Why isn't this place more popular?

[BiblioCat]

The real reason this place isn't more popular is because the vast majority of people who use message boards on a regular basis are far more sophisticated than anyone here or at the dope.

I doubt that.

These are people that have been online for their entire lives, sucking the teat of all-access, egalitarian, global access to information. They change quickly and easily. They pick up on memes before you ever realize they exist. They create new ones without even noticing. They don't like to play by the rules, because the concept of rules in a space that has no boundaries or definition is ridiculous. Communication is their currency and to stifle that is the greatest offense.

Anyone who has been on-line their entire life would have to be under, what 25 or so? No offense to the younger posters, but why would we want to populate the board with only those who've had complete access to the internet their whole lives? The good thing about places like this is the diversity in age.
What is it with you and rules? The 'No rules at all' idea never works.
The way I see it, people would like to have conversations, be it debating theology or talking about the new Jim Carrey film, knowing that no one's going to start posting obscenities in a 40-point red font, or dropping Tubgirl pictures into the conversation.

If you want to attract these kinds of people, you are going to have to loosen the reigns and let things go a little more. Get rid of some rules. Stop moderating for every small offense or anything that comes close to touching a line. Let people be.

I think the rules here are pretty loose. I mentioned in one of the other theads (or maybe it was this one, can't remember now) that I know there's been a fair amount of bitching lately about mod actions.
I have never done anything unless I received a complaint or had a post reported. I'm not wandering around, looking for infractions. I'm pretty sure that holds true for the other mods. One of the things CRSP wanted was less moderation. That's fine. We're working on it. We're walking a fine line, though. As I said before, some people want to run around naked, screaming obscenities, and others are offended by the word 'damn.' We're trying to keep everyone happy.

[Exy]

What is it with you and rules? The 'No rules at all' idea never works.
The way I see it, people would like to have conversations, be it debating theology or talking about the new Jim Carrey film, knowing that no one's going to start posting obscenities in a 40-point red font, or dropping Tubgirl pictures into the conversation.

That's right, man. The barbarians are at the gate. The one lonely place of civilization in the whole entire internet.

[featherlou]

On the one hand, I don't think I'd enjoy a place that was overrun with teeny-agers; on the other hand, Vox is a good example of a teeny-ager who can contribute online besides squealing about Twilight. Now, if we can just break him of his eurotrashfauxlesbian fixation...

[Zuul]

What is it with you and rules? The 'No rules at all' idea never works.
The way I see it, people would like to have conversations, be it debating theology or talking about the new Jim Carrey film, knowing that no one's going to start posting obscenities in a 40-point red font, or dropping Tubgirl pictures into the conversation.

That's right, man. The barbarians are at the gate. The one lonely place of civilization in the whole entire internet.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only mod who's ever actually used message boards not inspired by the Dope.

Maybe that's why this place isn't more popular.

[What Exit?]

I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only mod who's ever actually used message boards not inspired by the Dope.

Maybe that's why this place isn't more popular.

Do gaming boards count? They usually just plain suck. Tech boards are just boring period. What boards do you mean? Something Awful types? I'll admit to never having use those.

[Exy]

Once again, you misrepresent me. I don't like them. Because they can and will be used to make annoying and pointless interjections in threads. I say nothing about how often this will happen, so "immediately stuffing every thread" is pure fabrication on your part.

So you didn't mean it, then, when you suggested the result would be a "moron picture board" where people constantly use pictures "instead of, you know, words" to communicate. You weren't serious with your earlier implication that the result would be pictures everywhere.

My argument also had nothing to do with offensiveness or work-safety, so the the "cavernous anuses and fountains of diarrhea" were your own invention as well. You're arguing with a straw man.

Those are two common examples of shock NSFW images. If you're not concerned about that (others are, but it's fine if you are not) and you're not concerned with them being used constantly (since you took umbrage when I characterized your position that way), I guess a fair summation of your concern is this: Domebo users are going to occasionally use pictures in threads and you personally will not like every single one of these occasional instances.

