NEW: Civility and Decorum are Required

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


Yes, once a post has been edited or removed - we will also try to make sure that any of the post that has been quoted by another member, will also be removed.

However, we might miss one every now and again. For the most part, I think we catch most.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Being on vacation until after the new year, I've had a lot of time to catch up on ATS. I have noticed a number of threads in which members quoted a removed post and the the quotes were not cleaned up. I don't mean to be presumptuous, and granted I have no knowledge of your database structure or the underlying code for this site, but I gather that the remaining strays sometimes slip through the cracks because these posts are being manually cleaned by the moderators.

As a computer programmer who works with relational databases on a daily basis, I wonder if there is not some more direct route to cleaning up offensive posts. I hate to make a suggestion that sticks some poor programmer with more work (and the way I imagine this leads me to believe it would be substantially more work in the short-term), but an overhaul of the quoting system might allow for greater efficiency in the long-term. Assuming each post is given a primary key in some table, an additional table could be created in which that key as well as foreign keys to any referenced posts are stored. Replacements could be made based off the foreign keys.

Shrug. Just something for the techies to ponder and potentially hate me for suggesting
. This approach would do nothing for existing posts, but could be helpful in the future. The next most obvious enhancement (in my head, I imagine that overhauling the quote system is really quite a lot of work, as I suspect that the entire content of a given post is currently being stored in a given column of a table in your database[s]) would be to add code that does some sort of intelligent scan of the table or tables that house our posts and replaces the quoted text. I think that approach is inferior to my first suggestion and would likely have a much greater performance cost. Either would likely be better than mods having to manually go through x pages of a given thread to remove referenced content.

I realize that I may not be addressing the appropriate person for a suggestion like that, but I saw your post as a good way to segue into it. Any other programmers lurking might be inspired to toss out a few ideas as well. I feel for you mods if you're having to do all of this manually.

/tn.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by teleonaut]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
A continually evolving self-feeding content ideation, creation, and publishing ecosystem." The result is uniquely satisfying experiential environment for participants in niche content markets online.






posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I'm happy to comply with the rules in the interests of fair & reasonable discussion being as it should be - an exchange of ideas.

Faced with annoying trolling, baiting & derailment it's difficult to bite your tongue (or keyboard) but I'll do my best to set an example


[edit on 1/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I realize that it probably takes time for something like this to take effect, but I haven't noticed much improvement. It seems that the worst offenders are the people with new accounts who really don't care about the board, their points, or the threat of being banned. This system doesn't seem to defend against that type of posting.

I guess, it would be nice if the mods were a tad swifter with the dreaded "Ban Hammer".



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I've been fined one thousand points just for a silly post where I used the word "redneck". If a bit of banter isn't allowed in this forum then ATS will surely die due to extreme boredom and predictability.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
o.k i've read all through this again----i still am paranoid----i dont expect my self to explode future into some kind of tirade but i dont doubt that some things i have said would be considered hate speech by a few(for example i consider homosexuality to be a sin ---just as the scriptures 2 peter 2:6 say it is)is this wrong to say?----i'd appreciate a caution either on the thread or a u2u from a moderator/s if i'm getting too borderline before i find out that i'm banned or have received an official picture of "my guess" mrs. clinton?---- thanks



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I can't believe I got another U2U (everyone did) concerning the worsening behavior of ATS members.


Can't we just talk about the topics and not give any personal attacks?

Just keep your words to yourself--unless it contributes to the thread or it's a positive remark.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Ok. Another 'reminder'. Thank you ATS.


I really thought the system of warning and alerting bad behavior was working, I guess not.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I think the new mass U2U was aimed at all the new posters showing up. I would think that anyone who had a post count of 100 or more would know the rules, and not be a part of the problem.

I feel that the internet being the beast that it is, we will always have the angry trolls to deal with. There's not much that can be done about that, really. It's the price we pay for being in the position of leadership.

I've seen people wanting various measures taken, from age restrictions to IQ testing. While a few of these made me chuckle, it's obvious that they won't work. Most of the ideas would actually harm ATS.

So many people wanting to use drastic measures to protect ATS are also against any form of elitism or the infringement on free speech. You can't have it both ways at the same time.

Because this is a site based on free expression and free participation, then we will have angry people of all ages wander in. We have to adjust the only person we have control over, ourselves, when faced with such incivility as some people bring.

There's no rule that an angry poster has to be answered.
I know that's a radical idea, but if someone trolls me, I look at their profile, the content of their post, the likely validity of them really believing their own post, and decide if they're worth the effort. Ignoring (think of Amish "shunning") will push a troll over the edge, and they'll either go too far and get banned, or they'll sulk up and leave the thread.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with ignoring the socially challenged. I only exchange ideas and viewpoints with those I consider my equals, and consider it unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Well, I have to confess that I've behaved in a less than civil manner during a particular thread - for which I apologise.
The problem though, is that some people try to bully you off a thread that they don't agree with - it's happened before and is a form of trolling.
This time, despite my good intentions, I was in no mood to allow it to happen again and decided to fight fire with fire - which wasn't the best judgement call I've ever made, and for this I apologise if any offense was caused.

It's my one year anniversary soon, and what is most embarrasing is that the example I've set is hardly a good one for any new members.

