Update on Forums Governed by Rules

[David Koot]

It has been some time since I visited Club Adventist. Last time I stopped in, there was some pretty lively discussion about the pros and cons of having rules on this forum. I recall concerns being expressed about the idea and the mechanics of having and enforcing specific rules. I have no idea what the status of the whole issue is on here.

Since then, I have had the opportunity to witness first-hand how such an approach would work. That is, in a situation where there are specific rules, which are enforced systematically by moderators and administrators. I am very favorably impressed. The system works, and it provides safeguards and a sense of security and well-being for participants. Application of the rules is indeed even-handed. That is accomplished through a team of moderators and admins who vote on each reported rule violation (the members report what they consider vio's) I am very impressed with both the good-will and the integrity and even-handedness of the staff members. Indeed, such an approach can and does work, and it is one which I would highly recommend.

Dave

[phkrause]

Good to hear from you. I agree with you. No rules usually means chaos, of course people can go overboard as well.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

I am glad to see David back as well. I hope he hangs around.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I like the idea of a team of moderators voting on violations. That would definitely make enforcement more consistent.

[Jeannieb43]

Application of the rules is indeed even-handed. That is accomplished through a team of moderators and admins who vote on each reported rule violation (the members report what they consider vio's) I am very impressed with both the good-will and the integrity and even-handedness of the staff members. Indeed, such an approach can and does work, and it is one which I would highly recommend.

Dave

Looks like that system would require a team of moderators and admins who are full-time, paid employees.

(In my experience serving on a criminal jury in which a unanimous verdict is required, it is almost impossible to get everybody to agree on whether or not some evidence proves a violation of the law. Lots of "hung juries" that way.)

[David Koot]

Looks like that system would require a team of moderators and admins who are full-time, paid employees.

[Nan]

David, I obviously do not know which forum you visited to observe

that application of the rules. The success of such a system will

depend in part on how contentious are the subjects under discussion.

I have observed that elsewhere.

[jasd]

Why is it that you’re always in-n-out with the same sing-song re

regimentation, apparatchiks, and squelchments?

More cliquey-claquey boards we don’t need – y’know, only this and not that is allowed, this person or that must..., the subjects require..., jawohl! guvnor, err, mein Koot.

What surprises me is the paucity of independence exhibited by those who just roll over – that there might be

sameness in their homeroom... umm, threads

[Stan]

There is much room for those who need rules to be able to act civil, others have the ability to act civil without them.

One person here, was constantly correcting everyone else, so much that people where leaving, and it was hurting this forum, I had asked that person to cease doing that at least three times, it continued.

Not everyone, even they say, wants to constantly be 'corrected'

This seems to be more of a problem when it is male and female.

I had even asked that person to please post inspirational thoughts, as I know he had lots. BUT no he had to keep on correcting everyone.

He was given a period of rest, a hard thing for me to do as he was a trusted friend of mine.

Just my opinion....

[Gail]

Thanks for mentioning that, Stan.

[Tom Wetmore]

...The success of such a system will

depend in part on how contentious are the subjects under discussion.

I have observed that elsewhere.

And I might add, success depends on how it is defined and measured. Success is so subjective... One person "teaching" while all others listen, appears to have the hallmarks of success if lack of contention is deemed success. If the goal is quietude, a cemetery seems a successful achievement.

[David Koot]

David, I obviously do not know which forum you visited to observe

that application of the rules.

[David Koot]

There is much room for those who need rules to be able to act civil, others have the ability to act civil without them.

[jasd]

Not lookin’ to bust anybody’s chops, but...

Don’t tell me mum, but “civil” is a yes ma’am, no ma’am, and not using the oyster fork to stir the coffee, etc. Gentlemen..., post and riposte.

>>One person here, was constantly correcting everyone else,<<

Whoo-ee! with a dotted ‘i’ or two – and a crossed ‘t’ – we’s be talkin’ about who-me? ‘ceptin’ that I am more the adversarial than the corrective...

>>...so much that people where leaving, and it was hurting this forum,<<

...don’t take me wrong, but mebbe we might oughta, like – open a ‘sanctioned’ whuss board? :-o

Should I ever be caught out thumb-sucking and whinin’ – all’a yous, please – slap me ‘longside mah haid, put on your stompin’ boots and kick the holy bejiminies outa me! Sh**st*, O’Really! That said, leave me alone when I upbraid someone or t’other for calling best efforts of others –

excrement – or when they’s delimiting simplest simples.

Exercising The Laodicean Articles of hot, cold, and spue... I admit that David Koot on past occasions was celebrated on ‘Roastings’ of a sort; but, c’mon..., he’s a lawyer, ain he? sharkskin and all...? Man-up, guy.

Okay, I’ve only been a member here for ‘bout three years and truly noxious postings may have preceded me, but since then – nothin’ but curds and whey – imho.

As, it seems, Mr Koot doesn’t have any skin in the game other than suggestions on how to manage the locals – how is he otherwise invested...?

[David Koot]

Don’t tell me mum, but “civil” is a yes ma’am, no ma’am, and not using the oyster fork to stir the coffee, etc.

[David Koot]

I went back to edit but apparently missed the window to do it, so wanted to respond to this comment from a previous post:

Quote:

I admit that David Koot on past occasions was celebrated on ‘Roastings’ of a sort; but, c’mon..., he’s a lawyer, ain he? sharkskin and all...?

No matter who the individual, or what the background, such a thing should not be allowed--and, indeed, IS not allowed elsewhere. Administration should never tolerate such a thing happening. There should be prompt action to nip it in the bud--whoever it is being 'roasted.' But there has not been such intervention, it is allowed to happen, and that is indeed evidence that this is not 'a safe place to grow among friends.'

[Cosmin M.]

Since I have been on here, the worst I have seen are a few moved topics and a few flame wars about some things.

[jasd]

Okaayyy, I take your meaning... That said,

you did handle your several previous ‘roastings’ with a fair amount of measure and equanimity – but safer? wha’s dat? wha’for?

Peace, D’Koot.