Zero Tolerance

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by superstring01, Nov 6, 2009.

  1. superstring01 Moderator

    Recently we (well, me, but Mad proposed this measure earlier) have rolled out a "Zero Tolerance" policy for flaming, goading, provoking, racism and other blatantly negative posts. This applies ONLY in the World Events & Politics fora.

    To this end, warnings will no longer be issued for any of these things. Bans will be immediate. We will, of course, attempt to discern between a simple mistake and blatant actions. But the net result is the same: Zero Tolerance.

    I'm open to thoughts, feedback and discussion on the matter.

    I would ask that the discussion not include attacks on particular members or the dredging up of old feuds.

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    So, does that mean you will be using tolls?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    What if the post is blatantly negative in regards to a particular political issue and provokes a response from someone on the opposite side?

    How do you discern what is an attack or negative stab....when the whole of the political world thrives off such things?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. mike47 Banned Banned

    Why not religion as well ?.
    I see some folks who find any excuse to go and swear at any religion or religious folks .
    Okay I am not religious but seeing the same person swearing at the same religion day after day becomes kinda harassment to the other memebers .
    He or she can not swear at the members directly so they use religion as a scape goat . Just another thought.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Gustav Banned Banned


    "attempt" is the keyword here. your efforts to "discern".
    in the meantime we have a member that is banned due to what could possibly be a faulty judgment.

    what then?
    collateral damage? cost of doing business in sci? blush and apologize? multi million dollar payout?

    afford us some insurance from what could possibly be unfair decrees by giving the option of mounting a defense of one's actions prior to any punitive measures.

    is your sapience beyond reproach? with this alleged busy work schedule, can we be assured of something more than the most cursory of judgments?

    i say forget zero tolerance.
    sci is way too cool for that kind of crap

    why put your credentials and credibility out on the line like that?
    why erect bogeymen when really, there are none?
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I'm not that bad. :bawl:
  10. superstring01 Moderator


    But I also don't quite understand what you're referring to. "Tolls"?

    Good question. My answer: too bad. Each member is responsible for his or her own actions.

    Look. This place is a website, and people need to respect that fact. Nothing should so upset you that you cannot handle the real-life consequences for your real-life actions on this website. If somebody says something that is evil, horrible and so terrible that you cannot control yourself, then you should be willing to accept the consequences for your own actions. I'm tired of this game of, "Well, he said something and provoked me. . ."

    Tough shit. Ignore the bastard. Report the post. Stay on topic. If you follow this plan then you'll get to revel in all the glory when that provocative jerk gets banned for an appropriate amount of time.

    Don't have the patience to wait for a moderator to get involved? Fine, will you get to join him/her on the ban list.

    I can't and won't sit here and try to include every nuance of my management philosophy. But suffice it to say, it's easy enough to see who's being an jerk (fowl language, attacks at the person, etcetera).

    Even the dumbest member is capable of seeing what is a flame war. Here's my advice: Avoid them, and never worry AGAIN about getting banned.

    Not my subforum. Though, you bring up a good point. James and SkinWalker manager their forum. Though, nobody can say that James is averse to banning violators of the rules.

    Great points, but again, I can only speak for the fora I moderate.

    I agree. But this will have to fly, for now, in the WE&P fora.

    Who's judgment? Two people have been banned. Buffalo for 30 days for violating repeated requests NOT to flame and/or attack PJ. Vega for one WHOLE day (his first ban, AFAIK) for hate speech against Muslims.

    The only "bad judgment" here is on their part.

    Be melodramatic? Make empty points? Cry wolf? Be my guest, Gustav.

    I'm not perfect. You can always appeal my decisions to James or Plazma. They can over-rule me on any issue. Beyond that, I cannot nor will offer any "insurance" for "unfair decrees". Sciforums is a private club, don't break the rules and you have little to worry about.


    Nope. That's why there is James and Plazma.

    Yes. See, unlike you Gustav, I can apparetnly READ messages and determine poor behavior. Four hours isn't necessary to read a flame war and issue bans for that action.

    What do you want, an internal investigation by some bureaucracy?

    Jesus. Give me a break. You're bringing up non sequiturs left and right.

    Here's how it works, and in fact HAS ALWAYS WORKED: rule violators used to get warned. If the violation is accidental or light-hearted, I'll still issue a warning. But if it's serious, and/or if you should know better, you'll be banned for a minimum of one day. This isn't something new and revolutionary. Just a lot stricter.

    And, as always, you can take your case to James and Plazma. They'll override me, they have in the past.

    I say you're wrong. There are rules for a reason. And some people feverishly break them. Now they can sit at home and feverishly think of another forum to join.

