Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community' started by arn, Jul 17, 2003.
Thats very clear and succinct, arn, after the public complaints that have been going on lately, it's also very timely.
I take it this is in response to the person complaining about Rower Cpu.
thx arn i think it was a great idea to post a more updated version of the rules, especially given recent online events.
Nice rules arn, maybe his will slow down all the spaming and encourage people not to pick fights. I think that macrumors needs at least two more mods.
A will now take place
numbers correspond with question number of course. i don't speak for arn, just giving my thoughts.
3. not sure of arn's intent specifically. but i think it's safe to say that, in general, the person will be warned. as he said, the mods are human. if they get pissed, they get pissed. if arn thinks they let their emotions get the best of them in a specific case, and wrongfully banned someone, he'll bring them back i'm sure, as he said.
4. the mod is right unless someone mentions it specifically to arn. that's the nature of being a mod. again, see my answer to number 3 (or what arn said initially) as to what would happen if the mod turns out to not be right. (in arn's ultimate estimation)
5. he was warned via pm. not once, but twice. if that's not clear, what is?
6. instant if you do something outrageous as listed. not unreasonable.
7. agreed. some people get away with it. heck, i even have a problem with eye calling people "*******s" and such. it's just egging people on really.
9. you're probably right, there may be one or two mods less than their could be. but given the powers they get, arn can't exactly hand out the authority to joe blow if they are unworthy and could wield it wrongly.
well written arn , i guess will all the recent problems its good to have a reminder for everyone ...
Thank you arn. It's always good to have a reminder. I will admit that reading the warnings always puts fear in me. Guess as usual just taking things too personal. Any imput from a moderator appreciated. I do try my best!
If you have a problem with their actions, email or pm me. Otherwise, what they say goes.
Definitely. if you start spamming or personally insulting people - you have no place on this forum.
i think you have a rosy view of this and are unaware of the disruptive activities that go on. The other day there was a 10 post run of the same person posting insults and using multiple accounts - responding to themselves in the main forum thread. Did you see it? Why only 10 posts? Because they were dealt with with banning and IP blocking.
I'm not sure why this wouldn't be the policy. ie. Mods are right unless proven otherwise.
Is there a forum where this is NOT the going policy?
I'm not saying they can invoke their mod-ship to try to convince you that blue is better than green. I'm talking about board policy and warnings.
I still don't follow... would you rather there be no appeal process?
...things could get dull around here
At the risk of an instant ban, I would hesitate to question the reasoning behind some of these new rules just in case my intent is misconstrued as a direct contradiction/attack on anothers opinion.
I was thinking that the best thing to do would be to dig them in around my roses, and what fine roses they would be.
still.... lets wait and see, it could work wonders on the ol' bandwidth.
As have I.
The appeal process gives you more flexibility than other sites.
The fact that new users might not know about it just means they are at the same level as users in other forums.
If you know about it, and think you were wrongfully banned, then you have someone to go to.
why the need to be so difficult?
the rules seem pretty darn clear to me
and based on the recent events, yes, the title bar seems necessary.
what you want is arn to do ALL of the moderating so that there's never any doubt? so none of the moderators can take issues into their own hands when it seems fit and maybe (why/when who knows) arn isn't around to deal with them himself.
but seriously, are they really so hard to follow?
This is the most inane conversation I have ever heard......erm....."read". These are "common sense" rules.
The moderator is always right. Why? Because he has the power to ban you and is one of the people put in charge. Why were they chosen? Because they have a clear understanding of the rules, and they know exactly what they have to do in order for the forum to run the way Arn wants it to run ---- smoothly. If you don't agree with something that is done, PM Arn. Its clear as crystal.
Instant banning?? Sure, why not. If you don't insult anybody, and never intend to go on a --> "****" <--- spree, then you have nothing to worry about. The only people who should be afraid of this rule are the people who think they may break it. I'm sure that if you're a long time member of this message board, the Moderators will simply not "insta-ban" or "perma-ban" you so that you can at least plead your case, especially if its a 1st time offense. You'll probably get PM'ed. Nobody here is unreasonable. But if you're brand spankin' new here, fresh off the boat, then you're unfamiliar to the moderators and your attitude may be seen as the normal way you choose to behave around here. They don't know you or your character, so why should they give you the benefit of the doubt?
PS: I realize that I'm a bit hyperactive, but if I break a rule, just PM me. I'm soooo close to getting an avatar. Must.....get......500 posts!! Arghhh!!
I for one think this is ridiculous, why must it be so hard for everyone to understand the rules, there are better things to debate over than what the rules arn puts in place mean, and if you don't like the rules of this forum you are free to leave and go post elsewhere, perhaps spymac's forums would better suit some....
Put perhaps there is an easier solution, rather than have to worry about what the grounds for banning are, at least for new-comers, why not do this:
All "newbies" are under a probationary period and can be banned or dismissed for any reason during that period by arn and the mods, not the probationary period would of course have to be based on a set time period rather than post-count/member ranking.
This seems like a easy solution and one that would work by weeding out the potential problematic members early on without having to debate what each said and so on.
why though? if they caused what could even be miscontrued as a problem, then why do we miss them?
if they're really going to be valuable to the community (ie, worth making sure they aren't banned), they will care enough to look into their banning, and do something about it.
someone who will just put messages up trashing arn and the mods doesn't deserve a bunch of chances anyways.
macman, i think you're a pretty cool guy. i respect you, especially for your ability to think differently at a relatively young age... but i don't get why you're so hung up on this.
it's getting to be shrek-like.
ok i'm not sure what mr. macman us saying from everything i've seen this is the same ploicy thats been enforced for a while...perhaps a little more friendly to newbies....they atleast see the exact rules upfront and if they don't read the rules before they post its their fault...arn makes it very visible...
But people could just register, not post a single time, and wait out the probationary period. Believe it or not, there are a lot of losers out there that simply have no lives and would go through the trouble to cause chaos around here. Oh wait, was this considered an "insult" to all losers? Sorry.
Anyway, I like the idea, but it has to be based on post count. If you don't get banned by your 200th post, then you probably won't be a problem. People who spam to get 200 will be caught by then anyway.
That is a good point and for some reason I didn't think of that, if there is a probationary period and you spam your way to get past it you will undoubtedly be bannded for it.
What do you think arn?
Or why not have moderators in charge of each section. You can have 2 or so moderators for the entire "News and Article Discussion" section, one for the "Mac Discussion" section (General News, Hardware, Software, etc...), and one for the "Other" section. They can have powers to roam around and mod other sections, but maybe they should only be worried about moderating their own section unless something is clearly amiss. That way, if someone has a problem with the way a particular forum/incident is being moderated, or if there is trouble, then it's easier for people to know who exactly to turn to since their name will be listed as "Moderators: Arn, eyelikeart" at the top of the page.
Its just a suggestion. Personally, I didn't really see any problems with the way this place is being run, but if there is a problem, it shouldn't be too difficult to fix it.