Well then.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only mod who's ever actually used message boards not inspired by the Dope.

Maybe that's why this place isn't more popular.

It really helps to grasp the issues when you have actual examples, doesn't it?

[McNutty]

So you didn't mean it, then, when you suggested the result would be a "moron picture board" where people constantly use pictures "instead of, you know, words" to communicate. You weren't serious with your earlier implication that the result would be pictures everywhere.

I stand by all of that, with the exception of the words you added: "constantly" and "everywhere."

Look, like it or not, pictures will change the character of the board. You think it's a good change and I think it's a bad change. Give the demonization a fucking rest.

[Exy]

I stand by all of that, with the exception of the words you added: "constantly" and "everywhere."

It's not really a "moron picture board" if there aren't, you know, pictures everywhere.

Come on, dude. This is weak.

[BiblioCat]

Caerie, I've posted on a few other message boards that run the gamut from severe Nazi-like rules to a no-holds-barred line of thinking.
At one of the stricter places, you were not allowed to start a post with the word "Umm..." Any disagreement between posters or with mod actions was usually met with banning.

The places that had very few or no rules were like the monkey house at the zoo, complete with inane screeching and poo-flinging.
I think the SDMB used to be pretty good, as far as rules went. I'm hoping that here, we can have fun, but with some guidelines in place.

[Zuul]

Do gaming boards count? They usually just plain suck. Tech boards are just boring period. What boards do you mean? Something Awful types? I'll admit to never having use those.

Something Awful is a good start. It's also, shock of shock, not the horrific den of madness that people seem to assume it is. A few threads I just nabbed off of there at a glance:

An amusing thread from there on potentially unsafe food.

A general math questions thread on SA.

A poster asking for input on euthanizing pets.

There are a lot more, but look for yourself. You'll no doubt find things that meet your own interests. I'm not suggesting we should be the next SA, but we're not going to descend into madness and wetting ourselves if we were a little more like the other boards out there in the world.

[XJETGIRLX]

What is it with you and rules? The 'No rules at all' idea never works.
The way I see it, people would like to have conversations, be it debating theology or talking about the new Jim Carrey film, knowing that no one's going to start posting obscenities in a 40-point red font, or dropping Tubgirl pictures into the conversation.

That's right, man. The barbarians are at the gate. The one lonely place of civilization in the whole entire internet.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only mod who's ever actually used message boards not inspired by the Dope.

Maybe that's why this place isn't more popular.

DINGDINGDING.

I think you hit the nail on the freakin' head.

Seriously, just clone Caerie to do all the modding and we would be far better off. She's the only one that gets it.

[OneCentStamp]

Do gaming boards count? They usually just plain suck. Tech boards are just boring period. What boards do you mean? Something Awful types? I'll admit to never having use those.

Something Awful is a good start. It's also, shock of shock, not the horrific den of madness that people seem to assume it is.

SA is also heavily moderated, even compared to the SDMB. People get banned there in droves, and suspended for things as minor as posting content-free posts like "+1." We can't really model ourselves off a pay site with paid, very active moderators, either.

[XJETGIRLX]

No offense to the younger posters, but why would we want to populate the board with only those who've had complete access to the internet their whole lives? The good thing about places like this is the diversity in age.

I'm not making a judgment call about why or why not to attract these people, I'm simply pointing out a simple fact that if you want to be popular, those are the people you have to attract.

As for rules, I never said no rules. But it's always been my understanding that the entire reason this board was created was to get away from the ridiculous amount of rules over at the SDMB. I like the DNBAJ rule just fine, and I think that it fits for 99.5% of circumstances. I think that most of the mods here seem to be too eager to have to do something, anything, just because they are mods. There's too many rules made for no reason, there are too many warnings or conversations about behavior that really doesn't warrant it, and you're trying waaaay too hard to protect the posters here from themselves.

[Zuul]

SA is also heavily moderated, even compared to the SDMB. People get banned there in droves, and suspended for things as minor as posting content-free posts like "+1." We can't really model ourselves off a pay site with paid, very active moderators, either.

