Planetarion Forums

QazokRouge5 · 14 Sep 2005, 18:19

**Please read my disclaimer at the end of the thread before proceeding with this post.

As you all know, there have been several if not dozens of accusations about trolling over the past week or two.

For most of you, posting on this forum is a leisure, stress reliever, time killer, or a good source of amusement.

For a few of you, posting on this forum is a serious matter, which must be taken seriously, and anything posted is to be taken as a representation of that person, their country, and their beliefs. These people take things seriously over the internet, and are continuously in an uproar.

I happen to fall under the category of stress relief, as this forum provides a great means for me to relax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Clause 3 : Trolling Clause

Trolling for a reaction by posting obscene and/or insensitive information on these boards is not permitted. A moderator will close your thread or delete it. If you don’t like it then please refer to Clause 1. Eventually you run the risk of losing your account which will reduce your post count to 0. If you persistently troll for responses then you will be banned. Trolling is a hard area to define and does not always have to obscene or insensitive posts. More subtle trolls will manage to stay with the rules but at the same time aggravate users and cause a response. Whether or not someone is trolling or not comes down to moderator discretion and action will be taken as they see fit. Any complaints about the action taken by a mod must be taken up with an admin.

Notice that the Bolded areas contradict each other.

Note that the italicized area is a large grey area.

Suggested Amendment: Posting pro-American threads, posts, or anything of the like is considered

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules: Clause 3 : Trolling Clause

Trolling for a reaction by posting…

and as such shall not be tolerated. Whether or not someone is trolling or not comes down to European Moderator Discretion and action will be taken as they see fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules: Clause 5 : Spamming

I understand that a large part of the forums is "taking the 'Mickey' out of people" but to actually attack their person is wrong. Being verbally attacked by people in groups is unfair and is not, in my opinion, at all allowable. It’s childish and immature and will be stopped. A line needs to be drawn between "taking the Mickey" and going for his/her throat. It’s putting a lot of people off posting because they don’t want to be aggressively hounded for expressing an opinion. Elitist behavior and demeaning people due to their position in society is also strictly forbidden. Failure to comply with this may lead to your account being banned if a moderator feels that this action is justified.

Notice that the Bolded areas describe several users on this forum, including myself.

Note that the italicized are is a generalization.

Suggested Amendment: Criticism, disagreement, or mockery of any kind is considered

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules: Clause 5 : Spamming

“taking the 'Mickey' out of people"

and as such is unacceptable and shall not be tolerated. Once again there will be ambiguous cases which will come down to the decision of whoever is moderating at the time.

My point, ladies and gentlemen of GD, is that no matter what we say, what we do, we’re never going to agree. But I think that that is what keeps this forum alive. Argument.

fo•rum (fôr m, f r -)
n. pl. fo•rums, also fo•ra (fôr , f r )
1.
a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

If I, or anyone else for that matter, agreed with everything everyone said, or merely refused to comment on someones post due to the fact that I was afraid it would be considered trolling or spamming, then you all would have hardly any discussion. The forums would be as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I think that America is wrong in their handling of the Katrina incident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reply from Phil^

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reply from Ste

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reply from Stew

Good post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reply from JonnyBGood

Me too.

My fellow GD’ers, if this were the case we would have had a stagnant, dead, and deleted forum long ago.

I agree that senseless babble, which we have all partaken in to some extent, is not helpful to the discussion. However, I believe that when this is don’t deliberately, and in extreme excess can it be harmful to the discussion.
Humans like to argue. It’s a proven fact that by taking away what we like to do the most is the best way to take away the readers and posters.

I’m not sure if I got my message fully across, however I think I did to manage it to some extent.

-Qazok

** This disclaimer applies to any user, reader, or poster. The people used as examples in this post are not being subjected to ridicule, however they were the first to pop into my head as examples. I am in no way blah blah blah you stopped reading 3 lines ago, so it doesn’t really matter what I say here does it? Lets face it, who reads these? Honestly….

Nodrog · 14 Sep 2005, 18:32

Yahwe · 14 Sep 2005, 18:34

I can see many benefits to a forum which does nothing but agree with me.

