Come to think of it, Yitzi, I have a job for you, you being so impressively detail-oriented - start a thread In Council Room, and organize citizen participation in making up the forum rules. Quote this post. You, if you accept this commision, are hereby appointed Chairman of the Commitee of the Everyone Interested for Rules.
Some guidelines:
Forums are never democracies, and this one is no different - we live and die on member happiness, but the admins reserve all right to accept or regect proposed rules.
If the admins accept a rule, we consider ourselves bound by it.
We reserve the right to think of more guidelines as they occur to us, and participate in discussion like anyone else.
We may not formalize this until we feel like it's needed.
The management has as much rights as anyone else. Please try to make it easier for the managment to manage, not harder.
Let's try harder than usual to observe topic discipline during this discussion.
The ultimate goal of all rules is the health of the forum and the happiness of the members. We're not banning every little thing someone wants banned, unless the whole community is best served by banning it.
That's all I got for now - look at it as a live microcosmic participatory experiment in culture and government.
I'll start it off with some ideas I have (when I feel they're necessary, explanations are in square brackets):I'm not sure I agree with that last.
1. Personal attacks in the context of debating are absolutely prohibited. If it is absolutely necessary to call into question someone's personal qualifications (such as because they invoked their personal expertise to support their point), or to provide constructive criticism regarding their posting style, it should be done as politely as you can manage. [We want to keep things civil, even when discussions get heated in off-topic as they no doubt will eventually. I don't think it will be too much of an imposition to restrict friendly teasing to non-debate contexts.]
2. When debating, any person's explicit statements about their own position should not be contradicted. If they seem to be holding the position that they explicitly deny, politely ask for a clarification. [It's a lot easier to follow rule #1 when not provoked, and there's very little that is more provocative than being told that your position is something you explicitly deny.)While true, is this specific rule necessary? Perhaps instead, we ought to make the rule “Don’t be rude” and create/append an essay on what’s generally held to be rude posting/arguing behavior. Thoughts?
3. While friendly teasing is permitted outside the context of debating, if the object of the teasing requests that the teasing stop, that request is to be followed.I’m provisionally inclined to sign off on this without quibble. (Well, this is me, so I’ll probably think of something, but haven’t thus far.)
4. No teasing may include believable claims of real-life actions (e.g. claiming to have engaged in desecration of something valued by the other person). [Once real-life gets involved, it's very easy for people to get seriously distressed. Normal teasing doesn't involve such claims anyway, making it pretty much exclusively the domain of the worst sort of troll.]I dunno. This is very specific again. Perhaps you can tell me more about what you’ve witnessed to want this one.
5. While some drift of topics is expected and allowed, any artificial transition of a thread to an unrelated controversial matter will be treated as trolling and be dealt with harshly. (If it cannot be precisely determined who performed the transition or there was no single point of transition, it can be presumed to be a natural transition.)We don’t deal with much of anything real people do harshly. This is an anti-spam rule, yes? Why not just say No spam? (Of course then we have to define spam, which is not an easy thing to do, given that it’s about six different things, all of them insults, but forum people don’t seem to have an actual definition.)
6. While some controversy is expected, anybody who exclusively or near-exclusively raises controversy about certain issues may, at the discretion of the admins and any moderators they appoint, be warned, and if they continue such behavior may be banned.How about “No troublemakers. If you’re griefing someone, or everyone, acting from apparent malice and lowering the general happiness of the members, you’re not welcome at AC2, and will be treated accordingly by the management.”
So, anybody have any comments on those, or other suggestions for rules?It’s good that you recognize the potential of a forum’s OTf as the great wellspring of trouble. I love me a good, spirited, OT, but I’d be a fool not to recognize that. ;b;
I'm not sure I agree with that last.
I think the spirit is right, but you leave the admins little wiggle room for using good judgment, here, and this rule fails to recognize that my relationship with Kilkakon is different than my relationship with Uno, and different yet than how I ought to behave toward Newbx, a total stranger. In the last case, the above is absolutely correct. In Kilkakon’s case, he’d wonder who was posting as me if I went very long without making a joke about no pants, and what the serious person had done with the real me.
