Expecting Rain
http://www.expectingrain.com/discussions/

New Terms of Use - Draft
http://www.expectingrain.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=40048
Page 10 of 12

Author:  pswets [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 16:11 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Three legged man wrote:
pswets wrote:
Three legged man wrote:
The ultimate fix to this whole thing is to successfully put together a tight team of well-chosen moderators who use their discretion and make group decisions.


True. BUT, for this to work, it needs to be transparent. That is, the community needs to know who is warned, and for what. Why post A was deleted but post B remains. Why behavior X is OK but seemingly similar behavior Y is not. And that means that the "I'm a moderator; my decisions are not only always right, but always above discussion" approach cannot work if you want a community consensus. (If one wanted an adversarial relationship between moderators and users, this would be a good way to get it; I do not think that is wanted, though I might be wrong.)


This is in contradiction with what I outlined on page 4. In fact, I think most or all disciplinary actions and their details should be kept confidential and out of the forums. With a tight team in place and a good set of rules all the rest of the stuff you mentioned is irrelevant, IMO.


I know it contradicts your outline on page 4. I don't think that your outline is a good way to build a comunity of shared values. I do think it is a good way to build in an institutional distrust of moderators. I wouldn't think that's what anybody is after.

Author:  pswets [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 16:13 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Ursie Green Pastures wrote:
I don't think I'll dare to post anything anymore, if the forums open again.
I'll be scared shi..sorry. I'll be scared out of my wits not getting it right past all those portals.
I'll just stay on the news page then. There are rules and regulations enough in real life as it is.
I (same as a lot of others, it seems) still haven't got a clue what it is that we're supposedly guilty of. Seems nobody wants to tell. All for your own protection, Ma'am.
Still, I feel I'm told between the lines that if I and others had been more supportive, then 'this' wouldn't have happened.
Reading the rules once more, I feel I'm in a girl school in the thirties, being slapped on the wrists with a leather strap once a week for good measure, just to prevent me being a bad girl.
You're throwing out the baby with the dirty tub-water, as they say in Denmark. Or is that in one word? Sorry. I'm a foreigner.
I'm not going to support anything or anyone that believe punishment and yet more rules and regulations create a fairer and better society. That doesn't create light at the end of the tunnel. History has proven this theory wrong. I wouldn't be sitting in a tunnel waiting for the light to show. I would prefer working on breaking down the walls.
I would rather get slapped for raising my own opinion than having to weigh every word to balance against all those rules.
You are, as I still see it, working on taking the personality and the human individuality, in all their splendour, away from this board.
Is this a Bob Dylan site?
Never mind.
Bye. (Sorry, forgot the ' there - or did I?)
Edited once - sorry. Missed an 'n' .


Lots of truth there. Thanks, UGP.

Author:  BostonAreaBobFan [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 16:45 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Eddie wrote:
"Never quote when you are replying to the last post made to a thread".

I anticipate a practical difficulty here:

It's by no means an unusual event to respond to a post (without quoting from that particular post), only to discover that another poster or posters has/have replied in the meantime with a different observation. This leaves the post you've just made hanging in mid-air because it doesn't refer to the remarks made by the intervening poster or posters. The problem is one of continuity of comprehension.

I hope you might reconsider this stipulation.


I agree.

Author:  Mad Cow [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 16:50 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Draft 2 wrote:
ยง2.10 Use quoting carefully
Quoting should only be used if it is absolutely necessary to repeat what someone else said in order to understand your post. Never quote when you are replying to the last post made to a thread. You should always edit your quote, so that only the portion you are referring to is used. Do not quote pictures. If someone posts to a thread while you are composing a response, you will be warned and given a chance to edit your post if necessary.

Author:  GypsyDaisy [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 16:52 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

GypsyDaisy, this is the 3rd post of yours I have deleted today - please stick to the topic. ~Mad Cow

Author:  BostonAreaBobFan [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 17:12 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I don't understand. I shouldn't have quoted Eddie's post? (An old dog trying to learn new tricks....) :)

Author:  janalyn [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 17:21 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I am also having a little trouble figuring this one out too. If someone posts while you're composing a response, you're to go back and edit your post but as you do that someone else posts and so on until there's no hope of commenting on "the previous post" you meant to comment on in the first place. I'm not trying to argue with you, I am honestly trying to figure out how you want us to do this.