Still, you live and learn.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I think a lot of us are "recovering angry posters" on our own 12 step program, so don't feel too bad. We all fall off the wagon once in a while. I've gotten U2Us from staff telling me I was pushing the limit a couple of times. All we can do is to try to do better.

I think you are just passionate in your beliefs, and so sometimes take a step further than you would if these things did not mean as much to you. We are all guilty of that once in a while.

But I don't see you as a troll. And that's coming from a person that agrees with you only about one out of every six or seven posts/threads.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Civility and Decorum ... mmmm .. what a unique concept ..NOT. Why change behavior patterns only while online. If used in life off ATS it becomes no problem while on ATS.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by reblazed
 


Offline, most people have better sense than to get in my face and try to provoke me to anger. Online, they're not constrained by the fear that I will punch their lights out for calling me a dirty name. They changed because they know that there is not a great deal that can be done to them except banning.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
The problem though, is that some people try to bully you off a thread that they don't agree with - it's happened before and is a form of trolling.


I agree. It is easy to look past alot of the intellectual bullying that some people try to do on ATS because it's just so obvious. They will stay in a thread arguing for pages and pages, while they quote a person a dozen times in a single post, turning that persons paragraph of text into their own little 12 step argument, this is a particular form of stone-walling that kills debates/threads/conversations and I see it performed by particular members on the regular, especially when a said conspiracy is a target for them. This is a form of trolling; argumentive nonsense and I'm kind of tired of it.

I will not however, be reporting or alerting people for being blowhards. That's what my ignore list is for. Abusive language is the only thing I consider against civility or decorum, which should be obvious. Forms of trolling are entirely subjective, as in the case of 'cherry-quoting' and other forms of provocation.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I am a new member of ATS, and new to the world of online forums in general. In the short time I have been here I have been immensely impressed with many of the members who participate on these forums.

I have to admit that my manners and methods were down right rustic when I arrived. Not only were my contributions weak, many of my comments were inflammatory or downright rude.

After my first, and only, warning from Intrepid followed by a conversation about my actions I realized I have to behave differently. Not only in terms of how I treat other members, but in terms of the quality of what I contribute. Admittedly I still have a long way to go, but I am giving it an honest effort.

Still I realize correcting some peoples behavior does not work the same as it did for me. Obviously there has to be some methodology that works to successfully maintain appropriate behavior here at ATS.

I know people make mistakes, and often we all make the same mistakes over again. In light of this I think that a systems of X amount of warnings in X amount of time would equal a ban, be it a permanent ban or a temporary ban. Like I said, I am the new kid so how this would actually work is beyond me.

Another point hat was raised and that I feel like has A LOT of merit was made by Loam,



In terms of a solution, I can't help but wonder whether enforcing a "stay on topic" rule would be an easier and more effective path to follow than one that seeks to mandate the "courteousness" of posts? The former, by proxy, addresses the latter and also helps to address an altogether different, but equally troubling, problem.


I think this would be of tremendous help. It is hard to turn a thread into a flaming disaster if people are not allowed to stray from the topics under discussion. Although it obviously is not the soul solution to the problem I think it would help to have a stricter policy regarding this.

I personally know how hard it can be to have your ideas and ideals challenged. Many of you have done an excellent job of breaking down my preconceived notions in the short time I have been here, and although it was painful and in some cases goaded childish responses from me, I feel I am a better person for it.

I am really pleased to have found this site as I believe I stand to gain a lot for participating here and I hope the best for the site and all those who use it. I think the solution to this problem will come in many forms. Those I have mentioned above and others that I have not yet considered / conceived.

In closing one thing I think would help the site would be for the all us members to personally hold ourselves and others to the standards the sites requires of us. I don't think we should all be turned into the ATS youth, but I do believe that very curiously asking others to cease using behaviors that damage the forum, or simply ignoring them when they will not would work wonders. I could be way off here, like I said in the short time I have been here you all have shown me how far off i can be, but this is MHO.

Salutations~Animal

Edit: Changed "interims" to 'in terms'


[edit on 1-1-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
So this means I cannot exercise my free-will to utilize a potty mouth in writing to the fullest extent possible. I noticed some people cannot seem to take a ‘freaking’ joke or lack some understanding in slap-sticking humor, which is what any discussion forum should have to balance out the serious tone of any post.

And I understand why we got another U2U -- to inform us about the correction of bad behavior from certain people who tend to get out of control (sometimes). This is truly sad and my hope is not turning into a boring, civil robot with decorum around ATS here. Meep-boop-beep!



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


ok, then
anyhow i bet more people are going to try and be polite to others just to ensure that a mod doesnt put that ugly mug in their post

sorry to the designer but the picture freaks me out

to much :w::w::w::w:


[edit on 2-1-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I'm mostly disappointed with a lot of the posters here. I used to post a lot but now I'd rather read and learn from those who are in the know (and disregard the idiots) as opposed to participating in discussions. It's not worth the hassle to be attacked and having to defend myself against people who obviously have a bigger agenda.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Decorum is kind of relative in some respects, so maybe it'd be advisable to have a section of the site dedicated to listing all actual offensive behaviors, resultant disciplinary actions, & maybe even an opportunity for a diplomatic & interactive appeals process that involved members of good standing to help determine if all is done in fairness. I've received this messege more than once, but I suspect that I'm not the only one who'd like to know who's doing what, & why it's deemed inappropriate. Respectfully, Mike





 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join