Again the spirit is okay, but the phrasing is mighty absolute.
While true, is this specific rule necessary? Perhaps instead, we ought to make the rule “Don’t be rude” and create/append an essay on what’s generally held to be rude posting/arguing behavior. Thoughts?
I dunno. This is very specific again. Perhaps you can tell me more about what you’ve witnessed to want this one.
We don’t deal with much of anything real people do harshly. This is an anti-spam rule, yes? Why not just say No spam?
How about “No troublemakers. If you’re griefing someone, or everyone, acting from apparent malice and lowering the general happiness of the members, you’re not welcome at AC2, and will be treated accordingly by the management.”
Private communications are to remain private. If you have access to a hidden forum, don’t you go carrying tales. That causes trouble like nobody’s business, and will be dealt with. Same goes for PMs. People say things in private that they wouldn’t in public. This is not an absolute information blackout, but it is an admonition that if you misjudge what private information is safe to relate to outside parties and cause trouble/bad feelings/damaged reputations, you’ll have violated the trust extended to you, and risk being officially designated a troublemaker.
Use of “spam” as an insult towards other’s posting is frowned upon. We are not bound by every little tradition from the dawn of the internet, and nobody likes a forum Nazi, so don’t be trying to impose rules we don’t have here. The lowest penalty for careless use of the word spam is the enmity of one of the admins - keep it up, and it goes up from there.
[And a new one, but it's an old traditional]This is not a museum. How strictly we need to adhere to topic discipline is largely at the discretion of the member who started the thread. The OP, however, is asked to to be tolerant of the natural flow of conversation. However, as can easily happen in a silly OT thread, no one has the right to buzkill a thread they don't think is funny. Get out when you're asked to, and stay out unless you can play along with the joke - or else. Naturally, the standard of behavior in this is lower for topic discipline in Recreation Commons than in an on-topic subforum, and higher in an issues thread than a joke thread - but just avoid jokes you don't think are funny (bumping them to complain is often counterproductive, too). Be considerate and tolerant, and you should be fine.
QuotePersonal attacks in the context of debating are absolutely prohibited. If it is absolutely necessary to call into question someone's personal qualifications (such as because they invoked their personal expertise to support their point), or to provide constructive criticism regarding their posting style, it should be done as politely as you can manage. [We want to keep things civil, even when discussions get heated in off-topic as they no doubt will eventually. I don't think it will be too much of an imposition to restrict friendly teasing to non-debate contexts.]I'm not sure I agree with that last.
I think the spirit is right, but you leave the admins little wiggle room for using good judgment, here, and this rule fails to recognize that my relationship with Kilkakon is different than my relationship with Uno, and different yet than how I ought to behave toward Newbx, a total stranger. In the last case, the above is absolutely correct. In Kilkakon’s case, he’d wonder who was posting as me if I went very long without making a joke about no pants, and what the serious person had done with the real me.
Again the spirit is okay, but the phrasing is mighty absolute.
When debating, any person's explicit statements about their own position should not be contradicted. If they seem to be holding the position that they explicitly deny, politely ask for a clarification. [It's a lot easier to follow rule #1 when not provoked, and there's very little that is more provocative than being told that your position is something you explicitly deny.)
While friendly teasing is permitted outside the context of debating, if the object of the teasing requests that the teasing stop, that request is to be followed.
No teasing may include believable claims of real-life actions (e.g. claiming to have engaged in desecration of something valued by the other person). [Once real-life gets involved, it's very easy for people to get seriously distressed. Normal teasing doesn't involve such claims anyway, making it pretty much exclusively the domain of the worst sort of troll.]
While some drift of topics is expected and allowed, any artificial transition of a thread to an unrelated controversial matter will be treated as trolling and be dealt with harshly. (If it cannot be precisely determined who performed the transition or there was no single point of transition, it can be presumed to be a natural transition.)