Author:  Lily Rose [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:06 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I have read the rules and they seem quite fair. I have also read UPG entry about how they are too restrictive.... Have you considered that if you start pulling down the walls of the tunnel you will simply have it fall in our head? This is not the town square owned by all, it is a meeting place provided by a good soul for use of all of us... if we behave. You question 'is this a Bob Dylan site'.... ever been to a concert.... he's got rules... no cameras no recording equipment... and I have seen his security force in action.... they don't put up with crap.... it is their way or the hi-way. So the sooner we all get with the program, the sooner we get back to talking about fun stuff.... :D

Author:  Karl Erik [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:14 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I urge everyone to read the most recent (June 20th) version of the Terms, and stop commenting on the first version (June 17th).

Author:  oh mercy [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:22 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Claudette wrote:
Honestly, there is something to be said for no private messaging abilities.


I agree 100% w/ Claudette on this point. No one except the mods should be able to do this.

Author:  therevelator [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:31 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

someraven wrote:
Eddie wrote:
I'd like to put in a quick word about the draft proposition to discourage double/multiple postings.

On a few occasions- I'm thinking, in particular, of the quite recent Shakespeare and Dickens threads in Off Topic- I've found myself posting a succession of initial thoughts on these subjects in order to generate a degree of interest in what ultimately proved to be quite popular threads. This fragmented approach also helped me to organise my own thoughts on what are quite broad and complex subjects.

I would have found it very difficult to compress all those initial thoughts into a single post- and, even if I'd attempted to do so, this would almost certainly have made the topics raised too long to be easily digestable at a single reading.


Yes. The ban on double posting would definately cramp Eddie's style. And seeing as he's one of ER's most insightful and intelligent posters, that would be a real shame. I hope Karl Erik will reconsider this clause.


I agree. Someone once said "This is the most intelligent group of people gathered in one place since the night Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Eddie's multi-postings alone on his own topics are often the most brilliant threads on ER and treasured by many. I hope he will be allowed to carry on as usual.

I also would not summarily ban "animated avatars", only those deemed in poor taste. Several of the great animated avatars mentioned earlier here could have been viewed without harm by a small child. The "cat monorail" avatar, for example, was a wonderful piece of art. If someone here is talented enough to create a tiny work of art for their avatar, it would be a pity for such talent to be stifled.

Rules are needed but they should also allow for exceptions to be made for members who possess unique gifts they are generous enough to share with the ER community. Eddie's talent is rare, and those members (I apologize for not remembering their names) who created the "Street Legal In Traffic" and "cat monorail" animated avatars contributed original art to the site for no purpose other than to delight it's members, and their avatars caused no disruptions or offense. To create rules that tie the hands of the most original and talented members will make this a much duller place, for no discernible reason. Can't some of the "content" rules be "bent" on a case by case basis?

Banish creativity and you banish life. Surely those restrictions would diminish the site when real talent is in evidence?

Author:  janalyn [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:33 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I can't speak for anyone else but I was quoting and did comment on "the most recent (June 20th) version of the Terms"

Author:  RevolutionInTheAir [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:33 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

So there was a row or something? I don't know a thing about it. I read the Dylan stuff and keep abreast of all things Bob. That's it.

Just tell me the rules and I'll give a smart salute.

Hope you're open for business soon.

Author:  jimb727 [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:35 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

You really have to wonder what goes on in some people's minds that they get to the extreme point where they have to be banned. I've been here for a year and have had some minor disagreements and as embarressed as I am to admit it, a little name calling but my experience was it took away from my enjoyment of the site and also I said to myself would I behave this way if the person were in front of me( and I'm not referring to being physically harmed if I mouthed off) and the answer was no. I was hopefully raised better and am a little more mature than to have to resort to name calling to get my point across.

Though I only saw a tiny bit of what went down it isunbelievable that people show so little respect for the site and those who run it that they succeed in getting the whole thing down as if to say this is all about ME

Author:  Queen of Spades [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:37 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Oh Mercy and Claudette,

Why should people not be able to PM? Is it hurting anyone else if me and one other person like to talk to each other through PMs every day? No.

