Originally Posted by Jughead

Folks that voiced their opinion through PM's - Do I have your permission to post them here?

There were quite a bit of good comments.

Originally Posted by Mulli

You have my permission. Forgot I gave input.

Originally Posted by Mulli

I think that is great, Jug. I will see if I can think of anything, but I suspect you all have it covered. The fact that people even complained about something like smilies being banned was a leading indicator that something like this needed to be done.

Thanks for your efforts.
Mulli

Originally Posted by wallys PM

Response to forwarded message

I appreciate the consideration being given to these issues. Contrary to perception, and my attitude at times, I do not want this board ever to be about me. I am nothing more than another opinionated poster.

If I have one strong suggestion that, would be considered, it would be strict enforcement of debating the issue without bashing the messenger. I have never agreed that the message posted is the steadfast belief of the poster. Plenty of subjects I have posted, I don't support, but rather post them as points of discussion based on currency and merit. If a response is directed at the poster and not the issue, that would be a need for intervention and sanction. Low tolerance level. It is possible that would reduce a huge majority of the succeeding problems.

I know many of the members do not post original threads, and there is plenty of room for that, but when the follow up contribution is nothing more than
" you are an a hole and I hope you rot in Hell " or a denigration of one's intellect then what is the point of discussion.

Maybe a bit more leniency on non directed language, which might help reflect one's passion rather than taking the complete personality out of the post. This in no means is intended to promote an adult arena with truck driver lexicon.

I specifically thought the Smiley issue was not primary. I thought it was misiused by some. Laughing at someone as the only response or the " you're crazy smiley " seemed to be transparent replacements for text that would have been moderated. It was not my place to mock someone else's use of this technique, and I will not do it again. I did it because I thought it was malevolent in nature and completely out of place. Maybe my personality can't handle mocking and that is my fault.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute and vent. I appreciate your patience.

Walt D.

P.S. I included a CC to Klod as he was my conduit.

Originally Posted by UncleChris

My two bits worth for the rules/policies/procedures (in no particular order).

1. Bring the smileys back. The misuse of these by a very few was a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. The real problem was a flamer who used several methods of flaming, INCLUDING the misuse of smileys. We all know who was the real problem on the latest deal. Smileys help keep it light for most the rest of the posters.

2. Make it clear that the mods are "the decider" on what's flaming and what's not. If it's mild, a shot across the bow should be sufficient. It it's particularly nasty or repetitive, then ban 'em. The mods have to be very even handed and independent of politics in these decisions.

3. "Nasty" and direct name calling should be an instant banning. E.g., STFU, KMA, "you have to be stupid to...", jackass, etc. etc. etc. I don't think you have to develop a list... common sense should prevail. It's alway better to use a word as a descriptor rather than calling a person that word, i.e. "You're being hypocritical" rather than "You're a hypocrite." BTW, saying that someone baited a person into using a "banned word/phrase" doesn't cut it, or stated another way, "He made me do it!!!" doesn't even work in 1st grade...

4. A banning should be posted in a dispassionate manner as to who, why and how long. Let people know that up front and they'll have no legitimate complaint when it happens to them. Likewise, any threads that are removed should have some sort of explanation. Any posts that are removed should also have an explanation (on the latter, I don't really care whether it's done publicly or by PM).

5. Stop hijacked threads as soon as possible. Perhaps the "" smiley should be reserved for mods. There should be no complaints from anyone when their posts about who's snarky and smarmy are deleted from a thread about privacy rights. That's not to say that we can't joke about a bit... but come on!!! Again, common sensed must prevail. When I see the stupid stuff going on for half a dozen posts are so, I'm not exactly encouraged to post back on the subject.

6. Mods must be one step better in their behavior than anyone else. Every single mod I've seen on this board (yep... even you, Joe) has stepped over what I call "the mod line" and it greatly reduces a mods credibility when this happens. I have no problems with mods posting, but they really must be very careful not to get drawn into things or make inappropriate statements. Nobody's perfect.

7. The speech should be allowed to be as free as is reasonably possible. Virtually no subject should be taboo. If the mods are in doubt about anything, they should leave it alone. People want to talk and vent, and if they feel they're being squeezed, they're not going to post.

8. Everyone, mods and posters alike, should realize that people are passionate about their ideas. There's nothing wrong with making a strong point about an issue. I think the use of some of the old banned words is just fine under these circumestances... e.g. "such and such group acts like a bunch of Nazis" is just fine. Again though, just like in personal attacks, you can't say "they're a bunch of Nazi's" unless they really are.

That's about all that pops into my head. It would be nice if you would post a draft rules and regs, let us comment on it, then do your final. Inclusion is good... and people will understand that it simply isn't practical, nor is it a particularly good idea, to vote on such a thing.

Joe, more than anything else, I would ask that as you put this thing together, keep in mind that we've all done pretty damned good over the years at holding ourselves together (with guidance from good mods, such as yourself). We don't need to be reigned in... but perhaps we could use some refinements in it all. We all need to be able to speak as freely as possible.

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

If we created some hard rule on this, it would be stupid. I would venture to say that 90% of threads venture offtopic, and sometimes there is nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by UncleChris

Using your "90% logic," I'd say that 90% of the time there IS something wrong with it.

Again, common sense should prevail. If there's 28 posts on a subject and only the first 3 really pertain to the subject.... well.... as they say, "move along now.... move along...."

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

I completely disagree. Some of the most engaging conversations have absolutely nothing to do with the thread title, and that shouldn't be discouraged. I would be completely against this.

I can understand the needs in some threads to try and keep them on topic, but a hard fast rule would be horrible, and a nightmare to moderate IMHO.