Thread: Town Hall Discussion: Feedback wanted on rules, moderation, banning procedures, etc.

Originally Posted by MissouriBronc

No, they weren't public, and I think it caused a lot of dissent among the members, especially those of us who are around a lot.

Were bannings frequent there?

On Mania, where many of the posters here used to do the majority of their posting, bannings weren't discussed openly.

The idea is that if I were to mess up badly, and I was disciplined... the public knowledge could be humiliating to me. It was always kept between the member and the mods, unless the member felt like discussing it.

I've heard of other boards making it public knowledge... and even with great success... but I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. I think it's interesting to think about though.

Originally Posted by LordTrychon

Is that the way it was on the freak?

Obviously we have a new issue to discuss...

Should bannings be public knowledge or not?

The tried to do that in the end, but by then the dissent and sour millieu was kind of overwhelming so it was too late.
Besides, the one mod who actually took upon himself to make that thread for some reason deleted his whole profile not too long ago.

It is good to do that for alot of reasons. One, it stops the rumours, and secondly it sets the parameters to other members what they can and cannot do.
it sends a clear message to all others and thus might be very preemptive. (imho).

Originally Posted by haroldthebarrel

The tried to do that in the end, but by then the dissent and sour millieu was kind of overwhelming so it was too late.
Besides, the one mod who actually took upon himself to make that thread for some reason deleted his whole profile not too long ago.

It is good to do that for alot of reasons. One, it stops the rumours, and secondly it sets the parameters to other members what they can and cannot do.
it sends a clear message to all others and thus might be very preemptive. (imho).

Understandable.

Right now, this doesn't jive with one of the rules in play... which is that moderators actions cannot be discussed publically. I think that rule is a bad idea and unhealthy for the forums, but I've already said my piece on it once or twice before... and nobody really seemed to want to discuss it.

Maybe now they will... I don't know.

Originally Posted by LordTrychon

Were bannings frequent there?

On Mania, where many of the posters here used to do the majority of their posting, bannings weren't discussed openly.

The idea is that if I were to mess up badly, and I was disciplined... the public knowledge could be humiliating to me. It was always kept between the member and the mods, unless the member felt like discussing it.

I've heard of other boards making it public knowledge... and even with great success... but I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. I think it's interesting to think about though.

It's not that they were frequent, its that there was no REASON given for bannings. No reason at all, ever. Just vague references to rules. That's my only beef with the Freak, and I never even got banned. I want to know what they said to who, so that I won't do it. I also want that because I want to make sure I think it's a bannable offense and not just a mod upset because he doesn't agree, which did happen.

Originally Posted by tnedator

Obscene Language/Profanity:

• Where should the line be drawn in terms of what is or isn’t profanity?
• What is or isn’t acceptable language to use?
• Are terms like WTH or WTF ok?
• What about people posting words that are caught by the profanity censor, or slightly altered to avoid the filter. Is it ok to post: The team played like *** or the team played like sh!t?
• What level of language should actually be filtered, where should the line be drawn between what is ‘acceptable’ to most people, and what is profane?

In my opinion proper swear words (the kind you don't find in the dictionary) should be filtered. I also think a poster should be warned for writing things like sh!t, the filter is there for a reason.

Anything else should be allowed, minus calling someone a B****** or a B****. That would obviously be offensive.

Sexually Explicit Images:

• What images shouldn’t be allowed?
• Nudity is a given, because this is not an adult-only site, but beyond that, where is the line drawn?
• Are pics or women in bra and panties (Victoria Secret models) or bikinis ok? What about men in speedos?
• A normal bikini bottom vs. a thong?

There are many different opinions about what is or isn’t acceptable, what is or isn’t sexually explicit. Where do you stand?

That's my answer, .

As long as it isn't nudity, or clevage clutching then it's fine in my opinion.

Duck Before Entering/Smack:
Should this forum be more loosely moderated than other forums? Should more flaming/personal attacks be allowed?

Well I think you are going to have to monitor how deep these personal attacks are. If it gets too extreme and it turns more into a poster V poster thread then it should be locked. However I think the Duck Before Entering forum should be pretty loose.

Banning:

• The time will come, when we have to start banning members. There are multiple issues to consider and methods that this can happen.
• The first issue related to banning is how strongly should the rules be enforced. Meaning, is it acceptable for people to repeatedly break the rules (posting profanity for instance) and simply have the moderators edit/delete posts, or should the rules be strictly enforced and those that break them should be suspended for x days?
• At what point, in terms of breaking rules, should a person be suspended from the board. If they avoid the language filter once, or 10 times or 100 times?
• Should banning be a formalized process, such as a system that might have two official warnings and then a suspension, possibly followed by a probation period, OR, should all bans be voted on by the 7 members advisory board, OR should suspensions/bans be determined by the moderators?
• On other message boards, few things have created as much controversy as banning, so this is something where we really need community feedback, in terms of how it should be done.

