An possible update to the moderating rules.

[Oleg Volk]

If you re-read the original idea behind APS, it was to be based on member approval of each other. Strong incentive to get along with everyone.

If you feel that somebody is mis-using APS, start a thread in a separate sub-forum stating the nature of the offense, with a link to it. If the offense is real enough, you will have other members seconding the nomination for a ban. If you have no seconds or an overwhelming counter-opinion by other members, then your own membership would be at risk. I would review these threads regularly to prevent abuse by spammers and also to implement the decisions.

If you accuse a witch and fail to prove, your own account suffers the fate earmarked for that witch. My review would determine if the accusation is valid (action taken), not valid (no action) or malicious (action taken also). I do not expect to second-guess the members much.

---------Comments, please -- am I neglecting possible unintended consequences?----------------

[Ex-MA Hole]

Sounds fair to me.

Is there really this much of a problem that this needs to be done?

I THOUGHT that there were really only 1 or 2 issues, am I that blind?

[Werewolf]

What and where are the sub-forums referenced. Is that a moderator thing?

Other than that the proposed rule seems reasonable.

[Perd Hapley]

I nominate Oleg Volk.  

[Oleg Volk]

I second my nomination for getting taken off APS. Would give me more spare time.

Another sub-forum: I'd set one up to avoid crowding the main APS venue with admin issues.

[Nightfall]

Rather than going straight for the burning at the stake, how about we talk to a person first? Say person A is coming off as crude to several members. Rather than jump for the ban button, we could start a thread addressing that person, along the lines of:

"Your comments here, and here, don't quite strike us as meeting a 'polite' standard. We're worried that continued postings like this could lead to a degradation of the quality here at APS. Discuss it with us!"

Rather than just kicking an otherwise enjoyable member off the board, it's more of an intervention type situation, giving person A a chance to make minor course adjustments, if needed.

However, I have to reiterate that I haven't seen anything worthy of a ban in my time here, IMHO. Of course, I myself wouldn't ban anybody for a reason short of vulgar personal attacks against a fellow member.

[Iain]

A only possible unintended consequence is the clique. There aren't any (that I am aware of) at the moment. They can always form, especially when there is incentive to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are maybe three of four high profiles bans that have taken place? Tend to think we're muddling along ok.

[Perd Hapley]

I agree with Nightfall, except to say that I have seen members worthy of banning.  Nightfall being chief among them, of course.  

Yeah, we could talk to the member first.  If he is nominated a second time, the decision is that much clearer and easier.

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

I really haven't seen much abuse here, with 2 notable exceptions, both of whom have been banned.

All other conversations appear to have been resolved or abandoned agreeably without any calls to the principal's office.  

Wouldn't this just make MORE work for the admins, and you Oleg?
...unless, of course, there's a LOT more now going on behind the scenes than I'm aware of.

[Werewolf]

"Your comments here, and here, don't quite strike us as meeting a 'polite' standard. We're worried that continued postings like this could lead to a degradation of the quality here at APS. Discuss it with us!"

Define POLITE. One person's polite is another's long winded positive spin. Another person's blunt, get straight to the point, don't waste a lot of time on flowery words and positive spin is another person's impolite.

There's a big grey area here.

For example:

FOAD and ESAD are impolite.

"You are wrong and here's why..." is not impolite though many probably would say it is.

Where does one draw the line?

Polite is a highly subjective issue and IMO is hardly subject to any but a very few hard and fast rules.

[Perd Hapley]

Serious, this time.
Maybe a little acrimony and mud-slinging is the price we pay for interesting dialogue, from which we can all learn.  Maybe it's inevitable when people have such a diversity of view-points.  Maybe clamping down on the ugly exchanges just leads to a bunch of people with the same point of view, or who are shy about saying what they truly think.  

Oleg, how diverse is your third forum, on politics, philosophy, religion, world-view?  In age, gender and geography?

[Nightfall]

Define POLITE.