Author:  jimb727 [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:40 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I agree. Ban pm's. What the hell for. private communication = bad :roll:

Author:  Mad Cow [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:41 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

BostonAreaBobFan wrote:
I don't understand. I shouldn't have quoted Eddie's post? (An old dog trying to learn new tricks....) :)


Your quoting was fine. I was referring to what you were wuoting. As emphasised earlier:
If someone posts to a thread while you are composing a response, you will be warned and given a chance to edit your post if necessary.
Alongside this warning you will see the new posts, and be able to determine whether or not you need to make any changes to your post to make sure its meaning is not lost.

Author:  Fabe [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:47 GMT ]
Post subject:  PMs

You can turn Private Messages OFF in your User Control Panel.

User Control Panel / Board Preferences / Allow Users to Send You Private Messages / Yes-No

I think most of the communication made public here should be done in Private Messages. It has little if any public value.

Author:  jimb727 [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 18:56 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

This post is a great example^^

Author:  BostonAreaBobFan [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 19:02 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Madcow - I thought I'd quoted Eddie on a different point he was making. I'll learn... :)

Author:  Long Johnny [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 19:24 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

I haven't read through all the past 13 pages but I'm wondering if anyone has made what I think may be the most parsimonious suggestion.

I have had many jobs in my life and I underwent a sort of evolution as regards situation like the current one at ER. It used to be that when TPTB suddenly implemented a new set of rules and regs for no particular good reason I was one of the people who would fight tooth and nail over every little point, no matter how minor.

But later I finally came to understand that if I just agree with everything, and then proceed as if nothing whatsoever has changed it almost always works.

So..... The people who are saying that they will stop posting out of fear of breaking one of the 1001 new rules, look.... WHAT IF you just ignore all of it and post as if nothing has changed? If there really is some new pseudo-Catholic-fascist regime in place waiting to suddenly appear like the Spanish Inquisition ("No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!") then let them -- I don't see any difference between no posting and being banned from posting. In other words, I see no difference between a self-imposed or site-imposed ban. "A ban by any other name would free up as much time...."

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

When the smoke clears and the dust settles, anyone who finds him or herself banned or threatened will have been doing something that, before these new rules, would have resulted in being banned or threatened.

IF YOU IGNORE THESE CHANGES, SMILE, AND DO WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAY, IT WILL ALL BE OK.

If all you post are odd and pointless images you found on the web because you have the mind of a 3 year old on a lead paint diet maybe you should be warned, told to stop, and given the old heave ho if you don't.

And while I'm at it, since there's a house cleaning going on, maybe somebody can fix the censor program that allows me to type "penis" "cock" "dick" "weiner" and "one-eyed love monkey" but doesn't allow me to type "x" or "x" or "x" or "x" or anything that even suggests that women have genitals too. Hardly seems fair.

So........... remember........ Nothing to see here, go on about your business. :)

Author:  jimb727 [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 19:30 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

You know what, this kinda makes sense. Uh Oh :shock:

Author:  janalyn [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 19:38 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Yes it is a bit frightening when Long Johnny makes sense :shock: Maybe he does have a valid point though and we should all just calm down and see how it works itself out once the forums are opened up again. I cannot believe I just agreed with you LJ :roll:

Author:  pinhedz [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 19:45 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Also, there is no reason to expect future banning will be based on the new terms of use, considering that past bannings generally were not (one poster was banned for saying "huh?").

Posters that the mods personally dislike can expect to be banned, and abiding by the rules will not keep them from being banned.

Posters that the mods personally like, will rarely be banned, even if they break the rules.

Not that there's anything wrong with that--after all, it's a free, privately-owned forum. :mrgreen:

Author:  Mad Cow [ Sat June 20th, 2009, 19:48 GMT ]
Post subject:  Re: New Terms of Use - Draft

Most users will in fact be able to write exactly what they did before. As Long Johnny says, people will be warned if they need to change.

In most cases all you need to do is use common sense. If you're in a room full of people, talking about different things amongst you, it doesn't usually mean you will repeat what the person you're talking to just said before you reply... does it?


Regarding writing properly (changed it to coherent or intelligble), this does not mean you need to be perfect on every account. It just means writing something like this is not the best idea:
Code:
OOOOOOOHHHHHHH i dont know what im gonna do im so fed up with evryting i wanna go to sleep but i cant i have to sort out all this stuff first before someone bothers me again my dog wants to go out but i need to eat there are so many things i wanna do i dont want to leave my computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the moderators are so unfair they keep deleting my posts i dont know why am i a bad person do they hate me i need to post but i cant!!!!!!

Page 10 of 12 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/