Perhaps temples might be built, alters consecrated, goats sacrificed: all in my glory....

s|k · 14 Sep 2005, 18:34

Stop trying to think, you'll only hurt yourself or someone you love.

JC · 14 Sep 2005, 18:36

I wrote the last half of that trolling clause because at the time there was a big uproar about trolling and how it wasnt clearly defined. I didnt do a great job of defining it either and hadnt realised i'ld actually contradicted the first part of the clause, oh well.

As with all the rules though, it comes down to moderator discretion. Thankfully we have som pretty decent mods who generally make the rigt decisions

.

Another problem is that some of the rules are written with certain boards in mind. I imagine that 'elitist behaviour' part was mainly written to counter problems on AD but could well come in to play on any board. Each board has to be modded slightly differently and once again that comes down to how mods view each circumstance.

I agree that we have to have differing opinions to allow for good discussions to take place on the board but there have to be rules and mods in place to make sure the line isnt overstepped, which does occur. Fortunately this community pretty much regulates itself with not much work needing to be done by the mods

.

Marilyn Manson · 14 Sep 2005, 18:38

The problem is clearly not simply a one of Americans not being welcome. Tacitus has been posting here for ages and always generally voices what could be called a 'pro-American' viewpoint without evident 'hassle' from other users or complaint.

The problem is simply one of behaviour. Some people are not behaving in a civil manner when they enter into debates. This goes for a whole range of people, but there are some notable 'ringleaders' who know who they are.

I personally will be more liable to close threads and temp-ban accounts in future if the behaviour of these people does not improve. Just so they they've had adequate warning.

If you personally have a complaint to make against another user, then PM one of the more active moderators such as I or JBG and we will take it on board, and investigate if neccesary.

JonnyBGood · 14 Sep 2005, 18:39

Okay. Systematically yet randomly

1) Different users are moderated differently depending on their history. Most people get a lot of leniency but the better posters (in the opinion of the moderators and JJ) get even more. This is to ensure that slight lapses in judgement are not too harshly punished.

2) The contradiction in the rules is due to the fact that the bit after "count to 0." was added to the rules later to deal with a problem we had at that point. If you find a contradiction go with the bit which is towards the end of the rule, that'll be the most recent revision. I was going to help JJ rewrite the rules extensively a while ago but unfortunately summer vacation got in the way and quite frankly I don't view them as that important any more because I think nearly everyone understands the points behind them and how the lines can shift in different situations.

3) The internet does not have to be taken seriously. However as with most things in life you will get back what you put in. If you put no effort into the internet do not expect people to put effort into their responses to you.

4) Arguments are reasoned. They have premises and arguments and conclusions and use facts to back themselves up. A good argument will point out where people go wrong, not just that they went wrong. A good poster will be able to see flaws in arguments and will be willing to both address their own and help others with theirs.

5) One line responses are, in general, appalling. Absolutely appalling. Rarely have I seen a good one line response. Posts containing the words "you're wrong" and nothing else are probably one of the worst things on the internet. This kind of post has never ever ever ever ever led to a single good thing (exaggeration lol!). Large numbers of bad posts with few good posts in between them are not what is great about the internet. The internet's great because people can be amusing and witty and insightful and thought-provoking without you ever having to get out of your chair.

Remember very few of the rules are applied to first offences, it's when you consistently break one, or many, of them, and have too few redeeming good posts, that makes the forums shit. You'll get out what you put in. Welcome to the internet.

s|k · 14 Sep 2005, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The problem is clearly not simply a one of Americans not being welcome. Tacitus has been posting here for ages and always generally voices what could be called a pro-American viewpoint without evident 'hassle' from other complaint.

The problem is simply one of behaviour. Some people are not behaving in a civil manner when they enter into debates. This goes for a whole range of people, but there are some notable 'ringleaders' who know who they are.

I personally will be more liable to close threads and temp-ban accounts in future if the behaviour of these people does not improve. Just so they they've had adequate warning.

So what you're saying then is that you're liable to ban a group of people with a 'pro-American viewpoint' because you don't like the way the come across.

