Forum civility

Back in High School I always thought that College kids were this super smart and mature bunch of people: the same bunch of people that my Teachers spawned from. I have quickly realized that college does not a mature man make. I doubt, however, many people who are guilty of such a thing are going to be so forthcoming with why they feel they should belittle everyone. Some people probably don't realize that there are real people behind each screenname, and others just don't care :/

Honestly, I talk to people like this in person. If you really think that removing pseudonyms will decrease the reality that we're talking to people on the internet that we otherwise may never talk to in person, then go for it.

I don't actually think that anyone is hiding behind an internet handle anyway. We're at Western (Implication: Lots of immature "douchebags"). I feel like it is more tolerable to interact with the student population online than it is in person at times.

We could have a rating system which allow other users to give thumbs up or down to posts. If a post gets enough negative responses the post becomes invisible. Then instead of responding, and exacerbating the situation (sometimes), they could just click a "boo button." Non-constructive contributions would then doom themselves to being hidden.

A Place i've seen this implemented is on the WoW database thottbot. Here is a link to a page on thottbot. You can see how flamers and people being rude\argumentative get negative scores, and their post fades. With enough negative responses, the post is hidden so you must click on a button to expand it.

However, I can imagine the smaller community of Viking Village might make this kind of self moderating less effectual without some serious consideration of post traffic and participation.

I actually need to be nicer here than anywhere else, forum or in-person, since this is the only place where the feelings of others are a very serious consideration; there's a pretty big difference between kindness and civility and for some reason the Staff here outright equate the two.

The forum behavior is a result of the environment you've created; if you want better behavior, try examining actions Staff have taken that could have possibly led to such results.  Personally, I'd start with the rules: try calling them for what they are (rules, not guidelines) and make them not suck; the mentality behind their creation is incorrect given the intended end goal.

On a sidenote: I've never even considered pseudonyms as an issue.  If you think removing them will eliminate "mocking, humiliating, and belittling" behavior, you're in for a real surprise.

Doesn't it really boil down to tact?  If someone wants to say something contrary to a post on the forum the manner in which they word it is paramount to how the comment and commenter is perceived.  You can disagree with someone with the goal of showing that they are incorrect and an idiot (tactless) or disagree with them in a sincere effort to demonstrate the merit of your opposing viewpoint, a good use of tact.  This seems to rely largely on the quality of the individual, their reasons for posting and a mutual respect.  Apparently everyone's favorite reason to use anonymous forums is to burn others and take advantage of a post made with the hope of any following comments reciprocating respect.  Awesome, score one for the internet generation!

This is a really interesting idea....

Actually, this is exactly the same as requiring a login to view the forum: you're not addressing the actual problem, you're just hiding it.  There's a reason forums with non-illegal activity don't require a login to just view, just like there's a reason a post rating system is implemented pretty much nowhere: the intended result is not achieved.

I realize this counts as public sector, but you can't just continue band-aiding things and expect that quality will eventually result.

So what is y our suggestion?  Changing peoples behaviour is very difficult; harm minimization much less so.

It is, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the kind of behavior a forum elicits. Between discussing topics people care/know/feel a lot about, and a level of anonymity, there is bound to be aggression, insulting, name calling, and superiority complexes. IT's just a fact of the forum culture, the only thing to do about it is facilitate a positive environment and ban trolls.

Finn, I'm noticing this pattern where you don't read all the posts in a thread.

You're right, I often do skim.  As moderators we have to look at every single thread and post and that takes a huge amount of time.  Skimming is the only way I can keep up. 

But to your actual point, the moderators are discussing making the rules clearer.  Ultimately, that seems like a bit of a small bandaid.  As we are team we also moderate our own behavior.  One of my posts was flagged and I asked the team what I should do.  They gave me clear advice and I immediately did it, editing my own post for content.

Why is it even necessary to belittle other users?  I don't see what value those kinds of comments bring to this community.  If someone thinks they do add value, what exactly is it? 

