An Official Banning Policy?

Yes, I was agreeing with you that the result of thumping is just that, although there are other reasons for it, as mentioned by Maddy.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:28:19 PM by captainbrass2

As mods, we can review the content of thumped posts. Just FYI. If it becomes relevant to the discussion we can copy it out and show people.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:29:13 PM by Fighteer

My mistake, I read that wrong, sorry.

@Allan, end of last page: Maybe I'm just cold, but that seems to be slipping into Too Dumb to Live territory.

The problem with thumping is that it hides the content from other posters, so that we (the posters) cannot look to a post and say, "ah, yes, that is what we should not do". It also introduces an issue: that un-thumped posts, especially when surrounded by thumped posts, are deemed to be okay.

^ It seems like the sort of thing which someone could very well make to me, personally speaking. That second accounts are okay for the purposes are appealing doesn't mean that the second account can't be used while the banned user waits for some moderator input, right? Maybe it's just me ^^;

edited 20th Dec '11 12:51:45 PM by AllanAssiduity

I really don't see how not being a jerk seems to hard that people need an example of what not to do...

We're not going to leave rules-violating content open for everyone to see. I cannot think of a single viable forum system that does this. Ultimately a thump or ban is a matter between the user and the mods. We are probably the only site I've ever seen where a wiki-side ban can be discussed publicly in the forums. Unless Wikipedia does it that way — I don't know, not having participated there.

Actually this is the only moderately sized forum I've seen that censors all rule-breaking content. Most large forums I've seen tend to only censor posts that include nsfw material, and then only the relevant parts are censored. It's a far more logical/practical method that actually lets the other users see what is moderation-worthy.

While "do not be a jerk" might seem simple, that assumes that there are widely understood and agreed upon criteria of exactly what a jerk entails. Sure, there are some things that we all agree are jerkish things to do, but there's no industry standard in the works here, except that a jerk is a fella or lass that We Do Not Like. As it stands, "Jerk" becomes a ban reason that covers so much behavior it is more or less meaningless.

edited 20th Dec '11 1:03:20 PM by slowzombie

Well, threads that violate the rules are usually locked rather than being deleted outright. But the reason for thumping individual posts that violate the rules is to keep the violation from being perpetuated, responded to, etc. Off-topic thumps, for example — what good does it do to infract someone if the conversation just keeps going?

Would you rather we itemize all the ways to "be a jerk"? It'll be a long post, and worthless.

edited 20th Dec '11 1:09:09 PM by Fighteer

Hardly worthless, given that there seems to be a degree of upset and confusion over what the 'don't be a jerk' rule does and does not cover. Explaining would have the value of clearing things up rather than letting the whole thing seem mysterious and arbitrary.

edited 20th Dec '11 1:18:01 PM by Iaculus

Itemizing such a list would allow loophole abusers to wiggle their way through the holes, prompting another addition to the list, repeated until the internet implodes.

Politeness, civility, and such aren't THAT hard to do. Yes, it is much easier to be a raging asshole when you're hidden by username, but is it really so much more difficult to just... not?

But it's not meaningless. Whether you're talking in a thread, adding (or re-adding) an example into a work page, or even appealing an Edit Ban, if you're level-headed (or at least calm), that will go a long way in the case that some trouble comes up.

If you're being rude, it shows people that you don't have any room for either cooperation or reason, and then people (and the mods, in turn) are going to be less than sympathetic in whatever the situation is.

Do Tropers who are in danger of getting banned get a warning via PM or something like that? Basically: "Cut that shit our or you're gonna get banned."?

Sorry, if someone's been asking this question already.

Generally not, though they aren't particularly rare, either. Moderator posts in response to the offending actions are common, and thumps (with the automated PM) count as your official warning. There are also many offenses that don't get warnings in any form, such as spamming, trolling, and ban-evading.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:03:03 PM by Ironeye

@"Jerk": If someone posts a view which is, say, sexist, is it considered "jerkish" to point this out, and explain why sexist views are not suitable, if need be?

If you do it politely, no.

But what tends to happen is that the argument goes on for pages until the person arguing with the sexist finally explodes at the sheer stubborn stupidity of their opponent, and then they get banned.

The people with objectionable views on this wiki are the people who've learned to never get angry or explode at an opponent. So, if, say, just hypothetically, you were someone who fanboyed serial killers and got angry whenever someone objected to rape jokes, you could remain on the wiki provided you never engaged in personal insults.

"Jerk" lies much more in "how" than in "what".

"You sexist pig! I can't believe that someone could possibly believe that benighted crap in this day and age!" = Jerk.

"That's a sexist thing to say. There's no evidence that the sex of the person plays any real part in how they'll perform in that situation." =Not a Jerk.

Right, and where do the objectionable views themselves fall into the whole jerk/non-jerk spectrum?

Much of the anger and bewilderment so far has been over egregious racism, sexism, and general creepiness being perceived to get you a lighter sentence than being impolite to racist/sexist/creepy people.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:37:11 PM by Iaculus

It continually strikes me as odd that we need to explain this to people. On the occasions when I've flipped my lid at someone, I know when I'm doing so. Actual developmental disorders aside, it's not like I'm not aware that I'm mad at the person and yelling at them. Then I've had to calm down, take a step back, and go fix my mistake/apologize, doubly so because I'm a mod.

Unless you're a socially inept teenager, you must have been exposed to the concept of civil discussion at some point in your life. We aren't people's parents to teach them how to behave.

"Having objectionable views" is not and has never been bannable. We aren't the Thought Police. We aren't going to ban people for "being sexist" any more than we'd ban them for "being atheist" or "being Republican" or "being a geek".

There are certain forms of expression that constitute hate speech, and those are not allowed. Other things are outright illegal, such as armed insurrection, pedophilia, and copyright violation. We won't condone posts advocating those. Otherwise you are allowed to express your opinion as long as you aren't a jerk about it. In this case, being a jerk includes being condescending or nasty to tropers who don't share your views.

We also reserve the right to ban for trolling — that is, deliberately posting a controversial opinion in order to rile people up.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:40:41 PM by Fighteer

Rebuking obnoxious views is not a personality flaw.

Again, it's the perceived double-standard. People are unused to being told that they cannot get angry about things that they find to be deeply offensive. It might be suggested that they should holler to the mods instead, but, again, the vagueness of the rules means that they can't be sure of what posts are eligible for hollering.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:41:28 PM by Iaculus

The cardinal rule is that you can attack the opinion, not the person holding it. If it's that much trouble to censor yourself, Holler the offending post and we'll decide.

Compare these things: "I find the sexist attitude displayed by this post to be very offensive. Would you mind toning it down?" "You sexist prick, go die in a fire."

Let's try some other examples. A thread about rape in society. Someone posts something indicating that he enjoys raping people. Clearly trolling or at least a massive jerk, holler it, banned, done. Someone posts something about how women are too promiscuous and it encourages rape. Now we have a genuine belief held by a number of people. You may find it offensive but the poster is not necessarily an awful person merely for holding that view. Yes, I know I picked a controversial example but that's the point.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:48:27 PM by Fighteer

OK, hypothetical example time. Suppose that I'm a gay troper reading the forums, and find a post saying something along the lines of "I believe that homosexuality is an abomination, and has no place in this world". Now, I, understandably enough, am a little upset about being told that I do not have the moral right to exist. If I holler this post, what is likely to happen?

Nothing, in all probability.