Do you have a similiar group of anti-Americans that you're liable to ban, or is it just exclusively a pro-American thing?

Don't ban me. I'll be a good house-******, just tell me what I need to say and how to say it.

Marilyn Manson · 14 Sep 2005, 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

So what you're saying then is that you're liable to ban a group of people with a 'pro-American viewpoint' because you don't like the way the come across.

The second paragraph is not refering to the 'pro-American' people mentioned in the first exclusively, or even generally. Sorry if that was the impression given. There are obviously plenty of people with other viewpoints who have been behaving appalingly on occasion. These people will be dealt with more stringently in future.

s|k · 14 Sep 2005, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The second paragraph is not refering to the 'pro-American' people mentioned in the first exclusively, or even generally. Sorry if that was the impression given. There are obviously plenty of people with other viewpoints who have been behaving appalingly on occasion.

Okay. I was worried. :0

QazokRouge5 · 14 Sep 2005, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

So what you're saying then is that you're liable to ban a group of people with a 'pro-American viewpoint' because you don't like the way the come across.

Do you have a similiar group of anti-Americans that you're liable to ban, or is it just exclusively a pro-American thing?

Don't ban me. I'll be a good house-******, just tell me what I need to say and how to say it.

He quite clearly stated that he would close and temp-ban on account of behavior not nationality.

queball · 14 Sep 2005, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The problem is clearly not simply a one of Americans not being welcome. Tacitus has been posting here for ages and always generally voices what could be called a 'pro-American' viewpoint without evident 'hassle' from other users or complaint.

I'd expect Tacitus to voice a pro-Roman viewpoint.

Marilyn Manson · 14 Sep 2005, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by queball

I'd expect Tacitus to voice a pro-Roman viewpoint.

Yeah, well, you know who I mean. I couldn't be arsed to look up the exact spelling.

JonnyBGood · 14 Sep 2005, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by queball

I'd expect Tacitus to voice a pro-Roman viewpoint.

Can I have your father's name and address so I can express my wish to begin courting you please.

Kurashima · 14 Sep 2005, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

oh

rly?

Kurashima · 14 Sep 2005, 18:58

TBH , only one particular clause matters

Clause 1 : The Moderators Decision is final.

This actually forces us to make decisions. If we had to go by the clauses and addendums we would, as you say, fall over a whole series of contradictions which would basically prevent us from modding.

Hence for the most part, the forum is all about saying what you want, when you want, but not going overboard. A bit of trolling is silly and generates complaints (my inbox is full of "ban texan" report threads you twunts, leave me alone!) but for the most part it gives people someone to love/hate/stalk/fantasise about and gives the forum its own small degree of life.

If you want, we can just have 300 [Football] threads a day and discuss the days news as though we were Sun journalists (Big Tits , Bit Wet innit, Bloody Petrol Prices) etc etc and within a week we will be ...... the DF2 forums without the Patriotism.

QazokRouge5 · 14 Sep 2005, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

for the most part it gives people someone to love/hate/stalk/fantasise

This statement sent shivers down my spine and made me look over my shoulder in the public library.

Dead_Meat · 14 Sep 2005, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

then PM one of the more active moderators such as I or JBG and we will take it on board, and investigate if neccesary.

Who appointed you and Jonny to the "all-singing, all-dancing, we're active and you're not so ner ner ne-ner neeeer" mods club?

Phil^ · 14 Sep 2005, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

Who appointed you and Jonny to the "all-singing, all-dancing, we're active and you're not so ner ner ne-ner neeeer" mods club?

You did. Ofc you're forgetting things in your old age

s|k · 14 Sep 2005, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

TBH , only one particular clause matters

You know, you're the kind of person who changes their avatar all the time...so there.

Kurashima · 14 Sep 2005, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

You know, you're the kind of person who changes their avatar all the time...so there.

I think they tend to last 2-3 months before a particular song or movie or animation overwhelms me and im forced to change to something based around it.

s|k · 14 Sep 2005, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

I think they tend to last 2-3 months before a particular song or movie or animation overwhelms me and im forced to change to something based around it.

