posted
WildaBeast, you are right, civility is subjective. Point well taken. It is quite possible that PMs are being sent. By the way, I wasn't questioning authority, I was making an observation.
The question about the avatars was answered in a public thread, though, so I don't think there would have been the need for a PM as well. I was just curious as to why it was acceptable to start a thread to ask some questions but not others. I think I figured it out, though. This was a technical question, so that may be what makes the difference. It is more clear to me, now.
I've also noticed a post's being edited by snopes, but you can go to any number of threads to find page after page of very long quotes which had no bearing on the response. Maybe several long paragraphs quoted, with a response of only a few sentences to only one point made in the quoted post. To be fair, I once was upset with Jenn for quoting only part of my post until I realized she was merely following the rules of the board. Live and learn.
I thought the option to report a post was meant for something more serious than excessive quoting. Can't you just imagine the frustration of snopes and of Jenn or of Four Kitties if I or anyone else started reporting posts saying, "Miss X quoted Mr. Y's whole post when it wasn't germaine to her response" or something similar? Sounds like tattletales in elementary school. Oh, my. That just gave me a case of the giggles.
Mad Jay, I didn't mean to imply anything about a person's being banned. In fact, I don't understand where you got that from what I said. (ETA: That's why I said maybe "mentioned" was a better word than "enforced.") I was trying to get some things clear in my mind, so I made some observations, asked a few questions and made one suggestion, thus agreeing with another poster who had made a similar suggestion. I've only seen one person banned since I've been here, and it wasn't for something as innocuous as excessive quoting. As I recall, it was for lying in the profile info. Lying is a big no-no. Guess that is similar to the Pretty-Penny-sock-puppet event. Excessive quoting is, in my opinion, an irritant for more reasons than one, but it is not as serious as the lying and as the sock-puppetry.
Thank you both for your input.
-------------------- "This air we're breathing. Oxygen, isn't it?"~I’mNotDedalus, impersonating Vincent D’Onofrio.|"Sometimes trying to communicate can be like walking through a minefield."~wanderwoman "Give people a break. It's not easy doing a life."~Joshua Halberstam Posts: 4020 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny...when we do certain moderator things in public, we get told off for embarrassing people and why couldn't we have called them out in private (not always just by the person getting called out, either)? When we do certain moderator things privately, it looks like we don't do anything and/or selectively enforce rules. We just can't win. But as has been said, more often than not things are happening behind the scenes rather than on the board. If it's being done in public there's probably a good reason for it.
About excessive quoting of posts, that's honestly a tough one to enforce in any way other than reminders or asking the poster to trim it down themselves. Going around trimming other people's posts puts the burden on the moderators to figure out which parts of the post were applicable to single out the correct context that was intended, which isn't fair to the moderators or the posters. If we misunderstand and edit a quoted part, we could completely alter what the person meant by choosing selective quoting on their behalf. I think it's pretty obvious why we want to avoid that situation like the plague.
-------------------- "You're the opposite of troll. It's a compliment!" Posts: 12086 | From: Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree, Jenn. If you had to send a PM or ask in every thread for people not to do that, you wouldn't be able to accomplish anything else. I was guilty of completely quoting long posts until I reread the rules in the FAQs. I had forgotten that was even mentioned. It never hurts any of us to read the FAQs more than once. Maybe you should release the flying monkeys, after all. I think I see from your post that you understood I was mainly asking for clarification and for information, rather than criticizing. You're good at clearing things up both in public and in private. Thanks for that.
-------------------- "This air we're breathing. Oxygen, isn't it?"~I’mNotDedalus, impersonating Vincent D’Onofrio.|"Sometimes trying to communicate can be like walking through a minefield."~wanderwoman "Give people a break. It's not easy doing a life."~Joshua Halberstam Posts: 4020 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkDan: Anyone can put a link to my site in their sig. I cleaned it up so there's no more spam and put some anti-spam measures in it.
Thanks for the permission, DarkDan, I'd like to do that. I'm not on the board consistantly enough to be a volunteer, but a link in the sig line is just as good.
posted
I've got the wikipedia bookmarked now so if I run into a thread where it's needed I can refer people there.
Noemi
-------------------- Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult. My blog, no guarantees about witty or intelligent content. My current projects. Coveted Beads <---- our eBay store, new items being added somewhat regularly Posts: 8418 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Signora Del Drago,G.R.I.T.S.:
Mad Jay, I didn't mean to imply anything about a person's being banned. In fact, I don't understand where you got that from what I said. (ETA: That's why I said maybe "mentioned" was a better word than "enforced.") I was trying to get some things clear in my mind, so I made some observations, asked a few questions and made one suggestion, thus agreeing with another poster who had made a similar suggestion. I've only seen one person banned since I've been here, and it wasn't for something as innocuous as excessive quoting. As I recall, it was for lying in the profile info. Lying is a big no-no. Guess that is similar to the Pretty-Penny-sock-puppet event. Excessive quoting is, in my opinion, an irritant for more reasons than one, but it is not as serious as the lying and as the sock-puppetry.
I was referring to your comment about rules being broken. I meant to say that, in my observation, even the most egregious of rule violations doesn't result in automatic bannination (except violation of rule# 6, of course. You trigger rule 6 and your ass is toast). The person who is violating the rules is given more than enough opportunity to correct his/her mistake, and to explain himself. Snopesters are given an opportunity to correct themselves, but that doesn't mean rules are not enforced.
People do get banned for continuing to violate the rules, including rule #1. I beleive JBP (Pretty Penny's puppet master) was banned because he was consistently being uncivil towards other people. Also, there was another newbie (I don't remember the name) who called another snopester a "sick looking Paki" (or something like that). Figuratively speaking, he got shot out of the snopester cannon.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No way will I ever violate Rule #6. I like it here too much. In fact, if I ever do something awful enough to get shot out of the snopester cannon, I'll beg and plead for another chance. No joke!
As far as using that slur against another snopester, well, the person who did it certainly deserved getting kicked off the board with no chance of ever coming back.
-------------------- "This air we're breathing. Oxygen, isn't it?"~I’mNotDedalus, impersonating Vincent D’Onofrio.|"Sometimes trying to communicate can be like walking through a minefield."~wanderwoman "Give people a break. It's not easy doing a life."~Joshua Halberstam Posts: 4020 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You can learn what various terms mean through context and observation; please do not create new threads to ask about them. If you must ask, do so in the thread where you saw the term.
No, the statement currently in the FAQ says what it means: Don't start new threads OR interrupt existing discussions to ask. Period.
quote:Perhaps forming a snopes' welcome wagon sort of thing, maybe, with some sort of flag in the member status. These would be volunteer snopesters who are open to being PMed about whatever questions new snopesters might have, and providing polite, factual answers to those questions.
We prefer the current system. It helps to keep the riff-raff out.
quote:I feel it would be more polite to have it stated as an ironclad rule
The reason we try not to have rules at all ("ironclad" or otherwise) is because as soon as rules are established, too many people take it upon themselves to start mindlessly enforcing those rules, whether or not the perceived infractions had anything to do with the reasons behind the establishment of the rules supposedly broken.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