I was shooting more for an example of something that wasn't the Dope or a splinter thread than anything else. There's this vague idea around here as though the Rest of the Internet is this wild, seething orgy of goatse and giant fonts.

[McNutty]

It's not really a "moron picture board" if there aren't, you know, pictures everywhere.

I think this is debatable. If we become the kind of board where it's acceptable to respond with a single "O RLY" picture in an otherwise pictureless thread, then yes, I think that makes us a moron picture board. Of course, you say this won't happen and I'm being a doomsayer for thinking it will, but honestly, there's no fucking way the mods can get away with calling that sort of thing threadshitting or "contentless" around here when 1) a certain population shrieks about overmoderation no matter what the mods do, and 2) an actual post consisting solely of the words "O RLY" is within the rules (albeit 100 times less annoying). I suppose we'll find out. People say there's no harm in trying it and going back, but I know how that one plays out, too: we have to have this same idiotic argument in a month when some people think the image use is annoying and some think it's fantastic.

Hey look, a rational post that didn't mischaracterize you. Try it.

[McNutty]

Another point I don't think anyone's made here: I don't consider having images turned off a "rule" that's keeping people from themselves, I consider it a feature that's turned off so we don't need more rules, because turning it on requires us to decide what's acceptable and what's not. If you really hate adding rules (especially subjective ones), you probably should be against having images.

ETA: ok, "should be" is a bit strong. It makes sense to me that if you hate rules, you would also hate whatever rules we're going to have to have governing image use.

[CRSP]

I'm in my early to mid twenties, grew up with computers and have been using the Internet for most of my life. I also post at numerous other boards, and have been doing so since I joined the PCGamer UK forums, the same day I first got access to the Internet. Most boards that are worth frequenting are extremely heavily moderated in my experience, when compared to here, or have bizarre rules like not being able to insult the owner without fear of being banned etc.

[ivan astikov]

Just out of curiosity, how many "inappropriate images" have appeared in The Dark Room thus far?

[What Exit?]

DINGDINGDING.

I think you hit the nail on the freakin' head.

Seriously, just clone Caerie to do all the modding and we would be far better off. She's the only one that gets it.

Do me one favor, here is the team, which ones of us over-moderate?
sublight
What Exit?
CRSP
BiblioCat
Caerie
CatInASuit
danceswithcats
Lucifer
MsRobyn
NAF1138
pepperlandgirl
TheFlame

[NAF1138]

Just out of curiosity, how many "inappropriate images" have appeared in The Dark Room thus far?

None that I have noticed.

[BiblioCat]

...
Seriously, just clone Caerie to do all the modding and we would be far better off. She's the only one that gets it.

Do me one favor, here is the team, which ones of us over-moderate?

I'd like to know the answer to this as well.
Like I've said before, we're walking a fine line. We're never going to appease everyone. Something gets reported, a mod acts on it, and a couple people start screaming, "Too much modding! Back off!", others are thanking us for doing a good job, and a few others are shrieking that we didn't do enough.

[Jeff]

Another point I don't think anyone's made here: I don't consider having images turned off a "rule" that's keeping people from themselves, I consider it a feature that's turned off so we don't need more rules, because turning it on requires us to decide what's acceptable and what's not. If you really hate adding rules (especially subjective ones), you probably should be against having images.

ETA: ok, "should be" is a bit strong. It makes sense to me that if you hate rules, you would also hate whatever rules we're going to have to have governing image use.

Have more faith in the membership here, dude. We're not all fucking morons waiting to shit our pants at the first opportunity you give us.

[featherlou]

DINGDINGDING.

I think you hit the nail on the freakin' head.

Seriously, just clone Caerie to do all the modding and we would be far better off. She's the only one that gets it.

Do me one favor, here is the team, which ones of us over-moderate?
sublight
What Exit?
CRSP
BiblioCat
Caerie
CatInASuit
danceswithcats
Lucifer
MsRobyn
NAF1138
pepperlandgirl
TheFlame

I think your list is making an unintended point - holy shit, we have THAT many mods here? For the activity here, it seems like we could have about half that.

