Posting restrictions. When does a site lose the fun because of them?

[Rapscallion]

(I cannot even *find* the current CS rules, unless the years-old post of them has been edited.

They're in a sticky in the Site News section. We amend it from time to time.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

The nitpicking was getting out of control. People were coming up with just about any reason to justify a customer's bad behavior, or nitpicked at things that the OP may have done wrong. That's just upsetting and cruel.

What happened to proportionate response? That something can be taken too far is a reason for stopping it from going that far, or at least to point out when it's done so and put an end to it; NOT a reason to stop every possible expression that MIGHT lead in that direction.

You can politely ask the OP for clarification if you don't understand the story or you can't personally see where the suck lies.

You can, but then again, you cannot. Because if you say "I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand: why is that sucky?" which *is* "politely asking the OP for clarification," then it gets removed.

If it's a case of a dozen more people jumping in with "yeah, that's not sucky at all" and "well it's all your fault in the first place" then that's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and should be dealt with. I don't know how that could be put into rule form, but again, that's where common sense should be used.

They're in a sticky in the Site News section. We amend it from time to time.

OK. I wasn't sure that was current because of the date.

[Rapscallion]

I don't know how that could be put into rule form,

Bingo!

Rapscallion

[Red Panda]

For the record, I don't expect sunshine and rainbows in all of my posts, but I will admit that it feels nice to know that someone feels for you and someone has your side and your back. Especially when everyone in your day to day life is probably nitpicking and questioning you to the point of wanting to bash your head into a concrete wall, it feels damn good to feel like someone somewhere cares about you.

No one is obligated to agree with me or offer me cookies or booze or puppies (well, puppies maybe). But it's very discouraging to see that certain topics get tons of support, others get nitpicked because it's the opposite of what may be going on in the world.

The failing to see the suck or nitpicking, as I said before, got out of control. It was never said that no one was allowed to ask questions, although it's not polite to say "Where's the suck I don't get it?", you could always say "I don't exactly understand why the customer got so upset" because not everyone is always 100% clear in their posts. A lot of us post right before bed or right when we wake up, or maybe we're so drained we can't even type correctly or explain something thoroughly.

I'm pretty sure there are few Sith using the site, so just because somebody isn't with you it doesn't mean they are against you. Jack's responce is completly neutral. He doesn't say if the customer was sucky or not sucky. All he says is he doesn't understand. If sombody had a customer who made a big fuss because the poster said they didn't understand something but didn't make a huge fuss about how that while they do not understand they love the customer who is wonderful and perfect and pretty and they the lowly worker doesn't understand because they are ignorant and bad then everybody would back the worker, but apparently on CS you have to treat everybody like they are a three year old with self esteem problems.

[Ree]

Actually, your last post says quite a lot: you first say "use common sense," but then say the reason the rules are a mile long is that "things need to be spelled out for people and criteria established." You cannot spell out common sense, and the attempt to do so is exactly why the rules have grown so long that nobody can really remember them all anymore.

That was my point.
I wish people would use common sense and then we wouldn't have to spell everything out.

The majority of the board gets it.
Others don't.
Others feel that arguing a point to death and demanding clarification deflects any blame from them acting like a dick in the first place.

The rules started out pretty simple.
"Respect your fellow member."

Someone comes along and makes a post that, in the opinion of the mods, is really not respecting their fellow member.

An edit is done and a PM is sent.
Next thing we hear, "The rules didn't specify that I couldn't say that. You just said to respect them. I respected them when I commented. I was just making a point. In my opinion. If we aren't allowed to make those kinds of points, the rules should be more clear than they are."

Fair enough, we add it to the rules.
"Respect your fellow member. Thou shalt not do X..."

Time goes by, and then, whoops, we have another member not showing respect.
Another edit, and off goes another PM.
We get back a reply, "Your rules only said that respecting my fellow member means that I couldn't do X. I didn't do that. I did Y. There's nothing in the rules about that. I was just making a point and I think I did it in a respectful way. If you guys think it's wrong, then the rules should be more clear."

Okie dokie. Rules edit coming up.
"Respect your fellow member. Thou shalt not do X nor Y..."

I think you see where I am headed.

After a while, the rules become, "Respect your fellow member. Thou shalt not do X, Y nor Z, and by the way, it has come to our attention that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, and W have also caused some problems, so we ask that you refrain from that as well."

Still, we have to make additions as situations come up, and post them in the Site News, and still, we have people who will demand that we be more specific.

As for the Site Rules, they are where they always have been, as a sticky in Site News. And, regarding your suggestion about pointing out changes made to the rules, as you can see, we have been doing that since as far back as 2007.

