Rules have been amended.

Petrie. · **on:** February 19, 2009, 04:01:48 PM

http://z7.invisionfree.com/thegangoffive/i...p?showtopic=356

All members please take the time to read over the section "Warning System" to understand the new policy in place. Be familiar with it because from here on out it applies to everyone. There is only one member with a warning on their account (you know who you are) so consider past actions your official warning under the new system.

Adam

Mumbling · **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2009, 04:07:59 PM

Read and remembered.

Kor · **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2009, 04:21:58 PM

So a life ban after the second offense? Ok, I"ll remember that.

Petrie. · **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2009, 04:29:34 PM

Trust me...it sounds harsh, but in that PM sent we'll try to help the person out as much as possible so they don't run afoul of the rules again. Banning is a last resort, but we can only do so much with bad behaviored individuals in the digital world.

Kor · **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2009, 05:42:12 PM

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Is the avatar from the 7th movie? Just curious.

Petrie. · **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2009, 05:45:20 PM

Yeah...found the capture on google and just cropped it.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2009, 08:13:35 PM

I'm in full support of these new rules. I imagine this will allow you admins to root out the bad apples before they run amok too much.

Normally I would be opposed to such harsh rules, however I've observed that if someone will break a rule twice, you really can't talk any sense into them. They either don't understand because of some sort of mental issue or don't want to understand because they're being a jerk. Though with rules like this you might stifle some enthusiasm of certain new members.

I remember that I was pretty close to getting a warning when I first joined, but I didn't get one in the end because the verdict was that I wasn't "intentionally trying to harm GOF". Of course the rules weren't as strict back then. I imagine I might be banned had I joined with these rules in place. I'm not trying to tell you admins how to do your job or trying to give you advice on how to deal with unruly members, but I hope you're giving every questionable member the same chances to make right as you gave me. I'd hate to see this board turned into a "normal" forum where generic bans are given out and no personal consideration is put into a members intentions before banning them. I'm sure you're still carefully considering the situation before banning members, but what worries me is that the first step to a board going in this bad direction is a toughening of the rules.

EDIT: Oh, and nice avatar Petrie.

Malte279 · **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2009, 06:39:11 AM

Quote

I remember that I was pretty close to getting a warning when I first joined, but I didn't get one in the end because the verdict was that I wasn't "intentionally trying to harm GOF". Of course the rules weren't as strict back then. I imagine I might be banned had I joined with these rules in place.

Such cases as yours have also been a main concern when the rules were created, as the last thing we want is to ban members who just happen to have a bad start or a bad day. While the level for banns has been lowered, at the same time the level of self control on the part of the admins has been raised. So far it was possible for a single admin to make the decision about banning a member (though I can guarantee this was never done without long discussion). Now all a single admin can do is to suspend a user and it takes three out of five admin votes in favor of a ban in order to impose it.
That way we hope to prevent any arbitrariness.

Quote

I'd hate to see this board turned into a "normal" forum where generic bans are given out and no personal consideration is put into a members intentions before banning them.

That would be the worst nightmare, for admins no less than for anyone else.

Petrie. · **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2009, 07:58:19 AM

I can read you like a book Austin because I'd knew you'd chirp up about what happened with you. I think you would have seen the light after a long talk and the notion that you'd be banned if your ways didn't change. You have that capability. Some don't (or don't care).

Malte is right too..with this new policy, you reach the banned level sooner, but it takes more than one admin to do the job, so a couple of things changed, but I think this is better in the long run.

Littlefoot1616 · **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2009, 08:06:54 AM

The reformed rulings are not there to invoke fear or signal any means of dominance of admin presence...you all know that's not how the admins roll.

The rules are a means to ensure that inappropriate conduct is 1. not tolerated and 2. is dealt with swiftly through fair judgement. The essence of the board rules hasn't changed dramatically. It's just been given a little reconstructive surgery if you will. Granted LBTLover, maybe you actions then will have prompted a warning label under these new guidleines but you have to give yourself credit for reflecting upon those actions.

It is those who don't (or just blindly refuse) to adjust their conduct so that the forum can remain the friendly community it is. By no means is anyone's voice silenced nor do we expect people to "bend to a will". It doesn't work that way. It is just our way of remaining vigilant so that we can uphold the outstanding social network this forum has become!

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2009, 09:22:22 AM

Quote

Such cases as yours have also been a main concern when the rules were created, as the last thing we want is to ban members who just happen to have a bad start or a bad day.

I have no doubt of that. I just don't want that fact to change with the change in rules. Although the core of the rules of this board have not been affected, the nature of them has. It may be a small change, but every change counts no matter how small. I've seen boards that are run like dictatorships and they didn't get that way overnight. Admins change the rules without warning then ban members (though you have warned us enough here).