[hawkeyeop]

I was inspired to start an "Ask the..." thread because of his post. I think we are more interesting than we think we are.

So the solution of how to differenciate from the Dope is to use a Dope cliche? I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan.

There are a couple basic problems here. This board was formed out of anger. No, that isn't the mission statement, mainly since I'm mad at Dope is really stupid mission statement, so it evolves into this is what the Dope would be like if "we" ran it. Still this board's initial growth was fueled mainly by unhappiness at the state of the Dope.

That was your best chance at recruiting Dopers. The issue is that anger wanes over time. People realize that 98% the Dope hasn't really changed. Users begin to miss having conversation with people who didn't move over. I've already seen people who vowed to fully move on, return and post on the Dope. If Dope continues to have far more interesting discussions than here more people will move back to the Dope from here than the other way around.

Thus, if you wish to grow, a new market is needed. I'm not sure how you do that though. Almost all popular general interest message boards did not start as message boards. They started with some specific content that attracted people. People wished to discuss that content so message boards were created. Eventually, people's minds wander as they are prone to do, and the message boards become more general discussions. Alterately they could have started devoted to one subject and expanded, but that isn't what we have here either. A message board isn't enough to attract people. I mean who searches for new general message boards?

You are trying to do things backwards here. Have a message board and then add content. Clearly though the content isn't the focus. I think it needs to be to grow. Domebo must offer something unique that would entice users to come here. A niche that isn't filled. That is far important for the sustained success of this venture than finding the perfect level of moderation.

[McNutty]

Have more faith in the membership here, dude. We're not all fucking morons waiting to shit our pants at the first opportunity you give us.

Does that mean you think we don't need rules about image posting?

[NAF1138]

I was inspired to start an "Ask the..." thread because of his post. I think we are more interesting than we think we are.

So the solution of how to differenciate from the Dope is to use a Dope cliche? I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan.

Actually, I think they are interesting thread ideas (ask the threads in general) and thought that it would help to bolster the number of new threads and maybe generate some talk about other stuff at the same time. How is this a bad thing? I never claimed to be trying to differentiate this place from the SDMB, that isn't my goal now and it never has been. My goal is to make this place interesting and I am not above taking good ideas from other places to help achive that goal.

On the other hand

You are trying to do things backwards here. Have a message board and then add content. Clearly though the content isn't the focus. I think it needs to be to grow. Domebo must offer something unique that would entice users to come here. A niche that isn't filled. That is far important for the sustained success of this venture than finding the perfect level of moderation.

This I agree with.

[Exy]

I think this is debatable. If we become the kind of board where it's acceptable to respond with a single "O RLY" picture in an otherwise pictureless thread, then yes, I think that makes us a moron picture board.

You won't ever catch me advocating allowing content-free posts, so if that's your concern you get no argument from me.

Of course, you say this won't happen and I'm being a doomsayer for thinking it will, but honestly, there's no fucking way the mods can get away with calling that sort of thing threadshitting or "contentless" around here when 1) a certain population shrieks about overmoderation no matter what the mods do, and 2) an actual post consisting solely of the words "O RLY" is within the rules (albeit 100 times less annoying).

I would argue strongly that a post whose only content is some retarded catchphrase actually should be against the rules. But that's just me.

I suppose we'll find out. People say there's no harm in trying it and going back, but I know how that one plays out, too: we have to have this same idiotic argument in a month when some people think the image use is annoying and some think it's fantastic.

Hey look, a rational post that didn't mischaracterize you. Try it.

Good work. I think this would be the first rational post I've seen from you on this issue.

Now here's some more rationality: how about suggesting rules against content-free posts if you're concerned about them? I haven't really seen many posts around here that would violate the (strictish) rules of, say, SomethingAwful. If we start seeing a lot of them, why not deal with the actual problem? Since posting images is not really at the core of why content-free posts are annoying, it makes no sense to demand that we not allow images in order to deal with this (thus far) hypothetical problem of content-free posting.

