PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion for tightening APP rules



FUCK THE POLICE
08-30-2009, 06:32 PM
Modified from a set of rules I found reasonable for serious discussion at this link:

http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/12389/read-this-before-you-attempt-to-post-here



Here are some suggested rules I think would work:

1. No wasted one-liner posts with nothing but quick jokes or sarcasm.

2. No personal insults.

3. No "flaimbait"

"Flamebait" is defined as words thrown into a post only to draw an angry emotional response from someone else. For instance:

"What the anti-abortion crowd fails to understand is the need for alternatives for moms in an accidental pregnancy crisis."

...is perfectly fine. But this:

"What the anti-abortion Fascists fail to understand is the need for alternatives for moms in an accidental pregnancy crisis."

...will get deleted.


4. Don't post loaded topics.

Things like:

"So, knowing that the United States is the greatest force of evil and economic oppression in the history of the world, what do you see coming in the next five years for the USA?"

Would be disallowed.

5. Stay on topic.

Read this carefully, because it's not what you think. Obviouly if somebody posts a, "is the Iraq War right?" thread we all know not to respond with, "who cares. The question is will the Cubs will win the World Series this year?" That's just being an ass.

But there is a more common problem, and that is posters trying to turn every debate into the same topic. Say you've got one passionate anti-abortion poster, PRO_LIFE69:

Thread: "So should Scott Peterson get the death penalty? I normally don't support it but in his case I think it applies."

PRO_LIFE69: "Why should we care about one murder when 40 million fetuses are murdered every year?"

Thread: "Hillary's tax plan: will it hurt the economy?"

PRO_LIFE69: "I'm worried less about her tax plan than about her fetus murdering plan called her pro-abortion policy."

And so on. We've had months in the past where EVERY thread, from politics to sex, became a deafening screaming match about the Iraq war. That's why we're such hardasses about staying on topics... because if we're not, EVERY TOPIC BECOMES THE SAME TOPIC.






Most enforcement could primarily take place in the form of editing, like if someone tries to flaimbait, or throws an insult.

But if someone continues to violate rules, punishment could be done through a strike system, with one day, one week, and one month bans depending on the seriousness of the offense. Moderators would be allowed to disregard a ban or institute a less harsh one if they feel the circumstances are exceptional and leniency would be reasonable.

Publishing racial or other ultra-sensitive insults should result in an automatic one-month or one-week ban, and posting them twice should result in a permanent ban. It might make more sense to just dissallow posting of posts with the words and applying the ban-hammer to people who try to skirt it by spelling them differently.

Thorn
08-30-2009, 07:12 PM
I just gave you rep points so can't give any more just now.

This suggestion seems like a sound policy to me.

Whomever
08-30-2009, 10:56 PM
'Watermark for Security council :cheer:

FUCK THE POLICE
08-31-2009, 09:28 PM
Suggestions rejected?

meme
08-31-2009, 09:36 PM
pfffeeeesssh.

uscitizen
08-31-2009, 09:37 PM
Suggestions rejected?

Ignored I think.

Damocles
08-31-2009, 09:44 PM
They are under consideration.

Minister of Truth
09-01-2009, 06:46 PM
They are all retarded. Stay the fuck away from my precious APP, Watermark!!

TuTu Monroe
09-01-2009, 06:51 PM
Modified from a set of rules I found reasonable for serious discussion at this link:

http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/12389/read-this-before-you-attempt-to-post-here



Here are some suggested rules I think would work:

1. No wasted one-liner posts with nothing but quick jokes or sarcasm.

2. No personal insults.

3. No "flaimbait"

"Flamebait" is defined as words thrown into a post only to draw an angry emotional response from someone else. For instance:

"What the anti-abortion crowd fails to understand is the need for alternatives for moms in an accidental pregnancy crisis."

...is perfectly fine. But this:

"What the anti-abortion Fascists fail to understand is the need for alternatives for moms in an accidental pregnancy crisis."

...will get deleted.


4. Don't post loaded topics.

Things like:

"So, knowing that the United States is the greatest force of evil and economic oppression in the history of the world, what do you see coming in the next five years for the USA?"

Would be disallowed.

5. Stay on topic.

Read this carefully, because it's not what you think. Obviouly if somebody posts a, "is the Iraq War right?" thread we all know not to respond with, "who cares. The question is will the Cubs will win the World Series this year?" That's just being an ass.

But there is a more common problem, and that is posters trying to turn every debate into the same topic. Say you've got one passionate anti-abortion poster, PRO_LIFE69:

Thread: "So should Scott Peterson get the death penalty? I normally don't support it but in his case I think it applies."

PRO_LIFE69: "Why should we care about one murder when 40 million fetuses are murdered every year?"

Thread: "Hillary's tax plan: will it hurt the economy?"

PRO_LIFE69: "I'm worried less about her tax plan than about her fetus murdering plan called her pro-abortion policy."

And so on. We've had months in the past where EVERY thread, from politics to sex, became a deafening screaming match about the Iraq war. That's why we're such hardasses about staying on topics... because if we're not, EVERY TOPIC BECOMES THE SAME TOPIC.






Most enforcement could primarily take place in the form of editing, like if someone tries to flaimbait, or throws an insult.

But if someone continues to violate rules, punishment could be done through a strike system, with one day, one week, and one month bans depending on the seriousness of the offense. Moderators would be allowed to disregard a ban or institute a less harsh one if they feel the circumstances are exceptional and leniency would be reasonable.

Publishing racial or other ultra-sensitive insults should result in an automatic one-month or one-week ban, and posting them twice should result in a permanent ban. It might make more sense to just dissallow posting of posts with the words and applying the ban-hammer to people who try to skirt it by spelling them differently.

This is funny, because you would never follow your rules.

Hermes Thoth
09-02-2009, 06:09 AM
Shut up, watermark. Nazi censor loser fascist.

Minister of Truth
09-02-2009, 11:31 AM
Shut up, watermark. Nazi censor loser fascist.

LOL What he just said.