I think a warning should always be given unless you get someone who does something obviously against the rules, such as post nudity. There should be a first warning that lasts a month or two and then that warning should be dropped. The warning should appear in their control panel, that way people don't have the " But I forgot/ didn't see the warning" excuse.

Infraction Point System:

• Should we consider implementing an Infraction Point (IP) system, with publicly stated point values and suspension/banning/loss of privileges thresholds?
• While people coming over from BM have a bad taste in their mouth about how the IP system works, many other sites have successfully implemented IP systems, and it provides a means to avoid surprises to members in regards of where they stand and reduces the number of 'surprise' bannings.

I think a warning is enough.

Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by haroldthebarrel

I havent read the thread so if I repeat something, please excuse me.

personally I think it is hopeless to create a "family friendly" ideal.
let the people act as they normally do in real life with the mild swearing and stuff.
In real life we dont attack eachother personally and that is the real problem. That and of course nude pics.
I am a former member of broncosfreak and there they tried to maintain that family friendly stuff, and the whole issue is almost deemed to fail as mods and people have different opinions to what is FF. And if one mod is more constrained or conservative than others, eventually it creates a huge difference of opinion not to say people will feel mistreated.
Thus, when you do start banning, the parameters have been set, and to maintain some sort of justice you will eventually have to ban or warn members set by the least standards you choose. That usually means that it will only get stricter and stricter which in the end destroys the board, at least to me and a lot of others.
I had nearly left broncosfreak before this new things happened because of what I said earlier. The fun went astray, as well as cool members became banned one after another.

let the members moderate themselves as much as possible is my suggestion and tell people to get a thick skin. Some time or another almost every member will have a meltdown anyway, but that is just normal. We usually make up ourselves in the end.

[B]But if you do choose to ban members, I think it is imperative to have some sort of thread where others get to see that the member is banned, with a little explanation to why.[/B]

No matter where the line is drawn people will push it, its human nature. The problem you present will always be present when you have other members deciding what is acceptable and what is crossing the line. Therefore, no matter the allowance of profanity. It will not solve this problem.


There are also many here that feel the allowance of extreme profanity will destroy the board. There is no way to make everyone happy. Maybe the best thing to do is to open an adults only forum where those who don't mind extreme profanity can post there. One of my biggest fears is that if we allow more profanity it will result in more smack and more people getting banned.

I am not talking about the smack forum, anyone who post's there should know they will probably get smacked. If they can't take it then my advice to them is, don't post there!

I think this is a great idea, If members can see why someone got banned then it will help them better understand what is acceptable and what is crossing the line. I also think all permanent banning's should come by majority vote from the advisory board. That will help over come each adviser's varying individual opinion. It will be the voice of the group that matters most.

For a member that was banned many times on Mania for numerous reasons...and finally perminantly, I always felt it was a good idea for it to be openly discussed on why someone was banned. And this is from someone who was banned.

Its my honest opinion that the reason Mods don't want it discussed is that its not because they fear it will humiliate the member being banned, its because they fear it will bring humiliation on them as Mods.

It could go both ways, but I feel its more to protect the mods and backlash for banning someone for petty reasons more so then to protect the member.

And if one mod is more constrained or conservative than others, eventually it creates a huge difference of opinion not to say people will feel mistreated

Actually this is a good point.

Mods should have a strick rulebook they follow when it comes to warning/ banning posters.

One mod could find one thing fun and the other mod find same thing wrong.

I was banned 4 times at the Freak. It never bothered me. Sit in the penalty box and wait for your day to come out. But the MODS at the freak were stupid, except TurfToad.

Originally Posted by Bronco9798

I was banned 4 times at the Freak. It never bothered me. Sit in the penalty box and wait for your day to come out. But the MODS at the freak were stupid, except TurfToad.

yeah but you are a lot more grown up on those things than others.
Remember the thousands of annoying threads eventually becoming one banned members rant to why he was banned.

I never did have any problems with the mods at the freak. I did think Harkov was a bit double standard and that Ricky was a moralist(which i hate) even though he meant well. Still, I didnt have any personal beef with any of those.
but canucks rants whenever he got emotional, which happened a lot, was always hilarious.

Me and Beef got banned for laughing about a newspaper article that someone posted and it was one of the MODS Friends. The dude got struck by lightning and died on a roof. We made a few funny comments and got banned. So we sent the MOD some flowers to his house. It was Derek.

Originally Posted by Bronco9798

Me and Beef got banned for laughing about a newspaper article that someone posted and it was one of the MODS Friends. The dude got struck by lightning and died on a roof. We made a few funny comments and got banned. So we sent the MOD some flowers to his house. It was Derek.

Yeah. that was a really cool thing to do. I feel kinda bad for Derek since he meant well, but the layout and look of the new site kinda turned me off.