[Jeff]

Have more faith in the membership here, dude. We're not all fucking morons waiting to shit our pants at the first opportunity you give us.

Does that mean you think we don't need rules about image posting?

Do we currently lack a rule telling people that they can't post irrelevant shit?

[Exy]

SA is also heavily moderated, even compared to the SDMB. People get banned there in droves, and suspended for things as minor as posting content-free posts like "+1." We can't really model ourselves off a pay site with paid, very active moderators, either.

Paid moderators? I'm sure some people there are getting paid -- Lowtax undoubtedly is making some money off the whole deal -- but I don't know that the moderators there are paid. Besides, the modes here have been very clear in describing how little moderating they're doing, so I think it's fair to say that if, for whatever reason, we did ask them to do slightly more, it wouldn't be an outrageous burden.

Personally, I've never endorsed the idea that we have some simple spectrum ranging from "no moderation" to "Ceausescu's Romania" anyway; I don't think the moderation here now is necessarily "too light" or "too heavy". The question is whether or not it's good and whether it accomplishes the goals we want to accomplish. The fact that Bibliocat is sort of suggesting that the problem is just that some people want lots of moderation and other people don't want any is really an example of how poorly she "gets" what moderating is about. If I complain about one moderator decision being unnecessary, and the next day complain that moderators didn't do anything about a particular problem, that doesn't mean one day I was clamoring for heavier moderation and the next day I was clamoring for lighter moderation.

We're not all going to agree on what moderators should or shouldn't be doing, obviously. But we're definitely not going to come to any useful conclusions by fallaciously treating this as some disagreement between the kids who want no rules and the kids who want lots of rules.

[Sarahfeena]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain this, but Excalibur just kind of did it for me. I think that moderation needs to be less of reacting to what particular posters say they want to happen in a given situation, but rather, thought of in terms of a larger gestalt. Moderators have to be able to determine what's a problem and what isn't, based on what the overall philosophy of the board is, and not based on individual complaints. They also have to be able to explain it to the individual complainers when they don't necessarily get the actions taken that they are looking for. It's not about trying to make everyone happy, and have a different board experience for each person...that's not going to happen.

[McNutty]

how about suggesting rules against content-free posts if you're concerned about them?

Haha, good one. You're trying to bait me into proposing more rules on this board? No thanks. Besides, I actually believe content-free posts that are made of words are significantly less annoying than content-free posts that are dumb pictures, so there has been no need for that type of rule from my point of view.

Do we currently lack a rule telling people that they can't post irrelevant shit?

As far as I know. Am I wrong?

Personally, I'd be ok if image use was allowed and restricted to times when the image itself actually adds some substance, but only if that was actually enforced. I seriously doubt the masses here would put up with the heavy moderation necessary to make that work.

[Jeff]

Do we currently lack a rule telling people that they can't post irrelevant shit?

As far as I know. Am I wrong?

Personally, I'd be ok if image use was allowed and restricted to times when the image itself actually adds some substance, but only if that was actually enforced. I seriously doubt the masses here would put up with the heavy moderation necessary to make that work.

I don't see one either. We're doing fine without one and that wouldn't change if images were enabled.

I think you're overestimating the amount of moderation involved. And if somehow we enable images and you're proven right on every point you make, the decision can be reversed.

Win win.

[silenus]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain this, but Excalibur just kind of did it for me. I think that moderation needs to be less of reacting to what particular posters say they want to happen in a given situation, but rather, thought of in terms of a larger gestalt. Moderators have to be able to determine what's a problem and what isn't, based on what the overall philosophy of the board is, and not based on individual complaints. They also have to be able to explain it to the individual complainers when they don't necessarily get the actions taken that they are looking for. It's not about trying to make everyone happy, and have a different board experience for each person...that's not going to happen.

Therein lies the rub. We don't have an overall philosophy! We're just winging it.