QuoteWhile some controversy is expected, anybody who exclusively or near-exclusively raises controversy about certain issues may, at the discretion of the admins and any moderators they appoint, be warned, and if they continue such behavior may be banned.How about “No troublemakers. If you’re griefing someone, or everyone, acting from apparent malice and lowering the general happiness of the members, you’re not welcome at AC2, and will be treated accordingly by the management.”
Somewhere in between our drafts, I think.
Private communications are to remain private. If you have access to a hidden forum, don’t you go carrying tales. That causes trouble like nobody’s business, and will be dealt with. Same goes for PMs. People say things in private that they wouldn’t in public. This is not an absolute information blackout, but it is an admonition that if you misjudge what private information is safe to relate to outside parties and cause trouble/bad feelings/damaged reputations, you’ll have violated the trust extended to you, and risk being officially designated a troublemaker.
Use of “spam” as an insult towards other’s posting is frowned upon. We are not bound by every little tradition from the dawn of the internet, and nobody likes a forum Nazi, so don’t be trying to impose rules we don’t have here. The lowest penalty for careless use of the word spam is the enmity of one of the admins - keep it up, and it goes up from there.
Newb-bashing is a hanging offense here.
How strictly we need to adhere to topic discipline is largely at the discretion of the member who started the thread.
You notice that all of us have proposed rules based on our own bed past experiences at other forums? I don't know what to make of that.
I still wonder if a lot of this shouldn't be covered by simple "No trolling" and "No spamming" rules, with extensive commentary appended - sort of a Talmud to the actual rules' Torah...
You notice that all of us have proposed rules based on our own bed past experiences at other forums? I don't know what to make of that.
I still wonder if a lot of this shouldn't be covered by simple "No trolling" and "No spamming" rules, with extensive commentary appended - sort of a Talmud to the actual rules' Torah...
No personal attacks.
NO caveats about it's ok here, but not here, but only if you're only teasing. I could list the reasons, but suffice it to say the more exceptions you make the more you beg for the random bottom feeder to push the limits. Just no. And banhammer anyone that don't like it to the stoneage.
Depending on ownership stances on piracy, maybe a rule that we do not promote illegal activities, and maybe something about no hot-linking to photos you don't own.
Perhaps it's coincidence, but the failures all were lenient on personal attacks, the successes were not.
That really prevents a certain sort of interaction that would contribute to the forum. I get the idea that "anyone who don't like it" would include BUncle.
being a dick defined:
1. No spamming or advertising products or links to affiliate marketer websites.
2. No outright meanness or harassment. Arguements and debates are acceptable as this is a discussion board as long as personal attacks are left at the door and rational points are used.
3. Post with some substance. Over use of one to four sentence posts just to increase post count is frowned on.
Interpretation of those rules is left to BU and the mods and admins. But really, I do not see any real moderation that is needed since we are all war game nerds and all get along. I would have to leave if this was a FPS board.
Oh hey, you're here again at least for a moment. I'm.. eh. Well, if I was great I probably wouldn't be here, and it'll be good to finish off some bits of project. And yea, we could have young members, but they're going to be few and far between, and almost certainly pretty mature/intelligent youngsters if they have been introduced to this game and liked it enough to find this place. I'm not personally keen on loads of swearing, it just seems like an unnecessary and uncomfortable rule to ban it.
I'll burn that bridge when I see it. Who mentioned rules? I threw a low-key request out there, and I hope that's it.
Haha, well we are in the rules thread....I didn't bring it in here.
Also, Kilkakon, and that's not one of my jokes.It's funny because it's true!
I may take up that idea about an Admin DL; maybe something with a banhammer avatar and an appropriate name. Unfortunately, I can't take "Administrator" out from under my handle without giving up the powers for this account, and that would be too inconvenient.
Naw. Sometimes I need to have a look at people's accounts, for instance, and there's no way to give non-staff the access I need. There's no way to give non-staff post editing and thread surgery powers. It's a million things, not just being able to see the Staff Room. Best I could do is demote myself to forum-wide mod, which would make exactly no difference in the postbit display problem, and still limit my powers inconveniently.