Then again, I dont think this is a thread we should hijack already...... lol

back on topic.... i always thought if you have rules you should stand by them and make sanctions to any infractions. Since that is not possible, the best way is to have it loose, because people mend themselves usually.

Originally Posted by fcspikeit

This is a privately owned board. Tned is giving us the privilege for our voice to be heard. You and I only have the rights here tned allows us to have. IMO it is great of him to even give us a voice about what we as a community want this board to be. When the rules are set in place everyone here has the right to stop coming here, we don't have the right to force everyone to have to read profanity just because we want to type it.

There is a law about the use of profanity in a public place where minors are present. Wouldn't being a law abiding citizen mean following that law as well?

I don't believe some of you yet know the concept of what is going on
around here.

What you said about the posters having rights only as Tned gives them was
true up until he gave his word otherwise. At that point, he handed the
power over to the Board of Advisors, which he, Carol, and I helped to
create. This is a group of seven posters who represent you, the general
posters, which is why the Town Hall forum and this thread exists at all.

Tned's most prized possession is his word. I honestly believe he would die
before he broke it. Therefore, you have rights on this message board
because it is "For The Fans, By The Fans" (see the Broncos Forums banner).

To make it more clear, Tned cut his power to where he has only one (1)
vote among seven on the Advisory Board. The only time he would usurp
that power is if something posed a legal threat to the Board or to him.

Tned even subjects himself to the Mods as a poster on the boards.

So you can be assured that what you are saying here in this thread and
elsewhere in the Town Hall forum is contributing to the government of
Broncos Forums.

EDIT: You will be relieved to know that I am NOT a voting member on the
Board of Advisors.

Oh, and neither are any of the other Mods, BTW.

-----

Originally Posted by topscribe

I don't believe some of you yet know the concept of what is going on
around here.

What you said about the posters having rights only as Tned gives them was
true up until he gave his word otherwise. At that point, he handed the
power over to the Board of Advisors, which he, Carol, and I helped to
create. This is a group of seven posters who represent you, the general
posters, which is why the Town Hall forum and this thread exists at all.

-----

All is true because Tned said so, As he has the power to run the board as he sees fit because it is his privately owned board.

My point is that, the only freedom here is given, therefore no freedom really exists. It is a privilege for us to be able to post here, not a right! When the rules are set we only have freedom to post inside the guidelines of the rules.

Therefore our first amendment rights don't apply here. This board is the property of Tned. He has the right to do as he pleases with his property. We don't have the right to destroy his property by braking the rules. If at any time we brake the rules set forth by Tned (no matter the method he used to create them) he has the right to take away our privileges.

He must be accountable, because if action were brought against this domain name the action would be against him. It wouldn't matter whet method he used to determine what is allowed here. He would be at fault

So yeah, I know the concept of what is going on around here

Originally Posted by fcspikeit

All is true because Tned said so, As he has the power to run the board as he sees fit because it is his privately owned board.

My point is that, the only freedom here is given, therefore no freedom really exists. It is a privilege for us to be able to post here, not a right! When the rules are set we only have freedom to post inside the guidelines of the rules.

Therefore our first amendment rights don't apply here. This board is the property of Tned. He has the right to do as he pleases with his property. We don't have the right to destroy his property by braking the rules. If at any time we brake the rules set forth by Tned (no matter the method he used to create them) he has the right to take away our privileges.

He must be accountable, because if action were brought against this domain name the action would be against him. It wouldn't matter whet method he used to determine what is allowed here. He would be at fault

So yeah, I know the concept of what is going on around here

Once again, you could not be more wrong than you are here. Tned gave up
the right to take anything away by himself. He does not have the right to
do as he pleases because he denied himself the right and gave his word.

He did not set forth the rules, and he will not be revising them. The Advisory
Board set forth the rules, and it will be the Advisory Board that will revise
them. Tned's power is limited to 1/7 of the Advisory Board . . . that's all.
I know. I was here in the beginning, before there was a message board.
I helped to create it and the Advisory Board.

I already said the ONLY circumstance in which he would make an exception
to this is if he or the message board was faced with legal repercussions.
That's it.

This is very important to understand. The power base to Broncos Forums is
the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board is made up of posters . . . regular
posters . . . who represent YOU, the posters on this message board. This
means a couple things to you:

1. The comments you make in this Town Hall forum and this thread help to
shape the government and create, revise, and remove rules.

2. Posters who disagree with a Mod's action with them have a place to go
to appeal that action . . . to other posters just like them. (As I said, the
Mods are not voting members of the Advisory Board.)

It is very, very important . . . critical . . . that this is understood because
you cannot experience this type of peace of mind and assurance unless you
know you have it and you exercise your rights here.

I hope I made myself clear this time because this is the way it is.

-----