[McNutty]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain this, but Excalibur just kind of did it for me. I think that moderation needs to be less of reacting to what particular posters say they want to happen in a given situation, but rather, thought of in terms of a larger gestalt. Moderators have to be able to determine what's a problem and what isn't, based on what the overall philosophy of the board is, and not based on individual complaints. They also have to be able to explain it to the individual complainers when they don't necessarily get the actions taken that they are looking for. It's not about trying to make everyone happy, and have a different board experience for each person...that's not going to happen.

I actually totally agree with this. The moderators need to not be afraid that when they warn someone for being a jerk (perhaps by posting something that is just pure noise or contains irrelevant images or whatever), that they're going to start some kind of firestorm of complaints. I think this includes being free to see something like bwhitman for what he was (a shit-stirrer) and kick his ass to the curb quickly without making him prove what he is for weeks on end. This also, sorry hatesfreedom, means that if someone does obnoxious shit like this, they should be told to cut it out even if they're a lovable little irreverent ferret.

If that all actually happens, and we can have a culture where images are not used as mere interjections like many message boards I've been on, I'm sold on images. I'm just incredibly skeptical that that's actually going to happen, and don't believe that the decision is trivially reversed if it turns out to be a bad idea.

But this is why we have a vote, isn't it?

[Sarahfeena]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain this, but Excalibur just kind of did it for me. I think that moderation needs to be less of reacting to what particular posters say they want to happen in a given situation, but rather, thought of in terms of a larger gestalt. Moderators have to be able to determine what's a problem and what isn't, based on what the overall philosophy of the board is, and not based on individual complaints. They also have to be able to explain it to the individual complainers when they don't necessarily get the actions taken that they are looking for. It's not about trying to make everyone happy, and have a different board experience for each person...that's not going to happen.

Therein lies the rub. We don't have an overall philosophy! We're just winging it.

Yeah, I know...but maybe it's not too late, she says hopefully?

I think that the overall philosophy was "not like the SDMB." So, in what way? What should we do differently? What do we want the board to be?

[NAF1138]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain this, but Excalibur just kind of did it for me. I think that moderation needs to be less of reacting to what particular posters say they want to happen in a given situation, but rather, thought of in terms of a larger gestalt. Moderators have to be able to determine what's a problem and what isn't, based on what the overall philosophy of the board is, and not based on individual complaints. They also have to be able to explain it to the individual complainers when they don't necessarily get the actions taken that they are looking for. It's not about trying to make everyone happy, and have a different board experience for each person...that's not going to happen.

Therein lies the rub. We don't have an overall philosophy! We're just winging it.

Yeah, I know...but maybe it's not too late, she says hopefully?

I think that the overall philosophy was "not like the SDMB." So, in what way? What should we do differently? What do we want the board to be?

This question comes up periodically, and we never get a good answer to it. Maybe we will this time. I would like to move a step beyond "not like the SDMB" and maybe start defining who we are, rather than who we aren't.

No, I don't have any useful ideas to contribute.

[BiblioCat]

I actually totally agree with this. The moderators need to not be afraid that when they warn someone for being a jerk (perhaps by posting something that is just pure noise or contains irrelevant images or whatever), that they're going to start some kind of firestorm of complaints. I think this includes being free to see something like bwhitman for what he was (a shit-stirrer) and kick his ass to the curb quickly without making him prove what he is for weeks on end.

I agree completely with this. Several mods, including me, have wanted to ban various troublemakers. When we discuss it, everyone else starts crying that the troll just needs a time-out in Room 101. I get the reasoning behind Room 101, but locking up obvious and chronic trolls is just stupid. They need to be banned.

This also, sorry hatesfreedom, means that if someone does obnoxious shit like this, they should be told to cut it out even if they're a lovable little irreverent ferret.

I agree, but we've been told specifically not to use the phrases 'Cut it out' and 'Knock it off.'
If we ask him to stop, with a green or orange mod tag, we get shit for being big old meanies.
Whenever we've discussed things like this in The Hive, we get snarked on in ADF or TD. There was one thread specifically that accused me of lobbying to have hatesfreedom banned. I never said any such thing. I have no problem with hates, but he does need to stop with the image trolling.

