Is it time for a revamp of the rules?

[Ropey]

Always use the expert. Especially if they work for free.

Oy the vey iz mir.

 

[BS Filter]

This site is excellent. Years ago it was full of far left mods that would work with far left posters to troll conservatives with a goal of permanent banning. I don't exactly know when it changed, but now it's very well moderated.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course the members know when someone's been banned. There's a strike thru the name in their avie box. USED to be more embarrasing when we turned the Name font pink. Thus -- "getting pinked" was a sloppy work-around to saying someone was banned. AHHHH -- the good ole days.


The rule is there because if it's a temporary ban, people take advantage of it to go celebrate it openly or whine about in discussion threads. Without the person being here to defend and only guessing at why they were banned.

There's more "latitude" now about it for certain. But we still dont let members go to Announcements and demand that banned member never be let back in or lobby for us to disclose the reason for the ban. Since folks rarely get banned for JUST the "latest infraction", it really doesn't help for us to TELL the general audience the details. POSSIBLY, the whole concept is already covered by the "thou shall not discuss SPECIFIC moderator actions" outside of PM.

So I'm not sure if it's redundant or not. It's just better "community etiquette" to not talk behind people's backs.


As far as PROTESTING a ban -- which is the rest of your post -- we're not gonna sit here and allow an angry member to spam or graffiti the boards with gripes BEFORE they go out. They'll have the warning in their INBOX when they come back and then we can discuss.

If the rules were touching a lot of content issues or types of flaming -- it might be different. But RARELY is a ban controversial in the Mod room. That's why we LIKE minimal rules. How informative, worthwhile, or entertaining USMB becomes is really up the members.

My question was not about spamming the boards with gripes. It is more concerned with a fair procedure. It’s somewhat pointless to try to get a mod to correct a mistake after the sanction has been completed. The point is to find a way to enable a banned member to get a timely remedy without having to wait the week or two or whatever. (I’ve heard this sacrilegious rumor that even Mods make mistakes sometimes.)

You know the old maxim: Justice delayed is Justice denied!

 

[flacaltenn]

It’s somewhat pointless to try to get a mod to correct a mistake after the sanction has been completed.

Definately NOT pointless. Most of the bad feelings about a ban has to do with fairness. And when that banned member comes back -- the majority of time we fill them in on how the thread was handled including what OTHER actions we took against other members in that thread. (not identified by name). They may rarely successfully argue that the words were misinterpreted.

But it's so simple to look for topical content. It's either there or it isn't. The member either DID a "family attack" or they didn't. They "Ignored Moderation" or they didn't. Aint much there for "interpretation". PM me if I'm wrong about one of your bans.

The point is to find a way to enable a banned member to get a timely remedy without having to wait the week or two or whatever. (I’ve heard this sacrilegious rumor that even Mods make mistakes sometimes.)

We make mistakes. But not so much with warnings/bans. Because like I've said, you are rarely banned because of the LAST warning you got. Lately, about 80% of the bans are automatically done "by the system" -- which has a formula for keeping track of current warnings that have not expired. The moderator MOST OF TIME -- might not even know that warning they are writing is gonna get you banned -- unless they've looked at your PREVIOUS warnings. So -- quibbling about the 3 or 4 warnings that CAUSED THE BAN with mod staff for a couple of days BEFORE you go "on vacay" is just not in the cards AND severely awkward. 80% of the time -- you are "going out" because of TOO MANY WARNINGS -- in too little time, NOT because of what you JUST did. Dont get a lot of recent warnings.

(exceptions would be the "Ignoring Moderation" warning or maybe single-handedly crapping up an entire thread)

The MOST mistakes are probably in finding socks and accusing people of that. Because, it's not an exact science. That and moving threads or tossing them to the Taunting Forums where mod staff has to talk it over to see if we're on the same page. A fair amount of that stuff is reviewable and some of it DOES get reversed.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Definately NOT pointless. Most of the bad feelings about a ban has to do with fairness. And when that banned member comes back -- the majority of time we fill them in on how the thread was handled including what OTHER actions we took against other members in that thread. (not identified by name). They may rarely successfully argue that the words were misinterpreted.

