thread patrolling?

[Prez]

Understand what your saying there, but bottom line is, you really aren't in the position to tell us what is minor and what is major, concerning the forum rules.
If they were unimportant, they truly would not matter to us.
But they are rules so you can obviously assume that they are important.

 

[Syntax]

Whether you agree with the forum rules or not they are here to stay and those who continuously double post and spam will be dealt with in an appropriate manner. If the moderators were to overlook spam posts and whatnot this forum would be full of spam threads and posts and eventually the older members would most likely become fed up with it and eventually leave.

 

[dodabird]

Understand what your saying there, but bottom line is, you really aren't in the position to tell us what is minor and what is major, concerning the forum rules.
If they were unimportant, they truly would not matter to us.
But they are rules so you can obviously assume that they are important.

i disagree. and because i'm a member of this forum, i do believe i have some right to say what i feel is important and unimportant. personally, i have no qualms with someone double-posting, or saying that they hate the wii and is switching to the ps3. that type of stuff doesn't bother me. that's why i feel so strongly about this matter. and as moderators, it's my assumption that you guys are swamped with matters that you all have to deal with--why waste your time on the petty stuff?

i'm not a moderator, so i have no dictation as to what should and shouldn't be dealt with. but i'm a member, so i'm entitled to voice my opinion about anything concerning this site, unimportant or not.

Whether you agree with the forum rules or not they are here to stay and those who continuously double post and spam will be dealt with in an appropriate manner. If the moderators were to overlook spam posts and whatnot this forum would be full of spam threads and posts and eventually the older members would most likely become fed up with it and eventually leave.

oh boy. maybe i should just stop posting. once again, I AM NOT AGAINST THE FORUM RULES. please understand that, as i am growing weary repeating myself. i AM, however, against those members who make it their job to blast other members and make them feel unwanted and "noobish" for violating the minor rules. i understand that they are still rules, and it is not my intent to change them. i am simply voicing my discontentment with said members

I AM NOT AGAINST THE FORUM RULES. I AM AGAINST THOSE WHO ENFORCE THESE RULES WITH AN IRON FIST, AND IN TURN MAKE VIOLATORS OF SAID RULES FEEL EMBARASSED AND STUPID.

 

[Prez]

i disagree. and because i'm a member of this forum, i do believe i have some right to say what i feel is important and unimportant. personally, i have no qualms with someone double-posting, or saying that they hate the wii and is switching to the ps3. that type of stuff doesn't bother me. that's why i feel so strongly about this matter. and as moderators, it's my assumption that you guys are swamped with matters that you all have to deal with--why waste your time on the petty stuff?

i'm not a moderator, so i have no dictation as to what should and shouldn't be dealt with. but i'm a member, so i'm entitled to voice my opinion about anything concerning this site, unimportant or not.

Yes you have right to voice your opinion.
But what I am saying is that as a regular member you no nothing about what actually goes on here. The staff are the only ones who know hence the only ones really able to voice what is important to uphold and what is not.

 

[CantGetAWii]

oh boy. maybe i should just stop posting. once again, I AM NOT AGAINST THE FORUM RULES. please understand that, as i am growing weary repeating myself. i AM, however, against those members who make it their job to blast other members and make them feel unwanted and "noobish" for violating the minor rules. i understand that they are still rules, and it is not my intent to change them. i am simply voicing my discontentment with said members

I AM NOT AGAINST THE FORUM RULES. I AM AGAINST THOSE WHO ENFORCE THESE RULES WITH AN IRON FIST, AND IN TURN MAKE VIOLATORS OF SAID RULES FEEL EMBARASSED AND STUPID.

Hate to bring the fist down, but please don't double post.

Also, I liked my answer to this situation did you?

 

[Squall7]

Ok. I see what you're saying dodobird. You're basically saying that it's a bit inappropriate for member after member to socially enforce the rules through shaming and aggressive behaviour.

