Admittedly, I do not visit as often as before. This proved too entertaining to overlook!
Before the usual suspects pipe up the usual (and lame) complaints that 'those people don't read over here,' etc., I am thinking I may post a series of their posts on this board...if it's needed.
The implosion at the new and improved Hysterium is entertaining, but somewhat bland - as it was predicted by so many...pity.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
Subject: [TIP] New Rules Update (New ROE)
Posted By: Chuck a Night Driver (Administrator)
Posted At: 10/26/00 3:39:36 am
From IP:
NEW RULES OF ENGAGEMENT:
Ladies and Gentlemen: In view of the discussions that have taken place in the last several days among the sysop corps, as well as on the board, we, the sysop corps, have decided to post what we are calling the TB2000 ROE. (TimeBomb2000 Rules of Engagement). Due to several folks inability to recognize when their behavior has generated a hostile environment, and the conflict between a hostile environment and the stated goal of this board to be a repository of INFORMATION, we hereby offer the following adjustments to the posting rules and administration policy. AS has been our practice in the past, these are not negotiable in the open forum. Attempts to open discussions of these rules will be deleted, and the posters will be awarded flames, one per thread attempt. These will count toward the max, as discussed below. The TB2K ROE set is designed to allow the broadest latitude in subject matter and to maintain a friendly place for all to post. The SHORT version of these rules is as follows: Any post determined by the sysops to be either a flame, flame bait, inappropriate, threatening, or otherwise not allowable will receive a flame icon, posted by one of the sysops. The sysop inserting the flame icon into the post will sign their edit. You get 5 flame icons and you will be encouraged to find another playground by being banned. The majority of the sysops felt that 5 might be too lenient but the loudest voice won. Before we get to examples of how one earns a flame, we, the sysops would like to address something that has been a small problem, and that is thread drift. Normal thread drift is understandable, but there have been cases where this is taken BEYOND the extreme. We would like to work with the concept that the person who STARTED the thread has some ownership of the thread and can point out that it is drifting unacceptably. The person can ALSO indicate that they are looking for a particular type of comment. As one of the sysops put it in a discussion e-mail: It's this rude butting in that gets peoples goats. I know this is possible, because I've seen it happen here a FEW times. and it's nice, click on tb2k, scan the topic headers, decide what's interesting to you. Anyone can read anything then, they just must be a tad more choosy of how and where they reply is all. And if a topic is headed accurately, there can be no doubt as to what the subject is, and what sort of response is asked for. We have a vast menu here, everyone gets to eat, but not everyone wants "your" brand of spices on their dinner. And another sample of our thinking: I also think a FABULOUS idea is for any reader of a post, when he or she is replying, to notice if the original post has a religious reference included with it, even if the topic header doesn't say [rel]. If it does, if there's a religious reference mixed in with some current news reporting, then tough beans, they opened a can of worms then, fair game to reply with any other religious reference that fits the topic, no whining if they can't control their own typing. Then I think it's fair game for anyone to post a reply or answer using their own flavor of religious reference. if there is ZERO religious reference in a started topic, such as [int]breaking news today, iraq swallowed by giant amoeba! and then no religious references in the original post, then no religious references allowed in a reply. That would be the "official default position" on replies then. If it starts out posted as secular in the topic header, if no religious words are typed by the poster, or if the article is all secular, than secular it remians, no religious responses.,not fair game to post a religious response. Some folks are gonna insist because it's "all connected', well, too bad, flame symbol then. And another example, just like that current poll where the topic poster asked for no replies. well, it's up to over 20 replies. I think any poster here may be allowed to specify which sort of replies he's looking for. Hmm, for example, a "new rager" wants to discuss zacharia stitchin and the 12th planet stuff, and asks politely to not have biblical replies. Well, that's fair, I see nothing wrong with that at all, none whatsoever. and vicey versa, too.. If a fundie or orthodix person wishes to start a topic, discussing biblical prophecy or endtimes of goggy maggogy or whatever, we don't need folks chiming in their opinions that "you're wrong, it's a buncha old myths". Works all six ways. Those are two common examples there. Besides that, if you post [rel]you can specify, such as [rel]christian--whatever, or [rel] judaism--whatever, or [rel] wiccan--whatever. that gives folks a real obvious clue who the topic is addressed to, and what sort of responses are allowed or wanted by that poster.. A new age pagan whatever got zero business interrupting and butting into a christian or jewish thread, not does a christian got any business butting into a wiccan thread, or whatever. if it's specified by the original poster, then it's specified. if it's a secular post, it reminas that way. No exceptions ever. Yes, a shade more complicated, but not that much, not really, and our main goal here I think is to keep folks from interrupting other folks discussions all the time and beating them over the head with 'the writ" of whatever flavor, and to cut our work