I guess that determination would have to be made by (ugh) a democratic process. However, I maintain my vote for "reserve bans solely for vulgar personal attacks against individuals".

I agree with Nightfall, except to say that I have seen members worthy of banning.  Nightfall being chief among them, of course.

You right wing fascists are all the same! Common people, we can defeat his hate if we all hold hands and sing!

"Kummmbaya..."

[cosine]

I agree with Nightfall, except to say that I have seen members worthy of banning.  Nightfall being chief among them, of course.

You right wing fascists are all the same! Common people, we can defeat his hate if we all hold hands and sing!

"Kummmbaya..."

I wonder if this is seen to be the problem. I wonder if the light hearted bantering that goes back and forth is sometimes confused for real animosity.

[wingnutx]

Since we all have firearms, I say we give offenders a drive-by

[Perd Hapley]

A only possible unintended consequence

Wait, are you teasing Oleg for his thread title?  That would be an mean thing to do.

[Oleg Volk]

"Oleg, how diverse is your third forum, on politics, philosophy, religion, world-view?  In age, gender and geography?"

VERY diverse. It is by invitation only, but I am not the only one inviting, so the selection of guests is pretty wild (i.e. M/F/T for gender, mono/poly/a-theistic, pretty much every political view and age represented). Discussions on any topic are  OK and even a recipe for a flamefest gets turned into a tasty salsa.

APS might be OK as it is. I am considering my options.

[Perd Hapley]

The motion to ban Oleg Volk has been seconded.  Evidence against member Oleg Volk may be presented at this time.  Anybody got anything?

[Iain]

A only possible unintended consequence

Wait, are you teasing Oleg for his thread title?  That would be an mean thing to do.

"A possible unintended consequence..." is what I meant to write, but I had initially written "The only possible unintended consequence..." but decided that my wisdom and foresight are not what they should be. Neither are my editing skills.

[Oleg Volk]

Every time I see his reflection in the mirror, I giggle. Obviously, Oleg Volk is a fun controlled substance and should be banned...for the children!

[Perd Hapley]

my wisdom and foresight are not what they should be.

True.  And that is why you shall be forever banned.

[Gewehr98]

This speaks volumes, in and of itself:

If you accuse a witch and fail to prove, your own account suffers the fate earmarked for that witch.

Not-too-subliminal hint that it could degrade into a witch hunt driven by a clash of personalities.  

[280plus]

Comments, please -- am I neglecting possible unintended consequences?

yea, if you close this place I won't have anywhere to go...

I don't know, maybe I don't read enough of what's going on here but I haven't seen many problems. I've also seen a lot of good done. I KNOW we've helped a few people discover they have sleep apnea and gotten them to treatment. And that's just the tip of the iceberg IMHO. I think whatever bad has gone on is outweighed by the good I've seen here.

Plus there is quite the collection of intelligent types here too. That's what keeps me coming back. I LIKE to hear what intelligent people have to say on various topics, I learn from it.

I could be wrong but maybe you're worrying too much?

[Guest]

Not-too-subliminal hint that it could degrade into a witch hunt driven by a clash of personalities.

What are you afraid of? If the forum as an organic whole decides that a member is worth keeping, isn't that fair?

I think that members should only be punished themselves if they specifically attempted to get another member banned or removed. If they bring up conduct or posting as a general 'intervention', it shouldn't be punished.

Also, the 'ignore user' plugin for punbb would be useful, as would private messaging, and the karma feature.

[Ex-MA Hole]

The motion to ban Oleg Volk has been seconded.  Evidence against member Oleg Volk may be presented at this time.  Anybody got anything?

He likes guns.

Guns = Bad.

[Oleg Volk]

A better way to do this.

How about we test the libertarian approach? No bans would be necessary, as no physical interaction with the life or property of others can happen on THR. If somebody acts meanly or without civility, just ignore the person. Let the rude folks type into the void. They'll get tired soon enough. Could that work -- you not reacting to provocations?

I'd still remove spammers just to save screen space.