We don't care that a member hasn't read a thread in Site News.
We don't care that they belong to so many forums they have trouble remembering one site's rules over another.

That is not our problem.

It's your responsibility to make yourself familiar with site policy, and as is stated in the rules, ignorance of the rules is not a valid reason for allowing a member to break them.

I don't quite understand: how is it less troublesome to remove even borderline cases than it would be to remove only that which is clearly offensive?

I guess that would depend on which side of borderline the word is.

It's about setting precedents and tone. It's about balancing the majority of a membership's comfort and and enjoyment of a forum against the wishes of a few who feel they should have free rein to post whatever they wish.
If we have people leaving the forum and never posting again because of situations such as those described, then we don't like it.

Sadly, there are always going to be forum members who have a "give us an inch, so we'll take a mile" mentality when it comes to those kinds of things.

Call it censorship or overreacting, or removing what you see as harmless threads before they become trouble, but none of that is done lightly, and it is always based on past experiences with similar situations.

Perhaps the word or term may not be as vulgar or have as negative connotations as some, but if it conjures up negative implications toward a particular group of society, and in this example, we were referring to children, then we are going to clamp down.

If we have specifically stated that we do not wanting people to use the term, "I fail to see the suck," and they go ahead and use that term, or a very close variation of it, we are going to clamp down.

If someone posts, "Why do you care?" or "How is that your concern?" we are not going to allow it.

If, as in the example you stated, you had said, "I don't understand why her beverage choice was a problem," as a mod, I would not have seen that as failing to see the suck.
The member could have explained to you that, while others are working out, the smell of a sugary, aromatic beverage is distracting to them, or possibly even nauseating, or that there is a greater risk of her spilling that sticky substance all over the equipment, inconveniencing others.
Saying, "I don't understand why you'd care what she was drinking" comes off as a judgment on the member for being upset about the situation.

Obviously, you didn't see it that way, and it was up to a mod to step in and make the correction.

Obviously, if you don't agree with a mod ruling, you are free to speak up and say so, but that is not necessarily going to change the ruling.

Mods do not act alone, and in many, many cases, we have stepped in at the request of a member who has reported a post as problematic.

That's something many members forget.
They only see it as a power hungry mod out to show who's in charge.
It never occurs to them that perhaps it was the membership who asked for the mod to intervene.

[BlaqueKatt]

That was my point.
I wish people would use common sense and then we wouldn't have to spell everything out.

The majority of the board gets it.
Others don't.

I hate to use another board as an example-but look at 4-chan, Fark, and CS on livejournal-you can have pages on LJ of commentors "FTSTS"-like a post of-"OMG this guy came in and smelled horrible" you get pages of "well maybe he had a medical disorder, maybe he was homeless, blah, blah blah...lj is mainly become-"jump on the op for overreacting to a situation", and it sucks, plus if you get upset at having your post ripped apart by comments you get "the golden flounce" award-real nice.....

I use the report button quite a bit-pretty sure the mods groan when they see my tag on a report(not sure how that works exactly), most often for someone "FTSTS"

[Rageaholic]

In general, I prefer sites with more freedom as to who can post what. Despite that, I do like this site and CS (even if I don't have much to contribute to the latter). There are a lot of interesting topics that if I can't post on, I can at least view.

The way I look at it, CS is a venting site, which is intended as a safe haven to vent without being judged or ridiculed. It may not be perfect (I've seen some judgmental behavior), but for it's purpose, it's better than a lot of the alternatives. I've seen some really sucky and hateful behavior from sites which allow too much freedom. Someone will post a rant and get flamed to high hell for it. They'll get called stupid, irresponsible, childish, and some will go as far as to tell them to kill themselves. Yeah, people who could very well be on the brink of suicide getting beaten down, real classy behavior. I know that shit would never slide at CS or here and for that I am grateful.

On the other hand, I see what the OP is saying. I've seen some threads get closed just because the nature of the post was controversial or may offend people. Sure, threads get derailed and people turn it into a political debate, but not all have been like that. Some have been closed when people actually stay on topic, just because the instance is a "fratching subject". That really does put limits on the discussions that can be had. Sure, the purpose of the site is to vent, but when people aren't allowed to vent about certain things because it may offend some people, than it isn't as fun.

I think in those instances, moderation makes the forum too controlled. You need some freedom as to what you can post. When moderators come into threads and tell people "don't discuss this, discuss that", it can become discouraging. I understand that we want to keep things on track, but it can really kill potential discussions when people get chastised for discussing something.

That's my two cents.

