Why can't we just try to be a bit more kind to each other or at least try to stay neutral? Then we wouldn't need disciplinary consequences. 

... Perhaps some of us like to argue and get wet pants when doing.   

It's really sad, that we have to discuss about any kind of disciplinaries rather than doing something useful. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
But it don't matter anyway... as I basically don't believe it matters as Ken didn't ask for our opinions on it... and I personally believe he is going to do it the way he feels is right for him... no matter of this thread.

I think this is true also. I think the general poll results are informative for Ken, but I don't think the specifics of the proposal matter much.

I would think (read: hope ) that the specifics would matter, too. At least if he sees that 90% of the participants feel there needs to be a change, and 67% support the proposed change, it at least gives him a launching point on where to start to make a change that most want.

(I don't buy into the 'makes everyone happy' belief, because the bottom line is you can't. But judging by the current poll results, you can get pretty dang close.)

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
But it don't matter anyway... as I basically don't believe it matters as Ken didn't ask for our opinions on it... and I personally believe he is going to do it the way he feels is right for him... no matter of this thread.

I think this is true also. I think the general poll results are informative for Ken, but I don't think the specifics of the proposal matter much.

I would think (read: hope ) that the specifics would matter, too. At least if he sees that 90% of the participants feel there needs to be a change, and 67% support the proposed change, it at least gives him a launching point on where to start to make a change that most want.

(I don't buy into the 'makes everyone happy' belief, because the bottom line is you can't. But judging by the current poll results, you can get pretty dang close.)

I agree wuith you, Alien. But I have to say that you are one of those users that has a very specific and obvious agenda behind your wish, so were I ken I would probably tend to discount what you say.

Quite correct, Mike

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Moderator please remove the above comment made by Ace. of Sevens.

The proper tool for reporting bad behavior is the Red Arrow.  Not pointing a finger in a crowded room and drawing everyone's attention to it.



One thing that I like about Pete's suggestion is the simplicity.  The probationary period is interesting, but it looks like more work to automate.  And if it's not automated, then it's too difficult for sure.

Regardless, I still say Ken or some Invelos representative really, really needs to provide some input here.  Like yesterday.  I know the preferred method is to let the users work things out.  And sometimes that's a fantastic approach (like crafting rules for example).  But in my opinion this is a case that really needs to be discussed with an official representative present. And participating!!! (since I suspect Ken has been keeping close tabs on things  )

Trying to develop "rules" for dealing with bad behavior really shouldn't have ever been left to the users in the first place.  But since we're here, the least you can do Invelos is work with us.  Or tell us to stop wasting our time and lock the thread.

Why not Mark, people do it to me all the time. Big red arrow for Skip, is not the same thing. Have you ever condemned anyone for saying so...answer NO you have not. There is waord for your post.

It's OK for others but not Ok for you Skip, Mark that sis blatant hypocrisy. Havbe you condemend a anyone for any of the posts fired at me, oh hell no, not once, in fact you have taken few. Sorry, pal I don't buy into that game. If it's good for one it is good for all.

I won't disagree, Double. But then there goes that double standard that I have talked about. It's OK to condemn Skip, it's not OK to say Ace, that's inappropriate and some could easily be offended by it and in FACT are. No, Double, double standards don't work. If you are going to try and hold me to a standard then you had best show me that you plan to do likewise. Pete and I seldom get into heated arguments, I can think of one or two over the years, and even those were over when they were over, as they should be, because Pete has very similar standards to my own and treats everyone equally. I will treat you precisely in the same manner with which you treat me. While i won't disagree with you, i will say that you are sort of living in a bubble of your own creation, and you are expecting something which you are not giving, I have gone back and reviewed your comments directed at me the last two or three weeks, my conclusion is exactly what I have said. Though I will add one additional adjective, you have been respectful but there is definitely an undercurrent of ...what should I call it...self-righteousness, hostility, judgementalism...I don't know but i detect it. Like I said I have no idea who you even are, you step into the forums a couple of weeks and in your dealings with me you have been hyper-critical and that is offensive to me, I don't know, so obviously you don't know me, though you obviously believe you do. You watch movies that star Tom Cruise, you see him on talkshows, do you KNOW him. No, you don't, you may come to some conclusions about him but they may or may not be correct. You don't KNOW me either.

I would have to ask, what would constitute a moderated post for the purpose of the rule.

What are the standards, aside from spam, and outright name calling.  What else would there be.  I would hate to get banned for a off topic post (I don't see that happening).  here needs to be a set guide someplace.

Also if there is a series of post, that ends up into a very innapropriate argument, you seen them 5, 6 moderated posts in a row, do all participants get banned?

Is there a way to appeal the ruling.  what one person interprets things may be differnet then another. 

All these would have to be laid out, if we want a comprehensive set of rules...


Charlie

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
I would have to ask, what would constitute a moderated post for the purpose of the rule.

What are the standards, aside from spam, and outright name calling.  What else would there be.  I would hate to get banned for a off topic post (I don't see that happening).  here needs to be a set guide someplace.

Also if there is a series of post, that ends up into a very innapropriate argument, you seen them 5, 6 moderated posts in a row, do all participants get banned?

Is there a way to appeal the ruling.  what one person interprets things may be differnet then another. 

All these would have to be laid out, if we want a comprehensive set of rules...


Charlie

Agreed!  Even now it's obvious that people have different ideas on what crosses the line.


As far as multiple persons I don't see why they all wouldn't get a strike against them (not necessarily a ban!), just because someone acts inappropriately doesn't give someone else the right to respond in kind. Report it with a red arrow and let the moderators handle it, if you choose to respond you are no better than the instigator.