    None of my "credentials" are on the line. And, in fact, I've received more complaints about lax rules then the strict ones.

    And the bogeyman? Gustav, this is your MO. You're a counter-culturalist, counter-anythingist. I could win the lottery tomorrow and offer to buy everybody here a new car and you'd bitch and complain about how I'm not doing enough, or some-such. I am not fooling myself into believing that ANYTHING I say to you will ever satisfy you. So, this will be my only good faith effort at doing that. If you disagree with my actions, feel free to PM James or Plazma.

  11. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    I was wondering why we cant just have a ranking system that allows other members to vote on a persons post quality. The ranking of the poster would be displayed by his/her name and could range from intelligent contributor to Troll. Get too many dislikes when you have a troll rating and get banned for x amount of time, that way we let the community decide on what stays and waht doesnt and avoid becoming a censorship cesspool. It would be internet democracy in action.

    It would also allow the community to moderate themselves...well to some degree :shrug:
  12. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    As I have stated in another thread about an unrelated topic:

    "Zero tolerance" simply means "We're intolerant."

    And intolerance is dangerously close to fascism. And that sends an even worse message.

    Obviously, I don't support any so-called "zero tolerance" policies, mainly because I think people are too hung up on *punishing after the fact* and not focused enough on *prevention* before the fact.

    Punishments don't prevent problems. Punishments are merely vindictive. Truth.
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Because it simply becomes a popularity contest.

    It's been done on communities. IT doesn't work, in my experience.

    Besides, it's not like you have anything to worry about. This rule pertains to the perpetually on-fire, flamed-out, shat-on topics in the World Events and Politics fora.

    That sounds pretty, but you really can't prove that. See, we tollerate everybody except, realistically, the trolls and flame-throwers and petty fighters. In that case, yes, you are right. We are intolerant. I'm okay with that.

    You're being melodramatic. First, this has already been discussed here and here. Sciforums is a private, MEMBER'S ONLY, forum. It is private property and is totally owned by Plazma Inferno (or someone above him). It is not a democracy. You do not have a bill of rights. Plazma can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Now, he's pretty wise, so he avoids being belligerent, but don't be so foolish as to assume that this place is a government entity with some sort of bill of rights.

    So, yes, it's a fascist tyranny. A benevolent one, for the most part, but it's a total, pure tyranny.

    Right on! We can institute a policy where we prevent people from losing their tempers, attacking and goading members by employing a full time molly-coddling staff, who pares up, one on one, with every member to baby sit them 24 hours a day. News Flash! We don't have that luxury. Like most structured entities, "prevention" is a wet dream. All we have is investigation and follow-up. The ramifications for bad behavior, especially the tough ones, are the only reasonable "prevention" that exists.

    Again, don't break any rules and you won't have anything to worry about.

    Do you even read what you type? Then we should just let out all the rapists and murderers because prison is "vindictive".

    Punishment for a crime serves as a "prevention" to most. Granted, there are those who will break laws anyway, that's why we follow through with punishments. But it's impossible to prevent crime, unless you in your infinite wisdom have come up with something heretofore never known.

    Do tell!

  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    The title of your threads yesterday were, "Zero Tollerance"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Ahh. I noticed that and corrected it. . . didn't I?

  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Yes, you did. Well done. I just had to be sure you're forums were going to remain toll free.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Gustav Banned Banned


    oh dear
    you are such a attention whore. the hypobole! the melodrama!
    just shut up and do your job

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    i was referring to a hypothetical

    dont be silly
    you impress the shit out of me
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Oh, no. The bill should arrive in 7-10 business days. You can use bill pay online if you like.

  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Do you take PayPal?
  20. Gustav Banned Banned


    it is bad taste to harp on that little factoid especially since sci is obviously not run that way. so stop. never ever bring it up again.

    and yes, we do have a bill of rights. sfog and historical record are the clearest indications of that.

    you think plazma would appreciate your efforts to portray him as a tyrant notwithstanding the benevolence clause?
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I think the current policy of gentle reminders goes along way. A zero tollerance policy will likely just piss a bunch of people off and create more hard my opinion.
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    i agree
    i received 2 warnings from james for abusive language within this week.
    i have also received many many similar warnings in my years here in sci
    i mean i know i should not do it
    james could have banned on that reason alone and i really cannot mount a defense

    i have no choice now but to lay off that crap.........for a while.
    you do not force a moderator's hand unnecessarily

    put sci's interest before your own
    if they coincide, even better
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    maybe i could cuss john out in chinese and none would be the wiser?

Share This Page