For example, one forum I was at (It's dead now because of it's horrible admin base) had the rules "No swearing if the intent is to flame." They changed that without warning to "No swearing at all whatsoever." This poor dude (my friend) was talking to a couple of other dudes (I didn't really know them too well) and said "Ah s***, I gotta go now. Sister's home" or something to that effect and he got BANNED! Boards can turn really bad and small changes over time are the culprit. I don't think GOF is heading in a bad direction, but sometimes it's hard to see the end result of some actions that seem insignificant at the time.

Quote

I can read you like a book Austin because I'd knew you'd chirp up about what happened with you. I think you would have seen the light after a long talk and the notion that you'd be banned if your ways didn't change.

Should I be embarrassed or flattered?

: That's what I'm talking about. You took personal consideration before just pushing the magic "Ban" button under the admin table. That's the way it should be. I'm just trying to get assurances that it'll stay that way. Now that I look at the system more carefully, I do agree that it is more affective. Great idea to not give a single admin the power to ban a member. That will help greatly reduce corruption once the admin base gets larger than you 5 trusted dudes. The admin base shouldn't get larger for some time, but you can never have too many fail safes in place(unless they get in the way of efficiency).

Nick22 · **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:50:26 AM

We haven't had to expand our admin base for a long time, and I don't see us needing to do so for awhile yet. We might once we start getting into big numbers like 500 members or 1000, but so far there hasn't been any need to, Action, littlefoot1616, malte and Petrie are doing a great job as admins.

Petrie. · **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:46:09 PM

It was also changed to level the field among the admins so the same policy is taken time after time. We've had times where it depended which admin got to you that decided what the consequence was. It'll keep everyone in check (namely myself since I'm not very forgiving if you piss me off

). Anyway, if we wanted your "dictatorship" theory, I'd run the place myself...and I can't do it, so I would not worry about that happening.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2009, 08:35:54 PM

Quote

It was also changed to level the field among the admins so the same policy is taken time after time. We've had times where it depended which admin got to you that decided what the consequence was. It'll keep everyone in check (namely myself since I'm not very forgiving if you piss me off dino_tongue.gif ). Anyway, if we wanted your "dictatorship" theory, I'd run the place myself...and I can't do it, so I would not worry about that happening.

Ah. I understand better now. See, I don't have the POV of an admin. I'm just a regular member so it's difficult for me to imagine how this system change can be better from an admins POV.

Quote

We haven't had to expand our admin base for a long time, and I don't see us needing to do so for awhile yet. We might once we start getting into big numbers like 500 members or 1000, but so far there hasn't been any need to, Action, littlefoot1616, malte and Petrie are doing a great job as admins.

True true....but of course the amount of members you have doesn't always dictate how many admins you need. I could go register 500 accounts myself if I wanted to. What matters is the number of active members which we sadly have very little of. And don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say you guys aren't doing a great job. You are. It's just that.....I've seen a lot of bad things happen to good forums and I don't want those things to happen to this one. I'm just worrisome at times. Don't mind me.

Cancerian Tiger · **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2009, 12:00:43 AM

It really sucks how one unruly member can make things harder for the bunch of us

. I understand the need for rules and they seem reasonable enough. We have great members here, so I don't think there should be a issue with any of our current members. One rule I'm curious about:

Quote

1 - use of the following words: ass, damn, hell
a.) provided they are not used against any member here in a deragatory manner, there is no issue

Does this mean that it's okay to use these words as long as they're not directed at any member besides yourself (i.e. "I've been busting my a** at work.")? So far, it has seemed that, as long as members censor themselves on the GOF (AM Section is a bit more lenient), they're allowed to use profanity as long as they don't cuss each other out. Is this still okay? Just curious :unsure:.

Petrie. · **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2009, 08:16:53 AM

Yup. I'm not the language police.

Nimrod · **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2009, 02:38:23 PM

Read it and agreed to it.

Kor · **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2009, 06:44:18 PM

Quote from: Petrie,Feb 21 2009 on 06:16 AM

Yup. I'm not the language police.

Is there an appointed admin who is?

Language police, that sounds like a skit that Monty Python would have done if they would have thought of it.

aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato) · **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2009, 03:20:12 AM

Quote from: Kor,Feb 21 2009 on 05:44 PM

Language police, that sounds like a skit that Monty Python would have done if they would have thought of it.

Or something from an Orwell novel.

I've always wondered what happens when your warning meter got upped a little. I have to admit it's been a bit dull having 0% hovering next to my name all the time.

Kor · **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2009, 04:03:41 AM

If you want it upped I'm sure if you cuss out an admin they'll be happy to up your warning meter above 0%. Personally I prefer mine right where it is. But to each their own.