Behold! John Gabriels Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:

                        Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

And yeah, because there's some level of anonymity here, there are always going to be people who jokingly kid around and troll with the basis of "internet is srs bsns". And as with any playful fun, there will always be the Farvas of the world who can't do it right and end up just being complete dipshits.

So my suggestion is to use Cesar Milan's reccomendation for fixing bad behavior: praise the good, ignore the bad. Be the pack leader!

I agree that you can't stop it.  The reason the forum is so popular is because of the level of anonymity that is offered here.  We can talk more easily about topics that we know are difficult.  I don't think you can expect anything different form people, especially if the topic is one that really fires them up....  No moderator is going to stop it.  What can be done is more at the level of the society around it.  It is others using the forum that can respond by making them (or rather their behavior) outcast.  Saying something back... telling them that you can't take them seriously because their language or rudeness is distracting etc...

How about instead of hiding posts, we could use a post rating system, as I mentioned earlier, but allow moderators to remove posts if the post gets too negative of a score.

Then, the community is helping moderators maintain the guidline of

"Posts that inflame others' sensibilities will be removed, and those who use the forum as trolling grounds will not be tolerated."

I think a post rating system, if implemented in just the right fashion, would, possibly build a technological frame work for "praise the good, ignore the bad. Be the pack leader!"

(Strikeout used to provide complete context but with focus) This isn't a classroom where "there are no stupid questions," this is the internet: the collective knowledge of mankind, both past and present, is available for everyone who seeks it.  There is pretty literally nothing that cannot be found on the internet (given it exists).  That said, stupid questions exist.

Forums are for discussion.  "How do I get rid of fruit flies," for instance, is not such a topic; there is not only a correct answer, but a dozen of them, all of which can be found via Google with mindnumbing ease.  For habitual forum users, these kinds of threads are viewed as garbage, creating unnecessary clutter.  As a result, stupid questions lead to mockery, ridicule, and/or belittling, with the idea that people will be shamed into not repeating their mistakes.  The faster you learn what constitutes a stupid question, the less you get made fun of (or you stop posting altogether and change your thread title to "please delete").  I think of it as a kind of internet Darwinism.

Endnote: You (claim to) want to promote dialogue with this forum (which the Staff forgets is the intent of all forums, not just non-normal ones).  Just make sure you know where the line between "promoting dialogue" and "facilitating garbage" is.

Sidenote: if the Staff has trouble reading all the posts in all the threads, perhaps a division of labor system should be used.  Just a thought.

Info on our plan of action.

1) Andy is looking at the 'voting' module, but it may not work with other modules installed.

2) The guidelines ARE the rules

3) Moderators are going to be more stringent about issuing warnings for violations, including rude or mocking comments.  If you make rude or mocking comments, you WILL be issued a warning.

4) If you find a post rude or objectionable, flag it.  Those flags are addressed quickly by the moderators.

For those who don't know, we have a system of three warnings.  The third warning automatically bans you from the forum.  You can petition to be reinstated on probation.  Further infractions can and will result in a very long or permanent ban, and reinstatement usually requires that you go before the advisory board and present your case.

Maybe you should, as moderaters, be better about issuing warnings. Instead of letting a particular user or thread become so offensive that you need a thread to complain about them in, issue a warning instead. I get that you're all doing your jobs, but if you feel something isn't working, revise your current methods before brainstorming new ones.

Everyone who goes to a forum knows that there are rules, and moderators there to enforce them, so if they get banned its their problem.

It's not quite as simple as that.  This forum generates enough swings from either side, be it dissaffected parents or negative articles in the Western Front suggesting censorship.  Walking the middle ground is not always the easiest task.

