Originally posted by darvlayThere is no reason for non-subscribers to have access to posting in the forums. That is simply asking for problems. If someone wants to talk, let him at least pay for the privilege.
Silver Fern is not even a subscriber. I think if he's turning paying customers away from the Site by his posting in the forums, his forum priveleges should be revoked. Or depending on the level of crudeness or higher the "filth trajectory index", perhaps ban him from the site? Makes sense doesn't it? Why isn't Russ doing anything about this?
Originally posted by Delmer
There is no reason for non-subscribers to have access to posting in the forums. That is simply asking for problems. If someone wants to talk, let him at least pay for the privilege.
I suggested the same a while ago, but the argument still holds that current RHP members can post the same crud that non-subscribers post. Ofcourse it would help substantially to prevent (as we've seen on RHP) members creating duplicate accounts to annoy other posters.
Either way, RHP did remove the thread when it was banned. True, we have to read through that crud in the first place, so the only question left to ask is whether actions should be taken against such future posters, but thats not up to me.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianI think that any penalties for actions should be spelled out ahead of time in any case. No new rules should be made and then retroactively enforced.
Originally posted by Delmer
[b]There is no reason for non-subscribers to have access to posting in the forums. That is simply asking for problems. If someone wants to talk, let him at least pay for the privilege.
I suggested the same a while ago, but the argument still holds that current RHP members can post the same crud that non-subscribers ...[text shortened]... s whether actions should be taken against such future posters, but thats not up to me.
pc
[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think that any penalties for actions should be spelled out ahead of time in any case. No new rules should be made and then retroactively enforced.
Well ofcourse, however then you have to abide by the discression of the mod's to determine what constitutes penalisable posts. We know where that went...
Originally posted by XanthosNZPay your money and join, Xanthos. Get yourself a star. However, you do have a valid point that you should not be penalized for someone else's infractions.
Hey how about banning the ones that cause trouble rather than getting rid of the lot of us because of a couple of bad apples?
Originally posted by pcaspianI don't know, but that's what I was always told by prad et al. back in the Times of Trouble whenever I tired to address my grievances about moderation publicly. Just because I don't understnad the reasoning behind that claim does not make it untrue. As a warning to those who are now complaining in public about the moderation system: I can tell you from experience that you are making a poor decision, and that you would be most wise to just drop it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]I support Robomod 100%. If you have a grievance with the moderation system, it should be addressed privately, not publicly.
Why ?[/b]
Robomod does his best and it is not proper to question him publicly. If he does not remove a post, it is the correct decision, and not for you to second guess.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't know, but that's what I was always told by prad et al. back in the Times of Trouble whenever I tired to address my grievances about moderation publicly.
Well yes, but he is not a mod anymore, so his view is irrelevant.
Just because I don't understnad the reasoning behind that claim does not make it untrue. As a warning to those who are now complaining in public about the moderation system: I can tell you from experience that you are making a poor decision, and that you would be most wise to just drop it.
Not really , you don't get banned for questioning the system of moderation, you get banned for bad behaviour. Perhaps Pradt didn't explain the situation to you properly back then.
Robomod does his best and it is not proper to question him publicly. If he does not remove a post, it is the correct decision, and not for you to second guess.
Neah, that is what second guessing is for.
Originally posted by DelmerYou beat me to my point - I was about to say the same thing . Even though this is a 'virtual community' , there is still a sense of community . I might tweek some noses and pot stir , but if I know sooner or later I may end up on team with the guy at the other end of the barb , I'm going to pull my punches a little bit . Non members don't seem to always feel such constraint in these types of forums .
There is no reason for non-subscribers to have access to posting in the forums. That is simply asking for problems. If someone wants to talk, let him at least pay for the privilege.
I don't see any problem with starting up a thread on incest . Does it offend some ? Probably . But some of the religious threads are as offensive to some of us . We don't ask for their removal .
I obviously am a smart-ass and don't mind cracking-wise about things and being on the bad-taste side of humor . But there's a huge difference between that and openly advocating sexual abuse of minors and socially aberant behaivior that effects others like fern did . I am not a mental health professional . I can't fix this guy . I doubt if anyone here can in this setting . So as far as keeping him here so he won't do something bad someplace else ? - I think it's a flawed proposition and am not interested in taking this train-wreck situation on . Someone could email him the phone numbers of a couple good phychiatrists in his area , and a personal note that he's welcome back after he gets his lid screwed back on straight . But council and help him ? You're balmy if you think anything we can do here will help .
Originally posted by pcaspianI won't be participating in this disucssion further, as I feel it is inappropriate and only detracts from the pefect perception that visitors to this site will form. Feel free to time me out of this debate and claim the win like you did to Nemesio, or come visit me on my own turf and we'll discuss it further like gentlemen until the matter is settled fairly.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]I don't know, but that's what I was always told by prad et al. back in the Times of Trouble whenever I tired to address my grievances about moderation publicly.
Well yes, but he is not a mod anymore, so his view is irrelevant.
Just because I don't understnad the reasoning behind that clai ...[text shortened]... t decision, and not for you to second guess.
Neah, that is what second guessing is for.
[/b]
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I won't be participating in this disucssion further, as I feel it is inappropriate and only detracts from the pefect perception that visitors to this site will form. Feel free to time me out of this debate and claim the win like you did to Nemesio, or come visit me on my own turf and we'll discuss it further like gentlemen until the matter is settled fairly.
Dr. S
Alas Cribs, usually I would love to, but trying to limit time I spend debating as it is. Fear if I do debate this further at your turf, I woudln't be able to stop myself. I get too excited and then can't sleep at night, you know the feeling.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianYou mean if I wanted to I could create as many accounts I want and
Originally posted by Delmer
[b]There is no reason for non-subscribers to have access to posting in the forums. That is simply asking for problems. If someone wants to talk, let him at least pay for the privilege.
I suggested the same a while ago, but the argument still holds that current RHP members can post the same crud that non-subscribers ...[text shortened]... s whether actions should be taken against such future posters, but thats not up to me.
pc
[/b]
post like I was different people here? Gee wiz I could have been
in the majority all this time. LOL KellyJay, KellyJay1, KellyJay2,
KellyJay3, and on and on. Though as sharp as some of the people
here are, I'm sure they would have figured that out. 🙂
Kelly