| re: Please don't discuss board members that are no longer here | |
|
Posted by: |
Leesa (gallytrotter@mchsi.com) 11:42 pm UTC 10/24/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Please don't discuss board members that are no longer here - Jacqueline 09:23 pm UTC 10/24/07 |
| Thank YOU for the reply. I thought about the futility angle before I suggested the rules thing and you're absolutely right that theory plays much better than hard reality for these things. But somehow I think the RR has become a troll-target of sorts and let's face it--we're all more paranoid than we were even last year at this time here and that sucks, too. So if we can't eliminate all bad behaviour, maybe we could set some barriers to curb it. I mean, most forums have policies where they state their stance on spam, cross-posting material (especially copywritten) to other forums, limiting spamming the boards with entire past posts. The NJC thing could be made as a courtesy request. And you could throw out there that impersonator posting will not be tolerated at all plus IP's are checked regularly. Even if you don't really do it that vigorously, imply that you will be doing it now. That might help deter the shit stirrers who see this forum as a field day to run amuk plus it gives US the confidence that we don't have this person posing as that person. I just think that if new posters in particular stumble in here, they should know that we do have a code of ethics we stick with. Because it just isn't like it was, even 3 years ago. Times change. And sadly, the sickos, psychos, creeps and trolls WILL find there ways here--I think we're in their migration pattern--but with certain 'rules' in place, it's harder to pull crap and be confident they'll get away with it. And there's nothing wrong with telling people to not post porn. The things you state are common sense and common courtesies, but alas they're not always that common. And perhaps helpful to everyone's benefit to point out. I can't think that listing rules of that nature intrudes on anyone's ethics or lack there of--even the Pud's! But maybe throw it out there and see what the others think. I do strongly feel that if someone is banned/suspended, the reason should be stated for 2 reasons, 1) as a deterrent to like behaviour--that's half the motive in a suspension/ban, and 2) the action seems less of a personal witch hunt, a serendipitous knee-jerk move; that there WAS aeason for the action and what the rest of us can do to avoid the same fate. I bow to your experience with the net and the board, but we've never really had a problem that's permeated this format quite like this and I personally think we need to try something a bit more aggressive. It's just not the comfortable atmosphere that it once was. Bright Eyes and I were chased by a TROLL--and it was 'kinda scary!!' Cheers! Leesa > Hi Leesa - thanks for the post. "Rules" sound good on > paper but don't really make a difference in practice on > the net. I mean what can I say? "Don't be a sicko, > psycho, creep or troll. Don't spam the board, don't post > porn, don't argue with your alter-egos." > > Let's face it...if a person is prone to do these things, > they will. I hate to ban people but if I have no choice, > I have no choice. Personally, I keep hoping we're better > than that - and for the most part - we totally are. > > xxx > Jacqueline > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Please don't discuss board members that are no longer here - Pudding 10:02 am UTC 10/25/07 |
| Next: | Hang on....... - Lordy 10:54 pm UTC 10/24/07 |
| Thread: | |