My point is, having modded forums as well, it not only should be that easy but has to be that easy. It's a privilege, not a right, to be able to post on a forum. If you're a jerk and clearly break the rules three times, you're banned. The end. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I just think that if the mods are more clear about what forum abuse is, which rules are being broken, and have a more uniform standard of handing out infractions, people won't be able to complain about wishy-washy modertaion being the problem.

I think a distinction needs to be made between what we might call "civil discourse" and "nice discourse." I believe wholeheartedly that this forum should be a civil place. Gratuitious profanity, ad hominem attacks, direct name-calling, etc. should not be allowed. They hurt without reason and don't further the conversation in any meaningful way.

However.

I don't think this forum needs to be a nice place, where all opinions, questions, and claims are handled with kid gloves. Civility is, indeed, a part of being an adult. Another part of being an adult, though, is understanding that you never have to state an opinion, and that putting those things out in public is not alway the wisest thing to do. When you post on this forum, you are essentially shouting in the town square, and you have to accept the opinions of the passersby, however expressed.

Sarcasm, irony, and thoughtful derision should not be banned from these forums. They make for more amusing threads. These things weed out the foolish and the weak (who post boring comments) and they knock down a few pegs the arrogant and the pretentious. If the moderation team starts disallowing this kind of discourse, they will end up with a conversation that is "open to and comfortable for everyone" but not worth listening to in the first place. It would be a humorless, joyless, lifeless banality.

Look at the British House of Commons. Civil discourse--hilariously not nice. That should be our model.

A proposed new Guideline for Participation:

Be careful what you post. You don't know the people on this forum. If you post thoughtless opinions and inane questions, you may find other posters deriding you for clogging the forum with boring clutter. That's the way life works.

This is all true, but doesn't pay enough attention to the context of this forum.  Because it's affiliated with a university, it's very important that we represent fairness and equality, and give credence to arguments about freedom of expression and speech.  It's also a generalist community that provides benefits to the students, for example, being able to schedule and organize study groups.  Removing tha benefit isn't something that should be considered lightly. 

All that said, I personally am going to make an effort to be quicker at issuing warnings.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Finn

Who gets to decide what is thoughtless or inane? Certainly the person posting may have found a great deal of significance to their question or thought. I generally agree that you should be careful in how you say things, but that is true both on the internet and in person. Why people are much more aggressive online than in person (it seems so because I haven't experienced as much rudeness talking to people in other settings on campus) seems quite obvious. You can basically can hide behind some sort of alias from other posters. If everybody was represented by their own name I think people would think before they spoke. For people who want anonymity, a seperate section for more personal matters should be provided where your name is not shared.

What's the problem with taking a few good jibes at a weakness in an argument?  If I am engaged in a discussion with someone that has an unfounded opinion, you're darn right I'm going to point it out to them.  There's no malice in these statements, but it forces them to defend their stance by plugging the holes I am attacking.  Through doing this, it forces them to retaliate yes, but it also forces them to fill the gaps in their reasoning and making their opinion better because of it.  I have absolutely no problem if someone in reasonable language jibes at me and forces me to defend my stance. 

That being said, if someone posts something along the lines of "you're a (expletive) idiot, this is the way it IS.  Do society a favor; go play in traffic and die"  it is clearly not okay.  Extreme example that would be moderated anyways, but you see what I mean.  There are limits...but if people are too sensitive to handle a debate and the language that is an intrinsic part of it, then they shouldn't start threads on the forums. 

If that's what you are trying to do, then use factual or reasoned arguments.  Mocking and belittlng others is the least powerful method of debating.  It really only points out the weakness of your point, as that becomes the only thing you have to rely on.

I disagree, you can easily have reasoned and factual arguments worded in a snarky way.  I'll agree with Daniel, go to the BBC and look up Prime Minister's Question Time in the British House of Commons.  That's their entire system of governance...

 i really just want to spam this thread with comments putting people down and attacking them over the internet because I have such a worthless hollow existence. but i wont cause i don't care enough to start a pointless fight over the internet.