[featherlou]

I've been trying to think of a way to explain this, but Excalibur just kind of did it for me. I think that moderation needs to be less of reacting to what particular posters say they want to happen in a given situation, but rather, thought of in terms of a larger gestalt. Moderators have to be able to determine what's a problem and what isn't, based on what the overall philosophy of the board is, and not based on individual complaints. They also have to be able to explain it to the individual complainers when they don't necessarily get the actions taken that they are looking for. It's not about trying to make everyone happy, and have a different board experience for each person...that's not going to happen.

I think I understand what you're saying, and it sounds kind of ideal, but I don't know how the implementation of something like that would go.

[Sarahfeena]

I actually totally agree with this. The moderators need to not be afraid that when they warn someone for being a jerk (perhaps by posting something that is just pure noise or contains irrelevant images or whatever), that they're going to start some kind of firestorm of complaints. I think this includes being free to see something like bwhitman for what he was (a shit-stirrer) and kick his ass to the curb quickly without making him prove what he is for weeks on end.

I agree completely with this. Several mods, including me, have wanted to ban various troublemakers. When we discuss it, everyone else starts crying that the troll just needs a time-out in Room 101. I get the reasoning behind Room 101, but locking up obvious and chronic trolls is just stupid. They need to be banned.

This also, sorry hatesfreedom, means that if someone does obnoxious shit like this, they should be told to cut it out even if they're a lovable little irreverent ferret.

I agree, but we've been told specifically not to use the phrases 'Cut it out' and 'Knock it off.'
If we ask him to stop, with a green or orange mod tag, we get shit for being big old meanies.
Whenever we've discussed things like this in The Hive, we get snarked on in ADF or TD. There was one thread specifically that accused me of lobbying to have hatesfreedom banned. I never said any such thing. I have no problem with hates, but he does need to stop with the image trolling.

Maybe the problem here is that whatever this "image trolling" hates is doing really isn't that much of an issue.

[Myrnalene]

Maybe the problem here is that whatever this "image trolling" hates is doing really isn't that much of an issue.

His "image trolling" seems to consist of posting one obnoxious set of images in one post one time. He is quite the little delinquent.

ETA: In the Dark Room, in a thread called "Post the Funny". I know, it gives me the vapors, too.

[NAF1138]

This also, sorry hatesfreedom, means that if someone does obnoxious shit like this, they should be told to cut it out even if they're a lovable little irreverent ferret.

Side question: Why don't people report posts like that? My philosophy with TDR has more or less been, if I see an obvious breaking of rules I will do something, but pretty much anything is fair game as long as it doesn't seem to be pissing folks off. The reposting of images like that is, to me, very borderline jerk behavior, but I figure since no one reported it no one cares and I leave it alone.

If it bugs you, why aren't you reporting it?

[McNutty]

Maybe the problem here is that whatever this "image trolling" hates is doing really isn't that much of an issue.

Well, if it's acceptable in TDR now, then my concerns that it might happen all over the board aren't exactly implausible, are they? This is our concern, Dude.

[featherlou]

Therein lies the rub. We don't have an overall philosophy! We're just winging it.

Yeah, I know...but maybe it's not too late, she says hopefully?

I think that the overall philosophy was "not like the SDMB." So, in what way? What should we do differently? What do we want the board to be?

I'm not sure you can come up with one answer for that. Just from this thread alone, we see that Martini wants a different board than I do - I want this board to be funner* than the Dope, and he obviously is looking for more than just fun in a message board.

*And to be able to use words like "funner" without getting a grammar lecture.

[Exy]

No, I don't have any useful ideas to contribute.

I do. I want a place where I can have interesting conversations about interesting things. I don't necessarily want to debate things -- at least not very often -- but I really want to get the perspective of people who disagree with me on things. I don't want the ultimately unproductive and draining work of post-parsing (like debates on the SDMB turned into sometimes) -- but I don't want people timidly apologizing for disagreeing, or filling threads with boring irrelevancies either.