It's okay, I change my Avatar weekly. :0

vampire_lestat · 14 Sep 2005, 23:59

yes, its now a different shade of nothing

s|k · 15 Sep 2005, 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

yes, its now a different shade of nothing

I got some plans in the works for the BEST AVATAR EVER.

Get ready, because it's coming, oh yeah.

CrashTester · 15 Sep 2005, 10:46

I post by my own set of rules;

CLAUSE 1 - CRASHTESTER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Whatever is being said, no matter by who, CrashTester is always right. If you dont like it, TOUGH. He is right you are wrong.

CLAUSE 2 - YOU ARE WRONG
Whatever you say no matter who you are, you are wrong. dont ever fail to remember this.

CLAUSE 4 - TALK TO THE HAND
If you dont like the fact that CrashTester is always right and you are always wrong, talk to the hand 'cos no-one is listening. Switch your computer off, unplug it and sell it on ebay - get off the internet.

CLAUSE 5 - MADI ISNT CUTE
I dont need to define this at all, just remember clauses 1, 2 and 4.

JC · 15 Sep 2005, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I

CLAUSE 3 - TALK TO THE HAND

CLAUSE 3 - MADI ISNT CUTE
I dont need to define this at all, just remember clauses 1, 2 and 3.

I know you are never wrong oh great one and that i am obviously wrong in posting this but i would like to suggest that maybe you consider your ingenous decision to have two clause 3s and maybe change the latter to clause 4. I understand your reasoning behind calling them the same thing, and agree with it completely but it may confuse the lesser members of our community.

Apothos · 15 Sep 2005, 10:55

Quote:

CLAUSE 2 - YOU ARE WRONG
Whatever you say no matter who you are, you are wrong. dont ever fail to remember this.

If i say "Crashtester is right all the time!" i'm wrong, but i can't be, because:

Quote:

CLAUSE 1 - CRASHTESTER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Whatever is being said, no matter by who, CrashTester is always right. If you dont like it, TOUGH. He is right you are wrong.

Which leads us back to Clause 2 creating a vicious circle/paradox and confusing me. :(

You need an "agreeing with Crashtester" disclaimer.

Kurashima · 15 Sep 2005, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I post by my own set of rules;

CLAUSE 1 - CRASHTESTER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Whatever is being said, no matter by who, CrashTester is always right. If you dont like it, TOUGH. He is right you are wrong.

CLAUSE 2 - YOU ARE WRONG
Whatever you say no matter who you are, you are wrong. dont ever fail to remember this.

CLAUSE 3 - TALK TO THE HAND
If you dont like the fact that CrashTester is always right and you are always wrong, talk to the hand 'cos no-one is listening. Switch your computer off, unplug it and sell it on ebay - get off the internet.

CLAUSE 3 - MADI ISNT CUTE
I dont need to define this at all, just remember clauses 1, 2 and 3.

We operate a slightly different set of rules.

CLAUSE CT1 - If Crashtester posts and it isnt a troll or excessively shit, hes drunk and people in his flat have seized his account.

CLAUSE CT2 - If Crashtester states anything at all on this forum, taking a completely opposite stance to it will undoubtedly generate masses of Pos Rep.

CLAUSE CT3 - Crashtester has never seen a women that wasnt in Loaded or FHM or his mum, so his opinions on the opposite sex are to be taken as being from a naive/uneducated point of view on this subject.

Please note these are not official mod rules, simply unofficial addendums to the existing ones.

Phil^ · 15 Sep 2005, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

We operate a slightly different set of rules.

CLAUSE CT1 - If Crashtester posts and it isnt a troll or excessively shit, hes drunk and people in his flat have seized his account.

CLAUSE CT2 - If Crashtester states anything at all on this forum, taking a completely opposite stance to it will undoubtedly generate masses of Pos Rep.

CLAUSE CT3 - Crashtester has never seen a women that wasnt in Loaded or FHM or his mum, so his opinions on the opposite sex are to be taken as being from a naive/uneducated point of view on this subject.

