The Joys of Overzealous Moderators

[Bat/man]

But I do agree that Shrapnel could spend more time in the forums. Pruning weeding, planting little stakes helps promote a good garden. Doing the same in a forum helps make sure everyone knows the rules and we don't lose interest - either from flame wars - or a forum dwindling away due to disinterest.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Bat/man

... bla bla bla ...

Dude this is your second account. This is against all rules here. You really should not talk about this.

(You really should not use your old email adres).

[Anaconda]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Explain me this one thing. Why are the rules so important people? I don't get it.

This extremely - I underline extremely - good book on the topic; why rules are important and why it is very important people voluntarily follow them:

http://www.schneier.com/book-lo.html



The Finnish review said if there were Nobel Security Price, this time it would go to Bruce Schneier and, having read the book, I second that.

The list of notable (readable) reviews here, the Finnish review among them:
http://www.schneier.com/book-lo-reviews.html

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Anaconda

This extremely - I underline extremely - good book on the topic; why rules are important and why it is very important people voluntarily follow them:

Very nice. Added to my Dom3Minions.com store.
http://astore.amazon.com/dom3minions...ail/1118143302

[quantum_mechani]

I'm honestly not sure why we are even talking about rules in this context. Obviously, Shrapnel can and does do whatever they feel like with regards to moderation. If Mr. Parker decided to instantly and permanently ban people for, lets say, calling anything under-powered, and that's what Shrapnel wanted then that would be fine and dandy. They wouldn't even have to make an explicit rule about it, much like arguments for legalizing necrophilia or cocaine*, we can simply say what people choose to do in their own time on their own property is their business.

What I think confuses so many people though, is the why. If we take at face value Shrapnel's claim to be promoting a vibrant and harmonious community, some actions seem hard to fathom. I can see very little reason, for example, to refrain from even the briefest of warnings or explanations on bannings. Or why temporary bans seem so seldom used as opposed to permanent ones. These sorts of tools seem easy enough, and indeed as far as I'm aware are used on the fast majority of internet forums.


*I mean to neither support nor disrespect such arguments.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Anaconda

This extremely - I underline extremely - good book on the topic; why rules are important and why it is very important people voluntarily follow them:

Yeah, you might also want to read the rest of his works, about security theatre, rules that do not work, transparency. Etc.

(ow, and right, I was creating a strawman or something with my question... )

[Anaconda]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Yeah, you might also want to read the rest of his works, about security theatre, rules that do not work, transparency. Etc.

I have.

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

(ow, and right, I was creating a strawman or something with my question... )

So you say...

[Admiral_Aorta]

- half of us consider it racism

what does this say about the other half, i wonder

[brxbrx]

Originally Posted by Admiral_Aorta

what does this say about the other half, i wonder

Most likely that they are unaware of the ramifications of certain words and the impact of their use. It could also mean that they are in fact racist, but it's better to assume the first

[nordlys]

Originally Posted by Admiral_Aorta

what does this say about the other half, i wonder

That the other half is sane?