I agree completely with this. Several mods, including me, have wanted to ban various troublemakers. When we discuss it, everyone else starts crying that the troll just needs a time-out in Room 101. I get the reasoning behind Room 101, but locking up obvious and chronic trolls is just stupid. They need to be banned.

There needs to be a single final decision as to whether bannees are locked in 101 forever or banned. There is very little difference. My post is locking them in room 101, but it's dumb to deal with them in different ways. (My preference is that people should be locked up, not literally banned.) And if someone is locked in room 101, the modes need to just let them do whatever they do, unless maybe after a long enough time they manage to make a good case for being let back in (plenty of communities un-ban people sometimes too.)

Busybody moderators who decide they need to moderate Room 101 -- and I'm referring here to the recent discussion of actually banning Misanthropic Contrarian instead of leaving him 101ed -- need to find something else to occupy their free time.

If we ask him to stop, with a green or orange mod tag, we get shit for being big old meanies.

Stop fucking whining. Stop it. This was a sucky attitude from the SDMB mods and it's a sucky attitude from you. The other modes -- all of them, as far as I can see -- are perfectly capable of moderating without this endless bitching. If you're not then step the fuck down. Jesus.

[Sarahfeena]

Therein lies the rub. We don't have an overall philosophy! We're just winging it.

Yeah, I know...but maybe it's not too late, she says hopefully?

I think that the overall philosophy was "not like the SDMB." So, in what way? What should we do differently? What do we want the board to be?

I'm not sure you can come up with one answer for that. Just from this thread alone, we see that Martini wants a different board than I do - I want this board to be funner* than the Dope, and he obviously is looking for more than just fun in a message board.

*And to be able to use words like "funner" without getting a grammar lecture.

OMG, amen to your last sentence there!

[NAF1138]

I get the reasoning behind Room 101, but locking up obvious and chronic trolls is just stupid. They need to be banned.

Then you don't get the resoning behind 101. 101 is meant to be in place of banning. Spam bots get banned everything else goes to 101 is the idea. If you dislike that idea that's fine but people like me are saying to put posters into 101 instead of banning because that is why we have 101 in the first place.

[BiblioCat]

Maybe the problem here is that whatever this "image trolling" hates is doing really isn't that much of an issue.

It becomes an issue when the post gets reported.

[NAF1138]

There needs to be a single final decision as to whether bannees are locked in 101 forever or banned. There is very little difference. My post is locking them in room 101, but it's dumb to deal with them in different ways. (My preference is that people should be locked up, not literally banned.) And if someone is locked in room 101, the modes need to just let them do whatever they do, unless maybe after a long enough time they manage to make a good case for being let back in (plenty of communities un-ban people sometimes too.)

I don't know why we aren't on the same page with this one. Honestly I don't. I thought when we set up 101 it was clear that it was intended to be a replacement for banning.

[McNutty]

If it bugs you, why aren't you reporting it?

I didn't realize this is how the moderation worked; that if nobody reports something, it's ok by definition. I suppose I should go report that post? (Oh no, there goes my tattler anonymity!) How about the other post where he did the exact same thing, but also called people "faggots"? He got warned for the insult but not the obnoxious image spamming.

[BiblioCat]

I get the reasoning behind Room 101, but locking up obvious and chronic trolls is just stupid. They need to be banned.

Then you don't get the resoning behind 101. 101 is meant to be in place of banning. Spam bots get banned everything else goes to 101 is the idea. If you dislike that idea that's fine but people like me are saying to put posters into 101 instead of banning because that is why we have 101 in the first place.

Okay, maybe I don't get the idea behind Room 101. I thought Room 101 was like a time-out corner for wayward toddlers. Someone gets out of line, we stick them in Room 101 for a short time, and then let them out again eventually. I remember having a conversation about various 'sentences' for it; a day, a couple days or a week.

Is the thinking that we're not going to ban troublemakers, but just lock them up in 101 instead? Is that so we can say we never ban anyone?