But it's so simple to look for topical content. It's either there or it isn't. The member either DID a "family attack" or they didn't. They "Ignored Moderation" or they didn't. Aint much there for "interpretation". PM me if I'm wrong about one of your bans.



We make mistakes. But not so much with warnings/bans. Because like I've said, you are rarely banned because of the LAST warning you got. Lately, about 80% of the bans are automatically done "by the system" -- which has a formula for keeping track of current warnings that have not expired. The moderator MOST OF TIME -- might not even know that warning they are writing is gonna get you banned -- unless they've looked at your PREVIOUS warnings. So -- quibbling about the 3 or 4 warnings that CAUSED THE BAN with mod staff for a couple of days BEFORE you go "on vacay" is just not in the cards AND severely awkward. 80% of the time -- you are "going out" because of TOO MANY WARNINGS -- in too little time, NOT because of what you JUST did. Dont get a lot of recent warnings.

(exceptions would be the "Ignoring Moderation" warning or maybe single-handedly crapping up an entire thread)

The MOST mistakes are probably in finding socks and accusing people of that. Because, it's not an exact science. That and moving threads or tossing them to the Taunting Forums where mod staff has to talk it over to see if we're on the same page. A fair amount of that stuff is reviewable and some of it DOES get reversed.

Do you shout as much in real life as you do here?

It's as fucking irritating as it is arrogant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you shout as much in real life as you do here?

It's as fucking irritating as it is arrogant.

That's not shouting, it's emphasizing certain words for meaning and interpretation. The same way I would in real life. It's a technique that all public speakers are TAUGHT to employ. The GREAT ones use emphasis and tone to great effect. Especially University lecturers.

I didn't invent it -- I just adapted into boring email and other digital correspondence and no one accuses me of shouting. EXCEPT -- on USMB - when they have nothing else important to discuss.

Emphasis, Volume, and Pauses | Public Speaking

courses.lumenlearning.com

​

Emphasis, Volume, and Pauses​

LEARNING OBJECTIVES​

• Identify effective uses of emphasis in your speech.
• Explain how to achieve the ideal volume when speaking.
• Identify appropriate uses of pauses in your speech.

Emphasis​

One of the other things our voices do naturally is emphasize certain words in a sentence. This emphasis tells the listener what’s important in the sentence and brings clarity of meaning. For example, in the old tongue twister “Sally sells seashells by the seashore,” the speaker decides what is most important for the audience by bolding it with their voice. This type of inflection could be to get louder or go up to a higher pitch on certain words, which creates variety and calls attention to the important words of a sentence. Again, if a voice is lacking such variety, the speaker may sound monotone. Using our example, let’s say the speaker decided to emphasize who was selling the seashells. The vocal interpretation would look like:

SALLY sells seashells by the seashore. (This inflection assumes the audience knows Sally and will go look for her.)

Another choice might be to emphasize where she’s selling the seashells so the audience knows her location. That sentence might look like:
Sally sells seashells by the SEASHORE.

-----

Now was SALLY shouting as sold seashells by the seashore? Not at all.. LOL...

 

[beautress]

Another way to get banned at least on a thread is to Hit the Disagree button more than 6 times a day on a single user, Mind you you can use the Thank button as many times as you like. If you cannot use the disagree button why even have it?

