though), I strongly disagree that there should a blanket protection against mocking for fundamentalists, this essentially defeats the whole purpose of the forum in the first place.

Why not mock a fundamentalist for being such? The position is extremely unhealthly as a mental position and logically makes as much sense as going "Sky is purple, because this book says so, fuck you otherwise.".

If you want to fix that, mockery probably won't work for just anyone. Probably safer to trot out your arguments politely at first, and then proceed (gradually!) to full-blown mockery as needed.

\

Thank you for demonstrating again, you not only do not read shit, but only want to insert your yabbering to try and show off your nonexistant skills.

But keep trying! One day you may actually reach a point instead of this cherry picking mess.