load down. We are going to TRY the thread ownership concept for a bit. The folks who start threads and feel that their thread has been hijacked need only notify one of us sysops, and we'll check it out, affix any flames needed, or e-mail you back with a suggestion that you might need to loosen up your approach, or to get a life, or something else appropriate There is discussion, then there are arguments. Discussion is allowed here, arguing is not. Personal attacks, or exacting cyber written revenge or continuing the back and forth makes you one of the arguers then. How do you earn a flame? Let's look at some examples: As to "hate speech", it's simple. having any view on a subject is legal, advocating violence towards or another, based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual preference is illegal. it's about that simple. Advocating an illegal act makes the person advocating it liable, not so far the server, but in England it has happened, and I think some lawsuits here are pending, but no clear cut law has arisen yet. So far, that is my understanding. there have been only a couple of times where I saw that it was getting close to it, for example, the 'stoning" comment by what's her name when she came in. If someone says-forgive me here have to be accurate-"hang all the dang queers", then that is a liable example of hate speech. if someone says "I hate queers, goes against gods law", that ISN'T. if someone says "hang all the queers, goes against gods law, and we need to follow gods law and stone them" then that IS. If some says "all you pagans and new agers are a bunch of demon possessed satanists", it's legal. If they say all you pagans and new agers are satanists and witches, and the bible says "do not suffer a witch to live", then that's illegal. Even if it's just a quote, the inference is to "not suffer them to live" which is clearly advocating violence towards another's religion. There will be an argument that they must needs always follow gods law first, that it is their duty, unfortunately, this isn't gods bulletin board here, and the liability issue still stands. Now this is a totally different subject than flaming. I outlined flaming on a post the other day, it was the most accurate way I could come up with to define it, and I think a clear cut 'definition" of flaming needs to be posted as well, so there's no dispute on it. Flaming would be defined as: "Flame"-to engage in an attack verbally on another named poster on the same board, OR, to attack a group or subgroup in a similar manner, especially in the case of race, religion or gender. If you don't know any of those words, well, maybe a different sort of hobby might be better, such as the english language, the default language of the board. "flaming" to engage in EITHER starting the first flame, OR continual ad nauseam reply. EITHER, A VITAL POINT TO BE AWARE OF. If one has been "flamed", one merely stops participating in the thread, with a "I've been flamed" comment, PERIOD, then go on, go read another topic someplace. A moderator will most likely take note of this occurrence and make an appropriate response or non response as is warranted. it is no one else's job to do this.. And it is not up to anyone to comment further on said occurrence. Anyone may recognize a "flame", or a "flame thread" this way. Basically, we are looking at trying to have everyone behave like reasonable adults. AND we are trying to get to the point that we don't have to spend HOURS per sysop per day on the board. This is really the only way for us moderators to deal with it, else we then become "the bad guy" and have 'taken sides" or 'censored". This is just so much garden manure. We can close threads, delete threads, or ban posters. We wish to do neither or any of those actions, EVER, but have to sometimes, very rarely and reluctantly. Basically, if in the opinion of the sysops you have: 1) Hijacked a thread 2) Flamed someone egregiously 3) Instigated a flame (ie posted a post that can only result in a flame) 4) Threatened someone 5) Indulged in hate speech as defined above 6) Behaved in an other anti-netiquette-social manner You will receive a flame .gif in the post. The post may be either left or edited to blank depending on how deplorable the behavior was. The sysops (all of us) will maintain tallies of flames given out and if you reach 5 you are shown the egress. Oh yes. Do NOT think that you can go ahead and re-edit your post to remove the flame .gif. That will result in a much faster trip to the egress. And don't think that anyone OTHER than a sysop can post the flame icon. Sure anyone has the TECHNICAL capability to do this but there are enough fingerprint catchers that the non-sysop posting the icon will ALSO find out where the egress is. "B-B-B-But what if I do something that accidently crosses the line, or I cross it in the heat of battle?" Well, if you crossed the line in the heat of battle then the battle was too hot to begin with and you earned that flame. If you accidentally cross the line, the flame should show you that you have crossed the line. In order to accidentally cross the line FIVE times requires that you are paying NO attention to your net-demeanor OR ought not be permitted to drive a keyboard on the Info Highway. And for the folks who haven't gotten around to figuring out who we are on the team: Ed Yourdon ed@yourdon.com Chuck Rienzo rienzoo@en.com (AKA Chuck a Night Driver Ashton & Leska allaha@earthlink.net (AKA Cascadians) Russ BigDog BigDog@duffer.com Wilferd - Use Private Messaging Feature Mebs - Use Private Messaging Feature Zog zogsmail@spinfinder.com Robert Cook cook.r@csaatl.com OH YEAH. JUST WHAT DOES THIS ABOUT TO BE INFAMOUS FLAME LOOK LIKE?? Here:
Chuck and the Sysop Corps Edited to remove former sysop name at their request.....and then to restore the html Edited by: zog at: 10/19/00 9:30:43 am
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 01, 2000