I'm just going to have to figure a way to make BU Admin high-profile enough for people to notice w/o actually using that account on people much.
Finally, I think I stepped on the talk about swear policy too hard too soon because I was in a bad mood, and nothing official should ever happen because I'm in a bad mood. Keeping in mind that sisko and I are not likely to change it significantly no matter what anyone says, do feel free to discuss the policy to your heart's content - the feedback may prove useful to us somehow.
Perhaps the membership would like to speak out on/propose ideas about guidelines? I only consider announcements I've labeled as rules to be actual rules, but I do consider any idea proposed in this thread and not contradicted to be site policy that guides my moderation decisions.Finally, I think I stepped on the talk about swear policy too hard too soon because I was in a bad mood, and nothing official should ever happen because I'm in a bad mood. Keeping in mind that sisko and I are not likely to change it significantly no matter what anyone says, do feel free to discuss the policy to your heart's content - the feedback may prove useful to us somehow.
I said this in another thread, but perhaps it's worth repeating here: I don't mind swearing and cursing, but I do mind if someone is reluctant to join the forum because there's cursing and swearing going on. That's why I don't mind keeping myself from swearing. I would be annoyed if there were certain subjects that we were not allowed to discuss, but some guidelines and rules about how to discuss things are fine with me.
That said, there might be times when certain subjects should be avoided, if they only serve to start arguments. We are all adult enough to notice this if it should happen, I think, and not stoop to flamebaiting. Due to the nature of SMAC it's unavoidable to have some interesting political discussions, though. The political content of the game is a large part of what makes it interesting.
Sorry about rambling a bit. :)
Yeah I would appreciate it if people were mature and avoided that sort of language. As most of the people here are older than myself anyway it shouldn't be an issue--we're a bunch guys (and possibly girls) who like to think and explore different points of view in the frame that is SMAC and factions. :)
There's little in life I love more than a good argument. It takes the right kind of people, and I think we have a lot of them here. So let's see if we can start a good one- or several.Not really the guidelines Rym suggested, but maybe this will get discussion started in that direction.
A few ground rules/observations- that you may also take as a little essay about how to argue productively:
The object is not to win, but to come to an understanding or educate each other.
It helps beyond measure sometimes to discuss your respective values and base assumptions as they relate to the issue at hand.
Know your thesis and your opponent's. That is, be sure you and the other person aren't actually talking past each other about two somewhat different things. Know what you're arguing about.
However, it's no fun if the conversation can't go where it wants to. Be cool about the topic changing- just know what it is at all times. It's okay to try to steer it back, but good to not be bossy about it.
It's like the dozens; if you get mad (or compare someone you're arguing with to Hitler, for that matter) you lose. Really; well-intentioned persons can say things so utterly at variance with your view of something important to you that it is a good thing when an adult says he's had enough and bows out. Do it with good grace and you haven't lost.
If you set out to provoke anyone just to win via the previous guideline, you lose. That's immature troll-behavior and dirty pool.
It doesn't have to be polite, but the rules of this forum and the laws in your jurisdiction apply. Polite is better.
At least a sketchy knowledge of the rules of formal debate will help you enormously, even though those rules will not be enforced here. Please don't be a jerk about the rules of formal debate, either pro or con.
It is always in order to point out that something just said belongs in a separate argument than the one you're in.
I'm lazy about interrupting a conversation to research the topic. You are welcome to do so, however, but I will likely try to challenge your source on any grounds I find valid.
Again, if you only play to win, you're doing it wrong. Try to persuade me you're right. Convincing your opponent is victory- so is finding out you're wrong and learning something.
[Current-day addition: As I said to Nikolai above, Recreational debate is mental fencing - on that level, it can be a huge buzzkill to go straight to googling, rather like bringing a gun to a knife fight. To me, that tends to feel like the other guy cheated, since I like to rely on whatever happened to already be in my head when I walked in...]