 I think that nobody should care or take negative things personally over the internet.  People just do it cause they think they are being funny and they get a kick out of anonymously making people mad. Sort of like a prank, but a really lame one.  They would attack anybody, and anyone that gets offended needs to simply ignore it. Otherwise, they sink to the same level as the attacker.  

My solution? ignore them and don't respond or egg them on and they wont keep going.  If you feed them with more responses for them to belittle, you are just encouraging their behavior.

Also, whats all this talk about pseudonyms? Cheese Feasley is my birth name.

Yeah I hear shaming people works great for creating inclusive environments where people feel ok to post their opinions.......you can't be serious about this argument.

Your method will not only stop people from posting "stupid" questions, but it will stop people from posting questions at all for fear of reposting, asking a "stupid" question (however you seem to define that term), or posting something else that will allow you pounce on them.

In the DJ forum I'm in right now, thats exactly what happens all the time. Every day people join and ask a question they could've found through the search bar, and other people thrash them for it. Yeah, it stops some people that know not to do that kind of thing, but for other newer users, they don't consider that the question has been asked before, and people never post there again because of the verbal assault they endure for their first post. I know I'm always wary whenever I post there lest I repost and people jump on me for it, and I've been a member for 2 years! Your "internet darwinism" would be exactly that: a bunch of individuals, protecting themselves and lashing out at others for their own gain to survive in the community.

Yes, there will be people posting questions they could have discovered for themselves, or complaining about something that doesn't bother most others. My question(s) to you is(are) this: is it really easier for you to enter the thread and insult the person in each one of these threads than to ignore them? If someone posts a question and doesn't get a response because nobody wants to research it for them, and they decide to just research it for themselves, doesn't everybody win in that situation? I'm arguing this point because I don't want to see good, well thought out posts fall by the wayside because people are worried they'll be attacked.

To me, your argument here is simply an attempt to justify insulting, immature behavior on this forum. You don't want to be the one that has to change your behavior for others, so you're trying to come up with rationalizations for why these insults are actually good for everyone. Either that or your trolling us all with this...
 

...but usually the most hilarious.

QFT

 I think that people should be allowed to say what they like. If it is not a direct threat to another person who cares. Allow idiots to be idiots and don't be offended. Words can't hurt you remember? If you allow something someone said online to hurt your feelings then you need to step back and realize that it doesn't matter and we all have different ideas and opinions. Remember we are in college we can get past rude people. 

This isn't a matter of 'words can't hurt you' because, for starters, they can (Simple type in 'words hurt' or 'do words hurt' and you'll see dozens of articles and essays from various sites and organizations explaining that words can and DO hurt; so the old adage 'stick and stones may break my bones, and words will never hurt me' is baseless). Words hurt and Words can offend. As people, especially in the US, we have the right to be free from things that are offensive (The supreme court has ruled on numerous occasions the ability and right of the FCC and other organizations to censor material that may be offensive to those who are viewing it (George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words Ruling, for example). As mods it is, in my opinion, our duty to be the censors to keep one group of people from offending another: It is necessary because not everyone will ever just think that this 'doesn't matter' and 'get over it' when they see offensive things; someone sees something that hurts them one way or another, and they respond in kind, and now we've got a snowball effect that turns into a flame fest.

The best way to end the pointless, unnecessary, and offensive quips is to nip them in the butt before they can do too much damage. Draconion methods can take care of the issue quite quickly, although there will be fewer eligible people posting on the forum, until people can understand what is acceptable and what isn't.

turnerh2 is right in thinking that the 'language of debate' is something to keep in mind. I certainly don't think we can't have civil discourse: that being said civil discourse requires that all participants are civil, and it goes both ways here. Not only must the person who is deconstructing the argument need to avoid ad hominum attacks (you're an idiot, your argument's retarded, etc) and the person who is on the receiving end of the deconstruction has to be open to different ideas and realize that not everyone will agree. If we're talking about a forum post that is some sort of debate/discussion then the people involved must all remain civil; it's when in these discussions someone makes a subjective statement that usually derails everything. If someone presents fact X,Y,Z and makes a conclusion, and someone responds with 'That's dumb', they've effectively derailed the civilness of the debate. Instead they should present CounterFact1, 2, and 3 or provide a different conclusion which does not devalue someone elses. In short (as I know I'm getting long winded here) if you have to attack the intelligence or the person behind the argument in order to make yours stronger, you're working against civil discourse.