However, when it comes down to it, isn't it how a society works? Informal controls to deter people from breaking lesser social rules, and formal ones for breaking more important social rules. In essence, what we see here is the society policing itself to the extent that it can, and where it really cannot (for whatever reason), we have the authorities to deal it out. If we really had extra police specifically to tell people not to talk loudly on their mobile phone in public or to actively tell people not to swear (i.e. social rules rather than law), then we'd all be complaining because of "Big Brother" in effect.

Basically, it's a case of personal preference. You can either tell people off when they do wrong, or be more sympathetic (which I like to think I am), but in the end, you'll have to follow the rules the same as everyone else.

 

[Dark Wolf]

Ok. I see what you're saying dodobird. You're basically saying that it's a bit inappropriate for member after member to socially enforce the rules through shaming and aggressive behaviour.

However, when it comes down to it, isn't it how a society works? Informal controls to deter people from breaking lesser social rules, and formal ones for breaking more important social rules. In essence, what we see here is the society policing itself to the extent that it can, and where it really cannot (for whatever reason), we have the authorities to deal it out. If we really had extra police specifically to tell people not to talk loudly on their mobile phone in public or to actively tell people not to swear (i.e. social rules rather than law), then we'd all be complaining because of "Big Brother" in effect.

Basically, it's a case of personal preference. You can either tell people off when they do wrong, or be more sympathetic (which I like to think I am), but in the end, you'll have to follow the rules the same as everyone else.

Yes a community crime watch so to speak. Very good analogy.

Most areas have a larger population than security/police force. People follow the rules because of penalties for breaking the laws and also fear of what their peers would think if they got in trouble. Within a forum like this, some of those fears are gone (ie. most people in here don't know each other personally and the worst that can happen as a penalty is getting banned) which means the forum needs a stronger support mechanism to counteract the fact that there are far fewer moderators than members.

 

[dodabird]

Ok. I see what you're saying dodobird. You're basically saying that it's a bit inappropriate for member after member to socially enforce the rules through shaming and aggressive behaviour.

bingo. thank you, Squall7.

However, when it comes down to it, isn't it how a society works? Informal controls to deter people from breaking lesser social rules, and formal ones for breaking more important social rules. In essence, what we see here is the society policing itself to the extent that it can, and where it really cannot (for whatever reason), we have the authorities to deal it out. If we really had extra police specifically to tell people not to talk loudly on their mobile phone in public or to actively tell people not to swear (i.e. social rules rather than law), then we'd all be complaining because of "Big Brother" in effect.

yes, it's precisely how a society works. if society had a 1:1 ratio of law encorcement officials to civilians, we wouldn't need neighborhood crime watches and things of the sort. i understand this, and am thoroughly glad that communities across the nation (and across the world) have come together in an effort to stem crime. but let's stay with the neighborhood crime watch analogy, as it seems to be quite appropriate. before moving back home to guam, i lived in Hillsboro, OR, while i attended college within the state. i stayed in a cul-de-sac that was part of a larger, gated community. this community had a board that governed it, with certain rules that we all had to follow, like the how long our grass could be, and how large satellites were allowed to be if a family chose to use satellite television. and instead of waiting for a representative of the board to reprimand the members of this community, whenever a house would violate a particular rule, the neighbors would kindly remind the family that their grass was too long, satellite was too big, etc. this is the kind of sense that i'm getting on this forum; when spotted, members of the forum, for the most part, kindly identify rule-violations and voice their concern. but i have witnessed some members who take great offense to these minor encroachments on forum rules, and lash out in accordance to their personal annoyance. some go so far as to label users with degrading terms such as "noob" and "retard." surely, if my neighbor broke into my house and i caught them, aside from inflicting physical harm, i'd fill my vocabulary with the harshest words in the english language. but if all they did was allow their grass to grow a couple inches higher than regulation, i certainly wouldn't destroy their character by verbally berating them.

Basically, it's a case of personal preference. You can either tell people off when they do wrong, or be more sympathetic (which I like to think I am), but in the end, you'll have to follow the rules the same as everyone else.

i agree. Squall7, you may just be the most intelligent person i've interacted with since i created this thread. the cases of "personal preference" in which members react in a negative, hurtful, unneeded and inappropriate manner are the ones i am attacking. thank you for recognizing this.