Can I get one with stars? :) Only if it's easy to do.I don't think there's any way to change the way the censoring displays just for you, or a usergroup or a theme. If I find out differently, of course I will hook you up, instanter.
"cowpies"?Jeeze, don't get carried away.
Nah, be a nasty lady. :)
PS Free Scotland
If nobody take the task before me, I should have time to compile everything in here in a quasi-neat list next week.Whoops, forgot about this!
(it will be a good time to read those rules too, I conform here to the "Friendly Arm's Inn" rule: « Common sense rules the day. »)
This has never come up before, because I've only seen it happen to me, and though I have rights like any AC2 member, I have to be willing to take more crap from people for several reasons.
Members who cannot find it in themselves to lay off when another member has already asked twice are going to get vacations.
This has never come up before, because I've only seen it happen to me, and though I have rights like any AC2 member, I have to be willing to take more crap from people for several reasons.A smiley that I think represents the fundamental purpose of this post. :rules:
Members who cannot find it in themselves to lay off when another member has already asked twice are going to get vacations.
In my case, since it would be utterly foolish to have a Lèse-majesté rule like some places do -to the contrary, I have to put up with more than anyone else because of my position- you get three chances from now on even with me. The actual rule is that I can do you after keeping it up on me twice -and do keep that in mind, always- but policy is that since I shouldn't moderate my own disputes -but no one else w/ powers is likely to come along and pitch in in a timely fashion- I will choose to not go all nerdbadge as soon as I want to and the rules allow -and believe me, I've REALLY wanted to on no less than three past occasions by the time I said to lay off once. Wanting to kill is a more accurate description of my feelings as of a third or later offense. It's really bad for the health of my keyboard, not to say my own.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have to be happy here, too, or bad news for this community where I do more than my share of the work.
The Management resents having to say a word of this, deeply.
-In a related note, The Administration of this site frowns upon rules-lawyering strongly. Offenses in arguing about the rules and their application -in the sole opinion of the management, disingenuous protests, most especially- may be counted as part of/compounding and exacerbating the Original Offense. Doing so is not recommended.
"Trolling other members, abusing 'POWAS' and being called out on hypocracy is NOT acceptable...... unless you are BUncle."
A shame i missed it. Have been on cub camp all weekend.I'm sure you could get another one if you ask nicely :P
Some might even argue that looking after 21 8-11 year olds is even worse. ;);b;
But BU is right. I pushed the boundary, got snapped and now the issue is dead.
if you are dumb enough to think White Men are under siege, you have cherry-picked your facts, at best, because White Men Rule The World
But, you know, ever feel like it is poured down our throat? I read a lot of anarchists stuff which a lot of folks don't see.I always worry a little when I see my pal Green has posted in a sensitive conversation - but yes; exactly.
When I read the newspaper and someone murders someone, it is always "a black man killed a New Roads black man" or "a white Denham Springs man killed a Hammond Man". To me, I think the whole race of the victim or alleged criminal is irrelevant. It is like saying "A Blue eyed man killed a Brown eyed man". It would seem to me it would not matter. A life was ended.
The conspiracy theorist on me believes someone is pushing this on us. Making people like BLM crew and Stormfront.
Now, I suppose they have freedom of speech, but Morgan Freeman put it nicely. He said something to the order of he was a "man", not a black man and if we would stop bringing it up except as an identifying deal (ie: Look for the red haired white guy in the blue shirt.) and less as an identity (You are purple and you know all purple people have large... err nether regions) we would be much better off.
But, more seriously. I think the guy in that post was more guilty of posting a bad reference to back up his point. Yes, it used DoJ stats, but what they don't realize is while racism and profiling is a problem, the majority of the reason poor folks are in jail is because of the prohibition of pot and other drugs. If you already have a record, how else are you going to afford rent when everyone background checks or drug tests even for the most humiliating of jobs?AH! Actual on-topic comment.
It would be like me going off on women, making sweeping generalizations, and using a site like Return of Kings or The Red Pill as my reference that is accepted as legit.