Also: the entirety of this forum is not discussion. 'Getting Together' is not an entirely discussion based forum, Academics, the Trade Section, Bellingham Life, Personals, etc: these aren't 'discussion', but can definitely be Q/A or statements (like: I think XX band is Awesome and you should go and support them at YY). I haven't read the fruit fly post myself, but Casey P. is right on in stating that just because someone posts a question that can be googled, doesn't give you the right to ridicule them (nothing gives you the right to do so on this forum). If I posted a post on motorcycles wanting to know more about them, I certainly could go online and google it, but perhaps I'd rather have responses based on the experiences of those in my community members. Because I made the effort to post the question, my right to have it answered by those who wish to needs to be respected, and if you think that It should not, you can, effectively, keep your opinion to yourself.

/end response

Well said Locke.  I agree with you.  I have seen too many people getting hit below the belt on these forums for the sake of entertainment, and those who are doing so may not mean what they say in a hurtful way, but it can be taken that way.  I've seen instances where people communicate that something was hurtful to them, and some back off or apologize or explain the aim/meaning behind their words.  But some have persisted by making insensitive comments such as "life sucks, get over it" or "your response is dumb" or "grow up, this is how real life is."  These comments do not help anyone, and I do not see the point of using them on these forums.  If you are used to making these comments to your friends, that's understandable but keep in mind that your friends know when you are only kidding or not to take you seriously.  On here such indicators are lacking and people may not know you and so may not know when your sarcasm is just playful and instead take it personally.  Also I think that some posts on these forums are intentionally inflammatory or volatile.  But I'm not sure what should be done about them.  On the one hand, they can provide some excellent discussion, but on the other they can quickly spiral out of control. 

If someone is saying something that is either wrong or just plain stupid, they either need to be informed of this or reminded of the obvious in the hopes they stop. Whether they take offense to it is their problem.

ex:

http://forum.wwu.edu/node/7920#comment-17567

My reply that follows is warranted; he was acting like an idiot and I informed him of such. I don't think flowery "nice talk' or being completely indirect is always the solution, especially when dealing w/ the overzealous.

 Last I checked, this was a forum consisting (mostly) of adults and I think that the moderators should be more than capable of judging what is/isn't too offensive for people to see/deal with. If you think there's too much negativity, then perhaps your standards are simply too high.

Also, there's irony in the fact that you made a post regarding 'mediocrity' of the student masses and later made a post admonishing people for humilating others.

1) It is never OK to call someone an idiot on this forum.  Just point out the obvious zealotry and then move into the remainder of your argument.

2) My post on mediocrity was not directed at or mocking an invidual, but rather a comment on my perception of academic standards.  There is a very, very large difference.

1. Seeing as it's your sandbox, point taken.

2. Your perception was offensive, just as much as my perceptions can be (and sometimes are) offensive.  So what you're really saying is that b/c it wasn't individual, but an abstract group, it's kosher.

Regardless,

/Agree

This isn't 'our sandbox' it's everyone's, which is why we are opening this discussion to see what your points of view are. If you're telling me it's okay to just blatently throw out 'idiot' and other such phrases and that everyone will happily look away and not take offense, you are sourly mistaken. Mods aren't there to control free speech, so it doesn't matter what we think on the top of the NWO (although I personally think it's just another conspiracy), we do, however, care that the participants are -civil-. Calling someone an idiot is not civil. Point out the flaws in their 'logic' is.

