Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
The user agreement has updated, in case you aren't logged in and didn't get harassed about it.
This revision has actually been sitting on the drawing board for about a year now, and I just found the text file again. Oops. Though this is normal for me.
Post here if you have any comments or questions about the agreement... and to head off the question, everything in the "do not" list is subjective, and I will not define absolutes. Trying to do so will lead down a path of pain and torment...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I still think the part about "long-time posters" being given extensive leeway with the rules while newbies aren't is rather undemocratic and elitist. Not that I don't enjoy being able to take advantage of it or understand its perceived purpose, but on a philosphical level it just doesn't seem right.
I don't lend much credence to the notion that without such provisions this board would suddenly (or even gradually) turn into the vast expanse of chaos and entropy that is the TrekBBS. It seems to me that this board attracts a certain variety of poster, and for the most part people either fit in here or don't. And those that don't generally don't stay long anyway. It's sort of a self-regulating system. No real need for seniority clauses.
But what the hell, it's your board. C'est la vie. I'm certainly not going anywhere.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
quote:Originally posted by Charles Capps: Trying to do so will lead down a path of pain and torment...
Obvious Movie quote: "Yours or mine?"
Chevy Chase in "Spies Like Us"
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
quote:I still think the part about "long-time posters" being given extensive leeway with the rules while newbies aren't is rather undemocratic and elitist.
You seem to be under the impression that the community isn't elitist, or perhaps that it is a democracy.
The reason I put those particular sections in the rules is due to a recent incident of spamming - a guy posted a basic ad for his site not once, but twice, and was even given a third chance not to screw up and do it again... and instead, he sent me a long-winded PM about preferential treatment and how we all suck and are horribly unfair.
Well, yes, we are. He's perfectly correct. So I figure that people might as well be warned ahead of time, eh?
Might be better to just replace the whole thing with "CAUTION: Jackasses Within" or somesuch.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I like it. Concise. Good balance between democratic openness and appropriate elitism.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I still think the part about "long-time posters" being given extensive leeway with the rules while newbies aren't is rather undemocratic and elitist.
I disagree. Sure, it's "undemocratic" and "elitist", but no message board is a democracy (unless it's an unmoderated Usenet group). An in a case like this -- having a well-established Internet community -- I think it's okay to be stricter with newcomers because they don't have a strong relationship with the rest of the community. The rest (myself included, admittedly) pretty much know where we stand with one another. Basically, a proven track record of behavior and interaction makes minor infractions much more excusable. If some random person comes into the community, and within a week starts causing trouble, how do we know that won't be a regular problem with them?
I think that, as long as such a policy is clearly spelled out in the user agreement (as it is now), I don't think it's unfair.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I still don't understand the part of "excessive posting" since I tend to post at least three times on one sitting here. Can you or will you elaborate Charles?
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Mmmmm, can someone tell me what people that registered in 1999 can get away with, but really shouldn't? Out of pure academic interest
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge: I still don't understand the part of "excessive posting" since I tend to post at least three times on one sitting here. Can you or will you elaborate Charles?
I am intentionally being vague here in order to allow the proper level of enforcement against those that really need it. This is meant to stop people that just post random fluff & useless comments, in addition to people that just plain post too much.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Here's an example, Mucus. A longtime poster (not necessarily from 1999 but one who's been here and contributed long and often) can get away with starting a thread where the starting post consists of a link to some other site. For longtime members, it's presumed that it isn't spamming. If a new member were to do that, the thread would be locked down and the link disabled as spam. That's probably the easiest and most common example I can come up with. Longtime members can just use a link to start a discussion; new members have to supply a set-up and discussion start to prove that it isn't a case of spamming.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Besides, if a "longtime poster" tries to abuse his/her cred with the community to get at a newer person for petty prestige reasons, everyone sees it for what it is and will arguably call him/her on it and ask what is going on.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, I stay around here because of the elitist atmosphere, even if I don't participate in it. That's the flavor of this place. If it wasn't for that, it would be like any other message board.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
We're unique because we're jerks!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