[Ree]

On the other hand, I see what the OP is saying. I've seen some threads get closed just because the nature of the post was controversial or may offend people. Sure, threads get derailed and people turn it into a political debate, but not all have been like that. Some have been closed when people actually stay on topic, just because the instance is a "fratching subject". That really does put limits on the discussions that can be had. Sure, the purpose of the site is to vent, but when people aren't allowed to vent about certain things because it may offend some people, than it isn't as fun.

I think in those instances, moderation makes the forum too controlled. You need some freedom as to what you can post. When moderators come into threads and tell people "don't discuss this, discuss that", it can become discouraging. I understand that we want to keep things on track, but it can really kill potential discussions when people get chastised for discussing something.

But why would we create a totally different site specifically for controversial topics such as politics, religion, societal laws, etc., and still allow those things to be posted on a site that, at its heart, is for customer service people to go and vent and find temporary diversion?

When someone has to put up with bitching and crap from customers all day long, the last thing they want is to see a bunch of fellow members bickering and bitching over those issues that inevitably end up with people at both ends of the spectrum.

They come to commiserate with others, possibly read stories that show them they really don't have it so bad after all, and be entertained by tales from some of the more gifted writers and storytellers on the site.

How do I know this?

My PM Inbox and the Reported Posts area of the site.

By keeping all of those kinds of discussions confined to one site, it is then a member's own personal choice to venture into the arena.
That is much better than ending up in the middle of it by simply opening a post about a convenience store clerk held up at knifepoint that became a heated debate about concealed weapons, gun control, and use of force, or a story about a tired and overworked waitress who was left nothing but a religious pamphlet for a tip that became a free for all bashing of the religion that the member possibly belongs to and feels required to defend.

Of course we're going to monitor that stuff. That's how the majority want it.

[Hobbs]

<snip>

That doesn't happen all of the time. In my case, I was simply banned. Even though the OP was asking for other member's opinions, and that's all I was doing. When other posters started attacking my viewpoint, I was trying to defend/explain my viewpoint. But again, the thread was closed and I was banned.

[Greenday]

Did you really just call children parasites and think it's ok

Well, since no one ever seems to even try to guess why I'd consider a parasite, I generally expect someone to rant about how impossible it is. Fetus's, babies, and children all live completely off of their parents. They eat their food, take their money, etc to function. I'm not saying all parasites are bad. I'm just saying it fits the definition of one.

After seeing what was written as far as the comment went, could Jack have been more tactful? Sure, he could have sprinkled flowers and fairy dust on it. But it wasn't disrespectful the least bit. The only thing I see is him asking for clarification on why the OP thought the action was sucky which isn't a crime.

But yea, it's why I don't post on CS much. You don't agree with the herd, you get flamed and it's considered ok since you aren't supposed to question anybody's opinions.

[Hobbs]

You don't agree with the herd, you get flamed and it's considered ok since you aren't supposed to question anybody's opinions.

This. Exactly this.

[BlaqueKatt]

Well, since no one ever seems to even try to guess why I'd consider a parasite, I generally expect someone to rant about how impossible it is. Fetus's, babies, and children all live completely off of their parents. They eat their food, take their money, etc to function. I'm not saying all parasites are bad. I'm just saying it fits the definition of one.

a parasite is detrimental to the host, and gives nothing back-sorry but children do give things to their parents-love, respect, and sometimes a reason to live-I keep living because I want to see my son graduate high school, something that keeps me alive is not a parasite-heck he's not even in the same state as I am.

Parasite- An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

doesn't fit host's(parent's) DNA survives

Or
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

still doesn't fit there is no timetable for "useful return" and I consider love to be useful.

sorry you can't just make up a definition to suit what you think....

[Greenday]

Just because it doesn't word for word match the definition doesn't mean it doesn't match a good portion of it.

And that's the last I'm saying on the subject. This debate has nothing to do with the topic, nothing will change my mind on this subject, and nothing will change other's minds.

[Ree]

That doesn't happen all of the time. In my case, I was simply banned. Even though the OP was asking for other member's opinions, and that's all I was doing. When other posters started attacking my viewpoint, I was trying to defend/explain my viewpoint. But again, the thread was closed and I was banned.

Yep...that's right. That was all it took. One single instance and a misread of a situation by the mods.
Truth told, your name came up in the CS banning lottery that week.

[Hobbs]

Yep...that's right. That was all it took. One single instance and a misread of a situation by the mods.
Truth told, your name came up in the CS banning lottery that week.

I can never tell if you're messing with me, or intentionally being snarky

I think your first sentence is close to the truth, though.