This forum isn't a playground. We aren't clowns to be your amusement. It's a place for dicussion. Discussion =/= amusing. I, and the mods, aren't out there to destroy sarcasm and irony, in fact many of us employ it. You can, however, be sarcastic, without being uncivil, without being negative. An example: 'I totally see where you're coming from, the NWO is real, big foot's also my brother'. Clearly sarcastic, not an any way an attack on the other person. If you laugh, then great, but I certainly wasn't trying to make you laugh.

You are not a Judge in any form and we don't get to determine who is the 'Weak' and weed them out. That kind of ideology is the kind that as a mod  I wish to stamp out. You are not better than anyone else and you certainly don't get to determine someone's worth.

Well, no, we don't get to determine someone else's worth (in the sense of, say, killing those we deem worthless), but we certainly can suggest that someone else is worthless. We can say, "Hey, man, I disagree with your stupid opinion, and I respectfully think that you should be killed for posting it on this all-inclusive, open-minded, polite, community forum." It's not a threat, an act of violence, or a direct insult. Only an idealistic suggestion.

I agree with you (except for maybe the killing part), but this conversation is fairly pointless. The mods don't really want, or need, our opinions. The university is going to do whatever it needs to to keep itself from looking bad, and as representatives of the university, the mods are going to do that regardless of the forum users opinions. This should be apparent in the interactions between you and the moderators. As you can see, they have done a good job at showing you that your opinions and ideas are misguided/wrong whereas theirs are correct. You do not see this behavior in posts that express opinions similar to the moderation team. Even if every (excluding the moderation team) user of this forum had an opinion similar to yours, it still wouldn't matter.

If you want my opinion, it's better to pick your battles where you can win them. This was a losing battle from the beginning. As I said, the moderators are going to do what they need/want to do, and there's nothing that the users can really do about it. The most that we can do is leave, adhere to the rules, or go out in flames (ultimately resulting in a ban). 

The moderator team are all students too.  We are very aware of the balance between creating a postive environment and allowing free discourse.  We don't make decisions lightly and are always considering the impact on other participants.  I truly doubt those of you preaching social darwinian ideology have considered the impact some of these posts have on other students, faculty, staff, or parents.  This isn't a playground for students, it's a university wide community.  Your 'comedy' only pushes faculty and staff away, reducing the value for everyone.  It's easy to be obnoxious, but it's a hell of a lot harder to put yourselves in someone elses position and act responsibly.

Also, the guidelines on these forums were made with the input of very few of the current moderators (only Andy (the admin) and Jamin). The guidelines and largely how they should be interpreted were crafted by the Advisory Board early last school year. We make a lot of decisions together and we've been trying not to step on people's feet too much; but the advisory board and the moderators don't think that a lot of the posts that have come up lately are okay, and we're going to start cracking down harder on users that are making the forum a less enjoyable place to be.

All you've done here is put me into a group of obnoxious, irresponsible people. That kind of name calling is not okay, Finn. You, as a moderator, should know that. And you haven't really done anything to disprove my point, rather you're supporting it.

And as much as I'd love to get into a discussion with you over what my ideology is, it would probably just turn into another argument that I don't really want to have with you.

... :)

Clearly I'm in the minority for thinking this, but stupid threads, like nwo conspiracies, should be considered offensive in the first place and dealt with. I find it lame that I'll be targetted for attacking a troll, but the troll is allowed to continue polluting the forum.

No need to cite civility vs. incivility, I'm just stating my thoughts. Also I typed this w/ my phone, so apologies for spelling errors in advance (lol)

It's actually quite disturbing how similar your writing style is to my own.  (Unfortunately, in the case of this particular handle it would very difficult to discern the validity of this fact, since I really don't post on here very often.)  This really isn't relevant to the subject at hand, but I was seriously shocked after only reading half-way through your post. 