-In fact, to bring it back on topic, I've heard stories about Unitarian congregations facing the exact same dilemma; the point of the gathering is to be tolerant and inclusive, not to be liberal club (though it always ends up being that, too). -And sometimes Unitarians are faced with someone whose beliefs are rather inimical to the point of the enterprise -believes in something like racism or kiddy sex that infringes on the rights of others- there's never an easy answer.
I have a problem that I don't know how to frame as legitimate site policy, but I need to put it out there as a reality in play.
I am not a morning person. I do not wake up alert and chipper and hard to annoy.
This forum is a better place for everyone if I don't log on in the morning to any PMs at all, or obnoxious, problematic posts. I sincerely ask everyone, for their own good as well as my own, not to present me with people management issues or questionable behavior before I've been on for about an hour and gotten a coffee polished off.
I recognize that mostly, you don't know how long I've been awake unless you were on when I came onsite in the morning, but PLEASE act like I'm a morning grouch whose day you'd rather not ruin -or FEAR ruining, if it comes to that- and don't pull ANYthing while I'm not on at night. Seriously; I'm asking people to work with me on a problem I can't help - and failure to respect that boundary adds to yoursinscrimes when you are bad overnight. -And I will henceforth count 'bad overnight' in my deliberations, because it's got to stop.
So be bad when I'm wide awake, and you'll find me a lot more reasonable. Please do not mistake me delaying action first thing while I know I'm not very rational for forbearance.
...You may be guessing that this has been a problem before more than once, and again just today; if so, you surmise correctly...
Like some other policy announcements I've made in this thread, this is something that's sorta always been in my head, but not worked out completely, so only fair if I put it out there in public, so's nobody can claim it's secret rule.Well, it's finally happened, and I had to apply this rule.
We're a community, and we have a style.
This is all really covered by what I said long ago in Building a Community: act like an adult.
We're nerds, right? Poor (/weak/no) social skills being one of the defining traits - or else we'd be cool regular people who happen to like gaming and SF, like we'd rather imagine. But we're nerds in a nerd community, and that means we have to be patient and tolerant with/of each other and make allowances. Most of us mean well. Period.
But I have to ask everyone - pay a little attention to the room you're in, to the atmosphere, the general style of the members and posts. Be different, sure -AC2 is diverse and cherishes diversity as interesting and edumacationable- but try to not make your difference anyone else's problem. Be well-intentioned and try, and you'll get a lot of rope while I try to work with you.
-Obviously, I've still not gotten this crystalized enough in mah haid and need to at least sleep on it and try to articulate more precisely and clearly in the future.
It's part of a larger policy principal I call Serial Vexatious Poster; if you're managing to annoy enough people enough of the time, the management reserves the right to take action w/o need of other specific rule violation. You have to be bad overall for the health/happiness community in our opinion, which is a mighty high bar of irritating-ness to hurdle. Not to worry; I would never resort to this one in any situation where the offender does not know (s)he is in the doghouse far in advance. It's really not much more than a catchall to help that much with shutting up &^%$#@! rules lawyers.
-So, if you're only sometimes Vexatious, you're in good company, and have nothing to worry about...
My moderating style, and I really do have a substantial amount of forum moderating experience, is to generally be inclusive, and warn as necessary. But when someone is really getting on other people's nerves to the point where the good people may leave because of the bad people, just ban the bad people and be done with it. I find that it doesn't work to have a very formal set of rules and a very formal rules process. An internet forum is, at the end of the day, a hobby. If people are not enjoying themselves, they'll just not go to the place any longer. I won't tolerate racism, sexism, or general nastiness. If you think the alt-right is defensible, this is not the place for you. Go elsewhere.I will go on from that to say it's not quite my take, and not going to be - but, and I speak as someone who found he had a very leftist OT going in 2012, and has actively recruited thoughtful conservatives in the years since, it's certainly somewhat close. I have the profound egalitarian and free-speech impulses a North American should, and I've posted in this very thread repeatedly trying to come to grips with --- the end of the above helps me crystalize my thinking at a maybe better angle. I don't do anything much to encourage people whose politics I agree with if I find their mode of expression and level of thoughtfulness poor. If you, short of the beyond-the-pale stuff Cutlass concludes with, got nothin' better than Reagan-worship and party talking points, and aren't any fun and/or I stiffen when I see you posting - we can get unreflected right "thinking" anywhere, to the point it's a pain all over the nets.
