Posted by Ponderer(VIP) on November 15, 1999 at 06:14:22:
In Reply to: Agreed, Graham. (text) posted by Stahlhagen on November 14, 1999 at 22:37:16:
1) Flames get deleted by the first (VIP) that sees them. A flame is defined as a posting which contains no useful information, and only exists to draw attention or say hurtful things about another. I dislike flames as well, although deleting them the instant you see them generally isn't feasible. A lot of flames have a usefull tidbit somewhere in the middle. Do you delete those as well? > 2) Constructive criticism is tolerated. You can disagree with a poster, and attack their ideas as long as you do not attack the person. Again I disagree to a point. Some people just simply should not be posting. While it's not necessarily usefull to say "Stop posting you fucknose retard, what the hell were your parents thinking when they didn't use a condom?" it's also not often beneficial to say "Sierothe, please stop posting. Your lack of apostrophes and mindless blatherings are detrimental to my mental state." I'd have to find a happy medium to believe my point got across. > 3) People who use the forum solely to attack others get banned from posting. (Everyone can always read.) I agree, not enough bannings going down. However, the reason should be cut and dry. Bannable conditions should include malice...flaming somebody in jest shouldn't be a bannable offense. >4) People who break the forum rules (player IDs, quest solutions, etc.) get banned from posting. Agreed, though again is should be cut and dry. Somebody posting "Suchandsuch is the area with the travelling boots" is ok in my opinion, where as "say 'gheiuo' to suchandsuch a mob who is 10 paces north, and 7 east of the entrance" is not. > This forum has been a lengthy experiment. It shows great promise as a place of learning and information exchange. Dioxide has built a heck of a web site to support it. However, we can all see that the forum is flawed. It would be nice if there was no need for the aforementioned 1) and 3), but we have a lot of data points that suggest otherwise. Time has shown us if the forum is treated in a laissez-faire manner, people will abuse it. It is shame that it took an event of the magnitude of S.S.'s departure to bring this topic to the forefront, but there it is. Agreed to an extent. I don't want to be forced into the role of "Forum-Nazi." Many of us VIPs, for one reason or another, only get this shiny flag next to our name. Others can remove posts, check IPs, and other stuff. > I remain convinced that to let the forum continue along the path is has taken is to await another major incident around forum abuse. I would love to hear from the VIPs, IMMs and other forum readers on this matter. Consider it done.