SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1

[Dis Believer]

however if mods reading through forum spot something questionable, action should be commenced. Not to say everything has to be assessed, but a police patrol car doesn't drive straight past a crime in progress because no-one rang 000......

good point

But sometimes the cops see someone jay walking and just let it go.

Should they pull you up and fine that person for jay walking?

No, not implying that things should be that extreme, and that's the whole point, to acknowledge that there are areas of "grey" that the rules need to accommodate. By the same token, if the cops see an assault in progress they would be fairly certain to intervene.....

[Shaggy]

Hi Simon,

I apologise for the length of post. My suggestions are interrelated so I prefer to give them all to you at the one-time even though it is only week one.

I would like to see forum changes aimed at helping newbies join and post.

Thanks to your work this site is no longer feral. But we are missing new and younger views. The only member in the past year who made a post and does not appear to be an old member under a new nic is theacademic and his project was abused in the General Forum so I doubt we will see him/her again.

I would like you to consider:

• “New saintsational fan forum rules” changed to “Welcome to new posters and our Saintsational fan forum rules”. Then change some of the focus to welcoming new posters and making them feel comfortable to post. Generally new posters will be the ones reading the rules for the first time

• A sticky for newbies to introduce themselves and ask questions. It would be a safe thread to encourage new posters for their first post

• A second sticky on why “I love/am grateful I support the Saints” to make the site more positive (short term ban for anyone who posts negatively in the sticky)

• Change the name of the “foe” function to “ignore”. We are all Saints supporters

• Make the “ignore” function reciprocal so that both parties are blocked from each other if someone is uncomfortable with/does not want to communicate with another poster. There is stalking and white anting going on with the foe function

• Make the site self-regulated. Allow everyone the ability to report and ban another poster for 1 or 7 days through you. But if they do so both parties and all related nics should be put on permanent ignore with each other

• I love the broad rules which I do with the Group I run. I would add “demeaning or making another poster uncomfortable

• Focus on appointing administrators - not moderators who are empowered to take the forum forward under you – i.e. moderating, banning, website, internet, content, media, funding, sponsorship, socials, history, etc. Most are already in place. Give people the opportunity to volunteer for roles they think will help the site. Give the administrators credit by having a permanent sticky in the fan forum showing who is doing what. It then looks like a community forum which it is.

Allowing everyone the right to ban for a short time will scare some but it should not. Under my suggestion a reporter and reportee/banner and bannee are permanently blocked from each other thereafter so it can only happen once amongst each other. It is no longer a dobber environment Gazrat is worried about because there is mutual consequence.

As a moderator you cannot fix the “grey areas” True believer talks about. 7 people wanted True Believer gone. It is a lesson for True Believer that some people have had enough of politics on the fan forum. It is not a “grey area” debate. The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

Self regulation will take all the pressure from moderators because it is the members doing the banning. You should however always retain final say because processes become abused over time.

Thanks again for your work.

You have really made a big difference.

[asiu]

The only member in the past year who made a post and does not appear to be an old member under a new nic is theacademic and his project was abused in the General Forum so I doubt we will see him/her again.

this is an absolute crock of crap

he SPECIFICALLY gained entrance
(via simon) to Thread up his research on SS

that thread was then posted in the Fan Forum

when it was derailed in the FAN FORUM
by FAN FORUM members

it was then landfilled off to infest the General Forum
so the FAN FORUM looks good

[asiu]

ps

dont bother replying

take your idiotic slander back with you
to all the young people impressed with your rubbish

bye

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

[Dis Believer]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

[desertsaint]

i accidentally banned shaggy. sorry shaggy. not that you can read this anymore. stupid fingers. stupid ipad.

[markp]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for voting against 'you' or abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?

Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably think the rules are the rules full stop.

I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.

[Dis Believer]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?

Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.

I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.

I haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?

I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!

[saynta]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

Bloody silly idea. I wouldn't last a day FFS.

[saynta]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?

Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.

I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.

I haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?

I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!

I would have all my money on all 7.

[markp]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?

Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.

I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.

I haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?

I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!

The vote wasn't about your joke, it was about how stringently a rule should be applied in this case.

If we're betting I'll have a dollar in a multi that of the 7 voters, 2 hit the wrong button, 3 just don't like you (2 of whom are 4th wave feminists, and the other you flamed mercilessly once in a GT thread in 2011) and the remaining 2 just think the rules are the rules. I'd roll that into betting had you made the same joke about the other politicians you mentioned that you'd have been reported by any number of hall monitor types here, and voted against by at least as many as 7.

Like you I'd be guessing, and we'd probably both do our dough.

