Guybrush

Yes, I do think it is preferable. There are many activities you can't really enjoy when there are loud kids around, like you're trying to build a cool sand castle and a loud kid comes and stomps on it. Parents probably allow some stomping.

But it's not just about my preference. We have rules here, but no predictable consequences when they are broken. In practice, they stop being rules - they lose all integrity.

I'd say either get a system of enforcing rules like I proposed and follow an ideal that they consistently matter - or change the rules so that they reflect how you actually want things to be. Right now, MB is pretty two faced. When was the last time someone got punished for a short nonsense post? Yet, this is not allowed by the rules. If it is to be allowed, then at least change the rule. If rules are guidelines, state that they are guidelines.

(And make a new rules thread so my name isn't on it)

__________________
Something Completely Different

Oriphiel

I keep debating if I should just send this in a PM, or post it. I'll just leave it up.

I know i'm out of the debate, but if I might interject for a moment, I think that's an unfair analogy. The difference between a human (in this case, a cop) and a robot is not that one sits back and does nothing. And the implication that our current mod team does nothing is not really accurate.

Also, with the whole analogy about MB being a playground...

There's nothing wrong with a playground for noisy kids. Implying that the parents are bad just because their children are energetic isn't really fair either, since the whole point of them taking their hard-to-handle kid to the playground was to get them to let off steam that would otherwise be let off at home/school. Plus, they're getting some fresh air and time to play, which shouldn't be taken away from them just because they mildly annoy you. What you're describing as a "bad" place is arguably the most important kind of place there is for a child; I can remember being a noisy kid back in my day, as all of my friends were, but getting to play around in a playground was fantastic, and it was a good break from all of the fighting going on at home. We might have annoyed people, but a parent always stepped in if anyone got hurt (which is comparable to how the mods currently supervise us). It seems to me like you're trying to turn a playground into a library.

In every analogy, you keep implying that the mods are useless; they're cops that "sit back and do nothing", and parents that ignore their kids while they destroy someone's sandcastle. I'm starting to sense an unfair bias in your argument. You also brought up the whole natural selection thing, despite it clearly not being in your favor; if the environment changed, then the bullies would change too. Only the most determined and subtle would survive, making them more effective than ever, and harder to stop. If you change the jungle, then the peaceful plant-eaters will change, but so will the predators. For every benefit your new system brings, it will have detriments to go along with it.

I can understand if you think that MB has become more wild in recent years (which I personally think is just a case of rose-tinted shades), but please don't take our current mod team for granted. This whole discussion isn't about whether the mods are bad and that the proposition will make them good; it's that the mods are already good, and we're discussing if this will make them even better.

Guybrush

I'm sorry if any mods feel that I am implying they do nothing. That is indeed inaccurate.

They just don't have a system for consistently punishing rule breaking. Police generally do (hence the analogy) and so are not allowed to ignore someone breaking the law. They would have to do something. Here, that sort of behaviour seems to be considered robotic and without judgment or consideration for context.

As I wrote, context and judgment may well play part, but generally not to the point where it leads to doing nothing. It could mean the difference between being let off with a warning or getting infractions, sure.

__________________
Something Completely Different

VEGANGELICA

I support your suggestion that the mods try using, for a month, a more consistent, predictable infractions system to deal with situations where members break the rules that MB already has.

The debate isn't whether mods should use infractions...they already do...but about the details of how and when they use them.

There would be no harm in trying out a more predictable system of rule enforcement for a month and then have us all reconvene to hear what members and mods thought about it. We could then decide whether we want to revert to the current, more loosely moderated system where threads more frequently get closed or abandoned due to going off-topic in silliness or personal fights, and members leave due to the frustration of personal attacks and bickering.

To those who said that MB members are capable of policing themselves: the proposed variation of the infractions system shouldn't bother anyone or infringe on their posting style, because MB members will already be behaving themselves according to the community rules.

Like Tore said, giving small infractions that last a short time for rule-breaking such as personal attacks, but that add up if someone breaks the rules too often, doesn't completely squelch comments such as "you're an *******" but does put a cap on how unruly fights and threads get at MB, since if a member continues to make personal putdowns or post off-topic posts, she'll get longer and more lasting consequences.

I encourage the mods and members to agree to give the proposed infractions system a try for a month. It could very well improve the "culture" here for those members who don't thrive in a place where they can get repeatedly put down personally for sharing their opinions, or where threads contain a lot of off-topic banter.

* * *

I agree with all of these reasons Tore gives for the benefits of our trying out a new variation of our current infractions system:

^ Yes, yes, and yes.

* * *

The problem is that people have gotten hurt emotionally here at MB quite badly due to members jumping on them, putting them down, mocking them.

And threads do get derailed by off-topic comments, which can be funny to an extent, but also can cause frustration to those who want threads to focus on the chosen topic and not digress entirely into discussions of something else.

A more consistent method of infractions would, I feel, help mods and the community still have fun, free-spirited conversations, but with fewer digressions and personal attacks.

__________________

The Batlord

__________________

Guybrush

By the way, thanks Freebase Dali for taking the time to respond. I hope the other mods will too, even if we disagree.

edit :

Sigh. The only source of fun around here involves breaking rules?

edit :

Doesn't really wear much on mine. Perhaps you're just not cut out for it?

I do think any job of rule enforcing requires an ability to personally distance oneself somewhat and not bring emotions into it. This is an area in which Boo Boo f.ex was lacking.

__________________
Something Completely Different

RoxyRollah

The babbadook will eat your insides.^

__________________

Oriphiel

Uh-oh. Frownland tried to warn me, but I didn't listen...

The Batlord

Cops don't know who you are. The mods do. How many speeding tickets do you think Officer Jackson has given out to his neighbor Leadfoot Joe?

__________________

Goofle

Since I'm not a very good writer I'll just say that I pretty much agree with what Jans, Freebase and most of the other members have said.

And I do appreciate the proposal you set up. I think it would work great in some communities. But I do believe that it could have a detrimental effect on the free flowing nature of this site. Maybe we as mods could act quicker to resolve certain situations, but other than that I think there's not really much wrong with the current setup.

__________________