POFUsers.com - Chat and Flirt!

Well...I think this post you put up says it all to an extent, in that, the rules can be perceived as broken when all you wrote below becomes a poster's reality..when communication breaks down and when the site's ethos (as described by those three rules) is abused to suit that person who reads too much into what has been written and takes it too literally before taking the time to ask what was meant openly...the rules are very few on here and I expect that it would be ok to question what someone else has written without being accused of flame-baiting or attempting to troll and I would expect that it's fair game to retaliate in kind, not with insults but with return questioning and have an amnesty against being seen to be a prolific rule breaker or antagonist.

I believe that openness and transparency is vital and that mind-games which are a total pain in the arse and an unnecessary evil when it comes to exerting your alpha male dominance amongst the few who are your captive audience whilst they are prepared to read these forums (let's not forget that internet forums by their very nature are ultimately transient)...it would be better that those who are so caught up in being ego driven individuals just got off their high-horses and quit the pretence to be human and their own unqualified self ( who the hell needs validation anyway..particularly for being a monumental prick?)..we are who we are and are entitled to expect that we are accepted as the who we are without scorn or derision..that only applies if I like you btw..

Mod Zombie wrote:I wish that everyone would just get along.

I wish people wouldn't be so worried about having to look "good".

I wish people would suspend there own personal agendas and acknowledge the power of their typed words. Or unwritten words. Or words deleted.

I wish people would read the rules and look up the word "insult" if they were confused, and measure their audience.

I wish that the expectations presented by the posters for moderatoration were clearer, so that we could better serve.

I wish I had a clear guideline for forum fungus protocol.

I wish that some forum topics didn't turn into such a shark frenzy.

I wish people would look more to self-governance, rather than an appeal to authority.

I wish people could intuitively know when they were crossing that line and respond accordingly.

I wish that people could understand that this is a small site, and that everyone's input is as important as it is.

And I wish that they would extend this to the other members on this site.

I wish that this was easy.

I wish that the chatroom was occupied.

I am going to be there and maintain a certain hope.

MZ

Well...I think this post you put up says it all to an extent, in that, the rules can be perceived as broken when all you wrote below becomes a poster's reality..when communication breaks down and when the site's ethos (as described by those three rules) is abused to suit that person who reads too much into what has been written and takes it too literally before taking the time to ask what was meant openly...the rules are very few on here and I expect that it would be ok to question what someone else has written without being accused of flame-baiting or attempting to troll and I would expect that it's fair game to retaliate in kind, not with insults but with return questioning and have an amnesty against being seen to be a prolific rule breaker or antagonist.

I believe that openness and transparency is vital and that mind-games which are a total pain in the arse and an unnecessary evil when it comes to exerting your alpha male dominance amongst the few who are your captive audience whilst they are prepared to read these forums (let's not forget that internet forums by their very nature are ultimately transient)...it would be better that those who are so caught up in being ego driven individuals just got off their high-horses and quit the pretence to be human and their own unqualified self ( who the hell needs validation anyway..particularly for being a monumental prick?)..we are who we are and are entitled to expect that we are accepted as the who we are without scorn or derision..that only applies if I like you btw...

Wot?

If you take the trouble to be more specific in what you are actually questioning, I might be able to be more helpful towards you.

I really don't see that it is broken at all. You may have a couple of rambunctious overgrown adolescents, but that's to be expected. My experience here has been positive. I appreciate that most posters can state their opinion without getting nasty.

I said most.

I say make them moderate for week and see how they like it. Maybe then they'll behave.

I actually think a wrinkle to the problem *might* be how we are allowed to go off topic. That means a thread can get derailed fairly quickly.
But I wouldn't want it to go to a rigid extreme where chatting wasn't allowed at all; those off the cuff remarks are too funny to lose.
Perhaps a workable compromise might be: a part of each post MUST be on topic. That might keep a topic on track, allow for banter and *might* serve to remind those engaged in a slag-fest that there actually IS a topic on the go.

Mod Zombie wrote:I think that these rules:

Rule 1)Privacy
Do not post sensitive information: i.e. Phone numbers and home addresses.

Rule 2) Conduct
No insults or slanderous libel. Be nice to each other. We reserve the right to edit abusive insults out of your posts. Do not post any content about another user that could be considered untrue, slanderous libel or defamation of character.

Rule 3)Trolling
No trouble making, people who persistently try to cause arguments by means of trolling will be contacted by a moderator.

...are rules that are pretty clear to me.

But where is it broken?

MZ

Rule 1) is so clear it needs no debate.

After that...

i think that posters need to keep a clear distinction between the Chat threads and the Debate threads. And i am not sure what has happened to produce this Mod thread, so i may be leaping in feet first without a clue.

Two recent examples of good posting, in my view, from the Debate thread.

The first began in the Ground Zero Mosque thread. Jo van saw that Moonbat had come up with an argument about Religion that was interesting but, as Moonbat said, not about the proposed mosque, so Jo van set out a second thread, the one about Religion. That was acknowledgement that the original thread had the potential for "derailment" but Jo van didn't take it on in the Mosque thread, he went elsewhere.