But what I'm hearing is that you believe people with opposing politcal views to you here are precious and devoid of a sense of humour, on top of being incapable of sensible debate. Which may represent to some an invitation a respond in kind (or to endorse), prompting a counter, and on it goes... and is why most probably prefer the strict rule to begin with.

[saynta]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?

Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.

I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.

I haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?

I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!

The vote wasn't about your joke, it was about how stringently a rule should be applied in this case.

If we're betting I'll have a dollar in a multi that of the 7 voters, 2 hit the wrong button, 3 just don't like you (2 of whom are 4th wave feminists, and the other you flamed mercilessly once in a GT thread in 2011) and the remaining 2 just think the rules are the rules. I'd roll that into betting had you made the same joke about the other politicians you mentioned that you'd have been reported by any number of hall monitor types here, and voted against by at least as many as 7.

Like you I'd be guessing, and we'd probably both do our dough.

But what I'm hearing is that you believe people with opposing politcal views to you here are precious and devoid of a sense of humour, on top of being incapable of sensible debate. Which may represent to some an invitation a respond in kind (or to endorse), prompting a counter, and on it goes... and is why most probably prefer the strict rule to begin with.

So I'm wondering if the other 6 will also unmask themselves in time.

[markp]

Case in point - captain eye roll himself, stinger. Given a 'fresh start' as saynta the hall monitor.

I already stated how I voted and why.

But you go off.

[asiu]

enid blyton (?)

we used to play Secret Seven in the chook house
when i was about that old

i was the not so smart one iirc

well
given that they burnt to death in the fires
that swept up the gully
i must of been the lucky one

[saynta]

Case in point - captain eye roll himself, stinger. Given a 'fresh start' as saynta the hall monitor.

I already stated how I voted and why.

But you go off.

So says you.

I don't know how you voted and care even less.

I have stated many times before that I joined this forum from the start and long before stinger.

I find your post extremely offense but that's par for the course AFAIC.

[markp]

Case in point - captain eye roll himself, stinger. Given a 'fresh start' as saynta the hall monitor.

I already stated how I voted and why.

But you go off.

So says you.

I don't know how you voted and care even less.

I have stated many times before that I joined this forum from the start and long before stinger.

I find your post extremely offense but that's par for the course AFAIC.

Ok.

Thank you.

[saynta]

Case in point - captain eye roll himself, stinger. Given a 'fresh start' as saynta the hall monitor.

I already stated how I voted and why.

But you go off.

So says you.

I don't know how you voted and care even less.

I have stated many times before that I joined this forum from the start and long before stinger.

I find your post extremely offense but that's par for the course AFAIC.

Ok.

Thank you.

No worries.

[SAINT-LEE]

enid blyton (?)

we used to play Secret Seven in the chook house
when i was about that old

i was the not so smart one iirc

well
given that they burnt to death in the fires
that swept up the gully
i must of been the lucky one

Shouldn't mention a CANCELLED author in public...evil human...don't want her evil to stick on the children.

[asiu]

burning down the community hall (way)

[Wayne42]

Enid Blyton FFS,
I thought this was a thread about the forum rules, not poster's favourite authors.

[asiu]

you might have to learn how to read between the lines then Wayne

THE seminal moment in SS rules HIS STORY
are being discussed

keep up

[Wayne42]

Now that this discussion is OFF the rails, i think the boss should wrap this one up.

[Vortex]

I think the biggest priority should be given to increasing membership. I'm kinda busy atm however I'm going to contribute some ideas as soon as I get a chance to articulate.

Essentially I believe more posters will improve the diversity of conversation.

[Shaggy]

The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.

With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!

The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!

Bloody silly idea. I wouldn't last a day FFS.

It would actually help you.
Relationships with long standing grudges should be put on reciprocal ignore.
It is far better then constant sniping and reporting. If you think someone will be out to ban you then place them on reciprocal ignore and then they cannot. A simple ignore does not work. You are currently stalked by someone you have on ignore which is not good for anyone and the site.
IMO everyone should be allowed to ban anyone but only for 1 or 7 days and it can only be done once with a permanent ignore after so it is hardly a weapon. It would have saved Joffa Burns to be cut off from Curly after the first misdemeanor. Permanent bans would obviously stay with Simon.

New comers need to feel welcome and safe to post.

Otherwise this site will simply become a Saints forum for old men with strong views and thick skin.

[skeptic]

I think a proper block function like the one on BF is the way to go - removes their posts to you and vice versa as well as quotes

Under this current system, people that I really wish would leave me alone frequently post about me and my posts... I’ve noted in recent threads that a number of long term forumites (and a few more that don’t post so much anymore), have a similar experience of feeling harassed.

I think that’s the best way to open the forum up again...
The serial pests can rejoin and we can just block them when it becomes apparent who they are.

Easiest fix