Unfortunately, I have to say that I am indeed disappointed to see so many degrading their fellow students in such as way as to categorically pass them off as "immature."  It's the perpetuation of hegemonic ideology at its worst and it's disgusting.  There are simply different types of people that conduct themselves in different manners.  "Better" or "worse" is not a value I trust anyone here to be able to make, for I have yet to find, hear of, or even conceive of the person that could unequivocally classify a human being- any whole, single person- in such a simplistic manner.

Now, good day. 

I said 'good day'! 

(Yes, I realize that last portion somewhat weakens my position, but I don't like to leave an argument overly antagonistic.  It has been found in numerous studies that arguments which 'push' and inspire anger are not nearly as effective as those that 'pull' and utilize sociable mannerisms such as comedy.  Then again, maybe you've never seen "That 70's Show."  At that point, I walk away very quietly, hoping nobody notices.  Yep, I'm really not doing much for my above argument, am I?  Well, this is really more about attaining a sense of community anyway, so I don't mind... At what point is a parenthetical excessive?)

Oh my jesus, it's Nietzsche.

And he didn't even mention god being dead, or anything delicious like that.  Damnit man, you let me down.    : ((((((((

But the "good day" redeemed you (slightly)

+1, but I would suggest you review your own guidelines vis-a-vis some of your recent posts. They are certainly not the paragon of enlightened discourse and would probably fall under the "thoughtless opinions" category.

More (elitist) censorship would certainly do the trick!

What? What's that? You're already-- But I was being sar-- Wh-What? You made a list? Lemme see!

(Yeah go rating system, so we can supress unpopular opinions! Yaaaay!....)

This is absurd. The already numerously thin-skinned forum-goers will soon flag every post that doesn't comply with their worldly views as long as they can detect the pattern of the Mods' response to their complaints. Control...

How can other people not be bothered by what's going on here? Soon you'll see the results of these proposed changes. Quality posters only. Or more appropriately, popular posters only. Empathetic posters only. Meaning, bite your tongue, or you'll get a warning! Uncontroversial posters only. We need more sheep! Hell, any form of sarcasm will probably be banned by spring, because it can be interpreted as "rude," and "mocking." Yes, I am mocking these ideas I'm seeing. How can I not? Everyone seems to be looking how to control the environment. Gettin' rid of that... mediocrity?... This is a slippery slope we're travelling down.

Think about it, guys.

Here's a list of the only instances where Mods should interfere in the forums:

1) Racist/Sexist comments
2) Spam/soliciting
3) thread hijacking (by which I don't mean two arguing back and forth; I mean two people arguing back and forth about something totally unrelated to the original post)

Otherwise, let us forumers "duke it out."

I look forward to my warning that I've surely qualified for at this point.

Well, ya see, the thing is, you don't get to decide when, where, or how the mods should "interfere" in the forums. It's been established that users that post material that clearly breaks the "be humane" or "be reasonable" guidelines established by the advisory board will be taken away to the depths of Miller Hall for "questioning" by the Departments of Sanitation and Harmonization be sent private messages regarding their behavior, and possibly temp-banned after 3 strikes, perma-banned after further guideline breaks. If you really think things should be done another way, I encourage you to gather together a list of logical reasons why it should be done another way and submit it to the forum's advisory board. But as of now, "people should just deal with it" isn't really doing it. We think everyone should be able to come here and post their opinions (as popular or unpopular or ingenius or seemingly inane as they may be) politely and in a manner that doesn't offend others' sensibilities.

See what I mean, Fade? It doesn't matter what we say. Our opinions mean nothing to the mods. Mr. Bash made it pretty clear.

And I don't think that you get to say "People can post whatever opinion they want, as long as they do it politely" because it's clearly not the case. For instance, if I was to come on here and say, "I would like to assert my opinion that people of Jewish descent are lazy and inherently greedy." the moderators would be ALL OVER my ass. Good thing I didn't really say that.