Originally posted by NordlysThe name escapes me, but it was a sci-fi film where the police had psychics ("pre-cogs"😉 who would know when someone was going to commit a murder and the police would go arrest them before they actually did anything. You can guess what that led to.
I don't know, as I don't know what that movie is about. What I mean is that it's often possible to prevent a crime if you can see that it's likely to happen and don't just stand around and wait. In terms of moderation, that could be something like telling someone "if you go one step further in this direction, you'll get a ban".
To me, there's too many bannings for speech already here; this is an internet forum for grown ups the purpose of which is to have people speaking to others on subjects that interest them. Communication is inhibited when there are restrictive rules on speech. And scolding people with "If you don't shape up, I'll ........" might work occasionally with children, but it rarely produces the desired results with adults, particulary chess players who seem competitive and argumentative by nature and/or choice.
Originally posted by no1marauderAh, I have heard about that movie. And no, that's not what I meant, of course. You don't punish people for something they haven't done yet. But prevention and punishment are two entirely different things.
The name escapes me, but it was a sci-fi film where the police had psychics ("pre-cogs"😉 who would know when someone was going to commit a murder and the police would go arrest them before they actually did anything. You can guess what that led to.
I agree that there are two many bannings, but I don't think it would be ineffective to warn people. If you have a forum without rules, you obviously won't need warnings either. But if there are rules, and I am sure there will always be on RHP, I would much prefer to be reminded or made aware of the rules instead of getting a ban, and an unexplained one at that, right away. Scolding is likely to get an argumentative reply, but you don't need to scold to point out something. I guess there would always be those who won't listen and who deliberately continue to violate rules, but there would be fewer of them.
Originally posted by no1marauderQuoting Tom Cruise films is not going to help your argument
The name escapes me, but it was a sci-fi film where the police had psychics ("pre-cogs"😉 who would know when someone was going to commit a murder and the police would go arrest them before they actually did anything. You can guess what that led to.
(minority report, I believe it was called).
Originally posted by NordlysA while back in the "Forum Wars of 2004" a lot of this ground was covered. Basically, the whole purpose of RoboMod was so that the Forum Mods didn't have as many confrontational exchanges with users who's stuff was getting moderated. I guess some of those were downright nasty. So there was an attempt to cut down on communication between the Forum Mods and the "offenders". That has obviously led to its own set of problems.
Ah, I have heard about that movie. And no, that's not what I meant, of course. You don't punish people for something they haven't done yet. But prevention and punishment are two entirely different things.
I agree that there are two many bannings, but I don't think it would be ineffective to warn people. If you have a forum without rules, you obviously won ...[text shortened]... listen and who deliberately continue to violate rules, but there would be fewer of them.
(Minority Report is correct, Shav; I'll try to limit myself to one Tom Cruise movie in support of my arguments per thread)
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps you should just mention you have read the book by Philip K Dick instead of the movie. 😉
A while back in the "Forum Wars of 2004" a lot of this ground was covered. Basically, the whole purpose of RoboMod was so that the Forum Mods didn't have as many confrontational exchanges with users who's stuff was getting moderated. I guess some of those were downright nasty. So there was an attempt to cut down on communication between the Forum Mods an ...[text shortened]... ; I'll try to limit myself to one Tom Cruise movie in support of my arguments per thread)
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't follow No1 on some damn crusade like his father. He fought in the forum wars...
A while back in the "Forum Wars of 2004" a lot of this ground was covered. Basically, the whole purpose of RoboMod was so that the Forum Mods didn't have as many confrontational exchanges with users who's stuff was getting moderated. I guess some of those were downright nasty. So there was an attempt to cut down on communication between the Forum Mods an ...[text shortened]... ; I'll try to limit myself to one Tom Cruise movie in support of my arguments per thread)
A powerful debater he was. But he turned to the rightious, get on your tits, side... The dark side....
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlay"char-act(e)or" the word suggests an ignition of action...so i guess i will
You are far too presumptuous when you discuss people who you don't personally know and judge their character and all that makes you is a fool.
excuse the third grade class...i will grade homework while you all go
out and snicker about the teacher...please leave the chalk behind..we
don't need any more dirty words scrawled on the cafeteria walls..
Originally posted by Nordlystoo
I agree that there are two many bannings, but I don't think it would be ineffective to warn people. If you have a forum without rules, you obviously won't need warnings either. But if there are rules, and I am sure there will always be on RHP, I would much prefer to be reminded or made aware of the rules instead of getting a ban, and an unexplained on ...[text shortened]... n't listen and who deliberately continue to violate rules, but there would be fewer of them.