 

[CantGetAWii]

Not everyone is mean about "enforcing" though.
In fact many don't even acknowledge someone's double post etc.

But when someone does, they are often nice about it, show them the link to a previous thread or guide them in the right direction.
Sometimes all they do is report the problem to the Mod's without saying a word.

Every way is effective, and helps keep things flowing.
Like I said before, its a forum, thats how things are run.

Your problem may lie with not enjoying forums, if you get mad over things like this.

 

[dodabird]

Not everyone is mean about "enforcing" though.
In fact many don't even acknowledge someone's double post etc.

But when someone does, they are often nice about it, show them the link to a previous thread or guide them in the right direction.
Sometimes all they do is report the problem to the Mod's without saying a word.

in an effort to NOT double-post, i will reply to your comment with a quote directly from my most previous post, since you either didn't take the time to read what i said, or are simply ignoring me. here's my quote:

when spotted, members of the forum, for the most part, kindly identify rule-violations and voice their concern. but i have witnessed some members who take great offense to these minor encroachments on forum rules, and lash out in accordance to their personal annoyance. some go so far as to label users with degrading terms such as "noob" and "retard."

i hope that by reading this quote, you will realize that i acknowledge the fact that not everyone is mean and vicious.

Your problem may lie with not enjoying forums, if you get mad over things like this.

no, that's not where my problem lies. but thanks for trying.

 

[CantGetAWii]

Ok where does your problem lie, because I am not seeing it at all.

 

[Eagles]

Ok where does your problem lie, because I am not seeing it at all.

His problem lies in the fact that he believes some members are pointing out double posts and the like in an inappropriate manner, as they are just minor offences.

 

[dodabird]

Ok where does your problem lie, because I am not seeing it at all.

(sigh) i can't say where my problem lies, because that would be double, triple, qudrupal-posting...right?

i've stated, again and again, the issue that i'm having with member behaviors in general. i'm sorry, Can'tGetAWii...i'm just tired of explaining myself.

but thanks for staying civil with me. it's obvious i'm frustrating a lot of people the same way that i'm frustrated myself. the patience and civil discussions that i've encountered through the course of this thread is reminding me that there are good-natured, truly helpful members on this site. kudos to all of you.

 

[CantGetAWii]

His problem lies in the fact that he believes some members are pointing out double posts and the like in an inappropriate manner, as they are just minor offences.

Well if thats the case I said already we tend to be nice about it.

(sigh) i can't say where my problem lies, because that would be double, triple, qudrupal-posting...right?

i've stated, again and again, the issue that i'm having with member behaviors in general. i'm sorry, Can'tGetAWii...i'm just tired of explaining myself.

but thanks for staying civil with me. it's obvious i'm frustrating a lot of people the same way that i'm frustrated myself. the patience and civil discussions that i've encountered through the course of this thread is reminding me that there are good-natured, truly helpful members on this site. kudos to all of you.

Again, no.

Double posting and triple posting is when you post once, then post again before someone posts after you.

Its not how many times one posts in a thread.
That is allowed, hence threads and discussions people have.
Sheez.

 

[dodabird]

Well if thats the case I said already we tend to be nice about it.

ok, i'm not gonna respond to this comment. i don't like running in circles.

Double posting and triple posting is when you post once, then post again before someone posts after you.

Its not how many times one posts in a thread.
That is allowed, hence threads and discussions people have.
Sheez.

if it's truly "not how many times one posts in a thread," then what's the problem with double-posting? posting another comment immediately after your first comment is still, essentially, posting twice. and if what you said about multiple posts in one thread not being a problem is true, then double-posting shouldn't be disallowed, right? whether i post 3 comments on one thread in succession or spread throughout the thread, it's still the same thing--3 comments. why does positioning matter?

on second thought, nevermind. this issue is irrelevant, as this thread addresses vicious attacks of SOME members.