I'd not heard that on the disagree button. Won't say I haven't been tempted a time or two, but just being tempted reminds me of the proverb, "vengeance is mine saith the Lord." And then, it's a good idea to take a 10 minute break and unload the dishwasher, Put a green tea bag in a cup of water and nuke it for 80 seconds in the microwave. Other things that are a good break is weed a square yard of the garden outside, empty and fold whatever is in the dryer, change socks, walk the dog, water the animals, or mop the tile you didn't see when the @#*%$^ ill-designed coffee pot dribbled as you were pouring the coffee. There are a lot of useful ways to spend 10 minutes that aren't quite as fun as going online and hitting the images button instead of yawning over a newspaper article on a need-to-know basis. If your garden rows are 18 feet long with 3 feet apart rows, you might just weed all 4 rows in a week. That way, you can do some real world accomplishments and never get banned. I still miss one of the people who got banned, several who found political debates upsetting and left for good, and several who died, whose spouse came here and let us know about it.

 

[Moonglow]

I am more concerned with posture when lecturing the audience.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

That's not shouting, it's emphasizing certain words for meaning and interpretation. The same way I would in real life. It's a technique that all public speakers are TAUGHT to employ. The GREAT ones use emphasis and tone to great effect. Especially University lecturers.

I didn't invent it -- I just adapted into boring email and other digital correspondence and no one accuses me of shouting. EXCEPT -- on USMB - when they have nothing else important to discuss.

Emphasis, Volume, and Pauses | Public Speaking

courses.lumenlearning.com

​

Emphasis, Volume, and Pauses​

LEARNING OBJECTIVES​

• Identify effective uses of emphasis in your speech.
• Explain how to achieve the ideal volume when speaking.
• Identify appropriate uses of pauses in your speech.

Emphasis​

One of the other things our voices do naturally is emphasize certain words in a sentence. This emphasis tells the listener what’s important in the sentence and brings clarity of meaning. For example, in the old tongue twister “Sally sells seashells by the seashore,” the speaker decides what is most important for the audience by bolding it with their voice. This type of inflection could be to get louder or go up to a higher pitch on certain words, which creates variety and calls attention to the important words of a sentence. Again, if a voice is lacking such variety, the speaker may sound monotone. Using our example, let’s say the speaker decided to emphasize who was selling the seashells. The vocal interpretation would look like:

SALLY sells seashells by the seashore. (This inflection assumes the audience knows Sally and will go look for her.)

Another choice might be to emphasize where she’s selling the seashells so the audience knows her location. That sentence might look like:
Sally sells seashells by the SEASHORE.

-----

Now was SALLY shouting as sold seashells by the seashore? Not at all.. LOL...

You need to get the fuck over yourself.

The power you have in your little fifedom has gone to your head.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I can believe that the mods ignore rules at their descretion

We don't really need a revamp of the rules here. We need a revamp of the mods.

Rules don't mean shit when those enforcing them are just on power trips.

 

[1srelluc]

Mods need to do a better job at deleting dupes.

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if the hardware could be installed such that anyone whining about moderators receives incrementally stronger electric shocks with each successive whine.

 

[Desperado]

I'd not heard that on the disagree button. Won't say I haven't been tempted a time or two, but just being tempted reminds me of the proverb, "vengeance is mine saith the Lord." And then, it's a good idea to take a 10 minute break and unload the dishwasher, Put a green tea bag in a cup of water and nuke it for 80 seconds in the microwave. Other things that are a good break is weed a square yard of the garden outside, empty and fold whatever is in the dryer, change socks, walk the dog, water the animals, or mop the tile you didn't see when the @#*%$^ ill-designed coffee pot dribbled as you were pouring the coffee. There are a lot of useful ways to spend 10 minutes that aren't quite as fun as going online and hitting the images button instead of yawning over a newspaper article on a need-to-know basis. If your garden rows are 18 feet long with 3 feet apart rows, you might just weed all 4 rows in a week. That way, you can do some real world accomplishments and never get banned. I still miss one of the people who got banned, several who found political debates upsetting and left for good, and several who died, whose spouse came here and let us know about it.

Just hitting the Disagree button is better than me replying to the person which would get me in more trouble

 

[Natural Citizen]

I only got banned once for contempt of activist/mod.