If you look again at that thread, under PoF rules i think it would have been "called" as derailed long before that point, though. So i appreciate the facility to take a thread's starting point and move on subjects around that, areas that touch on the main topic but aren't quite that. A curve in the debate should be allowed, a right-angled turn not.

The second recent thread i put forward as a good example of Debate and not Chat is what happened in the middle of the thread about Venables. Chopper has incredibly strong views about the subject. He made a comment about his perception of Restless - post 4 on page 2. What could have been a major battle actually was held back on both sides to a minor skirmish by personal restraint because Restless acknowledged Chopper's strength of feeling in his polite replies and so by post 5 on page 4, Chopper apologised - with reasons for his original comment - and harmony has been restored. Light-touch Modding was successful there.

If we hold on to Chopper and Restless ( you know what i mean) as an example of politeness and understanding, we can all distinguish between what is meant by Rules 2) and 3) and what is the intent when someone tries to break them.

i suspect sometimes our Canadian cousins shake their collective head about the posting style of "the UK lot", but we don't get formal debating lessons as part of our curriculum and so our posting style tends to the discursive rather that the constructed. Leeway on both sides of the Atlantic is usually shown but perhaps a following of the words and not the manner of expression can stand us all in good stead. And taking lessons from "the other side" can also be useful. Sometimes the topic doesn't warrant analysis / synthesis, but we all could do with looking at where the previous poster has taken their stand and responding to what is obviously their opinion - and not pretending it is their belief that it is fact.

Personally, i find the PM facility invaluable. If i have a personal comment to make about a post(er) that i feel isn't relevant to the topic of a Debate thread, i use a PM to make it. This could be a "jolly good post" comment, or a "i mainly agree with you so don't want to make this small point counter to your argument on the thread because that might derail it". Some reply, some don't. But at least the thread stays on topic.

i think the lightness of the Rules here can be good for us. But the fewer the Rules, the more mature the attitude of the posters needs to be. i am not sure one can legislate for that.

We all have views. We are all, allegedly, adults. Using the Chat threads and PMs to discover the people behind the posts would help to maintain the different natures of the Chat and Debate threads.

Am i saying that the Debate Forum does need more Modding than it is currently receiving? Probably. Should it? Probably not, if we all acted as adults. Can we do that? The jury's out on that one.

In my opinion, as always.

.

.
Ah. too late to the party, as always, me.

Have just read the I wish thread and it's too late to edit the above post.

Simple word. Respect.

More complicated word. Anonymity.

As there is only one person i know of who uses their real name to post, anonymity means that one's online persona can be anything one wants it to be. So there is no reason to attack the poster at all, especially if one thinks one has an inkling of their real life character. (This is why i don't like references to people's real names, even in the Chat threads - seems to make a mockery of the idea of a pseudonym, so why have one at all?)

Respect the words and post and step back from the persona that posted it - note, i said the persona, not the person. Seems like a good principle to me.

.

My opinion is that the current rules that are in place are adequate. Most of the members do seem to be capable of knowing where to draw the line and know what is and isn't acceptable.

However, my perception is that recently there does seem to be a problem with posts being deleted that clearly don't breach any of the rules. A recent example was when myself and Jo Van were sharing banter on a thread in the debate section. No other posters were addressed, I wasn't insulted by anything he said and I'm pretty certain he wasn't insulted by anything I'd said. So I was pretty surprised to find when I logged on later that all of our posts had been deleted and there was a note saying that the thread had been locked until tempers cool. That one really had me scratching my head.

We have been told a number of times that insulting posts will only be deleted if the aggrieved party complains. I'm wondering if this is still the case. Having the situation where posts are removed simply because they may be perceived as insulting by a third party who may not fully appreciate the situation would remove quite a lot of the freedom on this site and the reason that a lot of people enjoy posting here.

I'd like it to stay like POF but without silly rules if possible.

[quote="Fingerless Glove"]Well...I think this post you put up says it all to an extent, in that, the rules can be perceived as broken when all you wrote below becomes a poster's reality..when communication breaks down and when the site's ethos (as described by those three rules) is abused to suit that person who reads too much into what has been written and takes it too literally before taking the time to ask what was meant openly...the rules are very few on here and I expect that it would be ok to question what someone else has written without being accused of flame-baiting or attempting to troll and I would expect that it's fair game to retaliate in kind, not with insults but with return questioning and have an amnesty against being seen to be a prolific rule breaker or antagonist.

I believe that openness and transparency is vital and that mind-games which are a total pain in the arse and an unnecessary evil when it comes to exerting your alpha male dominance amongst the few who are your captive audience whilst they are prepared to read these forums (let's not forget that internet forums by their very nature are ultimately transient)...it would be better that those who are so caught up in being ego driven individuals just got off their high-horses and quit the pretence to be human and their own unqualified self ( who the hell needs validation anyway..particularly for being a monumental prick?)..we are who we are and are entitled to expect that we are accepted as the who we are without scorn or derision..that only applies if I like you btw..

I specifically only copied and pasted that which is so longwinded and vague I wanted a translation
which might be more effective, for more than just the person writing it, if it included clarity and brevity.
Wot? = What do you mean?