Please note these are not official mod rules, simply unofficial addendums to the existing ones.

pos rep for you!

no... wait....

i feel used

CrashTester · 15 Sep 2005, 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apothos

If i say "Crashtester is right all the time!" i'm wrong, but i can't be, because:

Which leads us back to Clause 2 creating a vicious circle/paradox and confusing me.

You need an "agreeing with Crashtester" disclaimer.

Clause 3 has this covered dude. Switch off and get off now!

CrashTester · 15 Sep 2005, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

I know you are never wrong oh great one and that i am obviously wrong in posting this but i would like to suggest that maybe you consider your ingenous decision to have two clause 3s and maybe change the latter to clause 4. I understand your reasoning behind calling them the same thing, and agree with it completely but it may confuse the lesser members of our community.

I do indeed involke Clause 1 and 2 in this instance and have decided to remove Clause 3 altogether. Anyone who doesnt like it can read and reread clause 4.

Yahwe · 15 Sep 2005, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apothos

You need an "agreeing with Crashtester" disclaimer.

fortunately this has never happened in practice

Arachnidman · 15 Sep 2005, 14:33

Anyone read I,Robot?
________
ZR1000A

All Systems Go · 15 Sep 2005, 14:41

I saw the movie.

It was shit.

Mooseh · 15 Sep 2005, 14:41

How things have changed, as far as I read it the rules are there to prevent the people of the lowest intellect being abused by those with more wits than them. The fact it's like shooting fish in a barrel will bore even the most trollish of people eventually, even Yahwe.

There's no need to Moderate things that will moderate themselves. Unless you're George Bush.

Arachnidman · 15 Sep 2005, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I saw the movie.

It was shit.

The movie is actually nothing like the book by Isaac Asimov. I just mentioned it because this thread reminds me of Asimovs laws which are no doubt legally broken each time - similar to the clauses in the forum rules.
________
Suzuki DR-Z400S

madi · 15 Sep 2005, 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I post by my own set of rules;

CLAUSE 1 - CRASHTESTER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Whatever is being said, no matter by who, CrashTester is always right. If you dont like it, TOUGH. He is right you are wrong.

CLAUSE 2 - YOU ARE WRONG
Whatever you say no matter who you are, you are wrong. dont ever fail to remember this.

CLAUSE 4 - TALK TO THE HAND
If you dont like the fact that CrashTester is always right and you are always wrong, talk to the hand 'cos no-one is listening. Switch your computer off, unplug it and sell it on ebay - get off the internet.

CLAUSE 5 - MADI ISNT CUTE
I dont need to define this at all, just remember clauses 1, 2 and 4.

i reckon you fancy the pants off me.

SilverSmoke · 15 Sep 2005, 15:11

Based on your new avatar his Clause 5 is correct though. I guess it's just an unfortune picture as I recall you being averagely cute.

Ste · 15 Sep 2005, 15:23

I think she looks cute in that pic...

Mooseh · 15 Sep 2005, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

I think she looks cute in that pic...

Tad too Gollum like for me. Guess if that's what floats your preciousssss.

1-X · 15 Sep 2005, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

i'd shag it

which explains why...

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

i've never been in a relationship

Dead_Meat · 15 Sep 2005, 16:10

1-X WINS!

Arachnidman · 15 Sep 2005, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooseh

Tad too Gollum like for me. Guess if that's what floats your preciousssss.

"Bag 'n' Shag"
________
Kawasaki ZR750H

furball · 15 Sep 2005, 16:16

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 1-X again.

madi · 15 Sep 2005, 20:22

i neg rep people when i think they are being crap

Mooseh · 16 Sep 2005, 09:54

Madi vs Gollum

I was being accurate, not crap.

Marilyn Manson · 16 Sep 2005, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

Who appointed you and Jonny to the "all-singing, all-dancing, we're active and you're not so ner ner ne-ner neeeer" mods club?

God.

NEWSBOT3 · 16 Sep 2005, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

God.

which one(s) ?

Weeks · 16 Sep 2005, 13:06

This whole thread is just pointless.
I'm not even reading it. Bugger off.

Dante Hicks · 16 Sep 2005, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantoz

I noticed, dear....

That doesn't look like Madi's traditional style of typing.

In fact, that could have been me, although I don't really remember.