What follows that I saw last week I find influential on issues I wrestle with here.I explicitly mentioned right-wing trolling/buttholery because it's fair to say that's to be found All. Over. The. Internet., as I said before.Quote from: CutlassMy moderating style, and I really do have a substantial amount of forum moderating experience, is to generally be inclusive, and warn as necessary. But when someone is really getting on other people's nerves to the point where the good people may leave because of the bad people, just ban the bad people and be done with it. I find that it doesn't work to have a very formal set of rules and a very formal rules process. An internet forum is, at the end of the day, a hobby. If people are not enjoying themselves, they'll just not go to the place any longer. I won't tolerate racism, sexism, or general nastiness. If you think the alt-right is defensible, this is not the place for you. Go elsewhere.
I will go on from that to say it's not quite my take, and not going to be - but, and I speak as someone who found he had a very leftist OT going in 2012, and has actively recruited thoughtful conservatives in the years since, it's certainly somewhat close. I have the profound egalitarian and free-speech impulses a North American should, and I've posted in this very thread repeatedly trying to come to grips with --- the end of the above helps me crystalize my thinking at a maybe better angle. I don't do anything much to encourage people whose politics I agree with if I find their mode of expression and level of thoughtfulness poor. If you, short of the beyond-the-pale stuff Cutlass concludes with, got nothin' better than Reagan-worship and party talking points, and aren't any fun and/or I stiffen when I see you posting - we can get unreflected right "thinking" anywhere, to the point it's a pain all over the nets.
I don't deem that acting like an adult, and I am not obligated to tolerate it being inflicted on my friends or myself in my own house, and I regret it having to be that way, but have an interesting perspective/be fun/something, or it's five minutes to sundown for you at AC2. Period.
A few words about our management philosophy are in order.-I did not say we would succeed, just try. I also take it back about "to your heart's content" - this has been a problem too often - never forget the end of the sentence.
You're all adults, and my partner and I are adults, and we all act like adults, and we're going to keep acting like adults, and treat each other like adults. If you're not an adult, you're going to act like one anyway at AC2.
It's really as simple as that. That is the rules here, in a nutshell. Be a Man. (Or Woman, as the case may be.)
Now, adults get to joke and clown and whoop it up - that's a lot of the purpose of this forum. We're here to have a good time, and we're not crowding the saturation point for silliness yet. Party on with your own bad self. Just - be considerate, and always tease only those you respect. The other members are my friends, and I have my friends' backs. You, too, 'cause I'm your friend, too, and have your back.
Be man (or woman) enough to never hide behind your keyboard, and comport yourself like we can see you and know your real name and could punch you, if it came to that. This has always been my credo online, because I am proud and I am not a coward. Be proud.
I know a forum where acting like a yard-ape punk boy is virtually mandatory. I know a forum where you are guaranteed to be treated like a kid. I know a forum with a very malicious person in charge, and it's dead. I know one that was born trying to find a happy balance, but the owners are virtual absentee landlords and their favorites can troll without let or hinderance. Allowing everything is no good, allowing nothing is only good for kids, which is what they get. Running a forum as a private kingdom and to settle scores has kept one from living, and never acting except hypocritically will be the death of another soon enough.
sisko and I have seen it done wrong, and we learned. We know we're not better than you (or at least not because we have nerdbadges :P), and we hope that shows. I'd rather persuade than give orders. I expect you to be smart and mature and wise. I expect those things of myself.
You can sass us to your heart's content under the same limitations you're under about anyone else; don't piss us off. :)
We're here, we're active and on top of things, and we're pledged to try to make everyone happy and treat them with respect (including ourselves, as is only fair). You can take that to the bank.