It was for a week on a first offense.

Didn't even have a record or any priors, other than a sudden burst of warnings from said activist/mod, which was clearly meant to drive up the bot count to initiate an automatic ban

People like that I wouldn't even let lead a lunch line. But it really does speak for the poor judgment of those who would hand over the controls to people like that.

But you know what?

I'd do it again. And likely will at some point.

I don't fear any of them. Not one...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know there was a rule regarding using the laugh button as a way to ridicule a post more than 6 times in one day, bit didn't know it covered disagree as well.

I had over 20 postings of mine in a single thread ridiculed by one poster who did just that a couple of years back, but the poster is a mod, so nothing came of it.

By there is no way to distinguish laughing with vs laughing at!

 

[1srelluc]

I only got banned once for contempt of activist/mod.

It was for a week on a first offense.

Didn't even have a record or any priors, other than a sudden burst of warnings from said activist/mod

But you know what?

I'd do it again. And likely will at some point.

I don't fear any of them. Not one...

LOL

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I only got banned once for contempt of activist/mod.

It was for a week on a first offense.

Didn't even have a record or any priors, other than a sudden burst of warnings from said activist/mod, which was clearly meant to drive up the bot count.

But you know what?

I'd do it again. And likely will at some point.

I don't fear any of them. Not one...

Some people seem hardwired to follow authority -- any authority. It doesn't make any difference to them if that authority is an anonymous person on the internet with an obvious agenda and completely lacking in objectivity. They follow anyway. In fact, not only do they follow, but they criticize those with a mind of their own who don't automatically acquiesce to the capriciousness and the targeting.

What the true believers hate more than anything else is the questioning of their Gods, and the Gods do their part through constantly reinforcing their infallibility.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Another way to get banned at least on a thread is to Hit the Disagree button more than 6 times a day on a single user, Mind you you can use the Thank button as many times as you like. If you cannot use the disagree button why even have it?

I can't recall ever giving anyone a thumbs down on a post.

And I don't use that lovey dovey heart eyes thing either. Talk about gey. Sheesh...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some people seem hardwired to follow authority -- any authority. It doesn't make any difference to them if that authority is an anonymous person on the internet with an obvious agenda and completely lacking in objectivity. They follow anyway. In fact, not only do they follow, but they criticize those with a mind of their own who don't automatically acquiesce to the capriciousness and the targeting.

What the true believers hate more than anything else is the questioning of their Gods, and the Gods do their part through constantly reinforcing their infallibility.

Well people tend to wanna be led. You know? Of course, I'm collectively speaking there.

There's a part of me that gets it. These days most families are working two jobs just to try to make ends meet and barely have time to learn how they're getting thrown overboard by the duopoly.

 

[rightwinger]

Recently, there have been a few posts reciting one of the rules about mod actions. One of them caught my eye. The one that says in effect, “thou shalt not discuss banned members.” This is antiquated I believe because the Board no longer tells anyone (other than the member who has been banned) who is away to the Land of the Banned.

Now, since the Board rules themselves seem to require another kind of ‘convention of the states,’ wouldn’t it make sense to address other glitches, too? For example, if a member (let’s say member “L”) has a mysterious an unidentified mod (let’s say mod “?”) issue a ban against him, “L” can’t direct the question of “why” to “?” because banned members lose the ability to sign-in. If “L” can’t even sign in, then “L” can’t find out from “?” or any other mod what the alleged rule violation was. Likewise “L” can’t ask “?” for a reconsideration, nor can “L” ask any group of mods to make a ruling (like an appeals) panel.

Maybe other members have other issues with the rules? Discussion might help make this a “more perfect” board.

Nobody should be banned without an email explaining which post resulted in a ban, what the infraction was and how long the ban is in effect

Posters should also be informed of how many current infractions they carry

Moderators should also have to inform an OP why a thread was moved or why a thread was terminated. Many are sent to Badlands without a stated reason