Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:25 pm
Simply put, please enforce the rules. Scott has a put in a common sense list of rules for this site - most seem to respect them, some don't.
I don't come here to read about Boeing 777 wing testing, your uncle Wally (who served so honorably) passing on the weekend, that oh so funny vid on YouTube, airliners crashing into the Hudson, or much of the non-Warbird dribble that seems to creep into the forum on a regular basis. The web is full of places for such things - there really is only one good international warbird forum and we all joined because of that.
Why wreck it by posting non-warbird topics or making sarcastic comments in threads?
I guess I shouldn't have a problem as all this is covered in the rules, but I do some days as there seems to be no moderation.
The one feature I wish we had on this site would be the ability of the Mods to merge threads, as some times two identical topics will get underway and information gets double posted or lost in the mutiple threads.
This is a great forum when it works they way it is supposed to. Some just don't seem to undertstand the simple rules or the foundation that this is supposed to be a Warbird Forum.
As for Bill G - couldn't he have been put into a corner and have his posts approved by a moderator before being posted. He contributed so much good and a little bad, if the mods could strip off the bad his good could continue.... I miss him!
I don't come here to read about Boeing 777 wing testing, your uncle Wally (who served so honorably) passing on the weekend, that oh so funny vid on YouTube, airliners crashing into the Hudson, or much of the non-Warbird dribble that seems to creep into the forum on a regular basis. The web is full of places for such things - there really is only one good international warbird forum and we all joined because of that.
Why wreck it by posting non-warbird topics or making sarcastic comments in threads?
I guess I shouldn't have a problem as all this is covered in the rules, but I do some days as there seems to be no moderation.
The one feature I wish we had on this site would be the ability of the Mods to merge threads, as some times two identical topics will get underway and information gets double posted or lost in the mutiple threads.
This is a great forum when it works they way it is supposed to. Some just don't seem to undertstand the simple rules or the foundation that this is supposed to be a Warbird Forum.
As for Bill G - couldn't he have been put into a corner and have his posts approved by a moderator before being posted. He contributed so much good and a little bad, if the mods could strip off the bad his good could continue.... I miss him!
Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:07 pm
davem wrote:
As for Bill G - couldn't he have been put into a corner and have his posts approved by a moderator before being posted. He contributed so much good and a little bad, if the mods could strip off the bad his good could continue.... I miss him!
Well, heeeeere we go. Forecasting this thread to be locked in no time at all now.
My point is, just like on the "other" Bill G thread, people are going to likely start heated discussions about whether he should've been booted or been allowed to stay. And whether you like them or not, some people just cause controversy. I've only seen one or two other people cause so much love and hate on this website that Bill did/does. I wish him the best, but I sure do wish WIX could just move on.
It's no different for if and when I ever get banned from this site. There may be a few folks who would wish it didn't happen. But the fact is that if I have repeatedly broken the rules that Scott has in place, especially if Scott has given me multiple chances to "play right" (only because a few folks like what I have to say here), then I should be booted, plain and simple.
Not trying to offend, just standing on the soap box, I reckon.
Just my $.02 worth (again),
Gary
Last edited by retroaviation on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:16 pm
Amen to that Gary. I think the Mods have enough to do without previewing posts. Bill had ample warnings and couldn't follow the rules.........those rules apply to EVERYONE.
Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Robbie Roberts wrote:I'd like to see a third option- SOME moderation, allowing for free exchange of ideas, some argument, but also allowing for things to be stopped "before they go too far", with "too far" being decided by those involved, but arbited by the moderator...
I agree Robbie. What happened to "moderation" in Moderating this site? What has happened to temporary suspensions
as a means to get some folks to settle down...they are there as options in the rules, but rarely used.
There are some folks running around in here with hair-triggers largely because it's become the norm to tolerate
Rude/Disruptive Behaviour, as Scott has labeled it. Supposedly you get 1 warning PM. If it's ignored, immediate 14 day
suspension! If there were more use of the rules as agreed I don't believe we would be having this situation...AGAIN!
(EDIT-the following is for all Mods.)
As I said in JDK's resignation thread, he was "behind the power curve" in controlling the problem leading to his
withdrawal. Hellcat's comments leading to James' resignation occurred, whut 7 days, before action? Folks prone
to disruption, I assume, are encouraged by these unchallenged abuses. For the folks who, for the most part, stick
to the rules, it's disheartening..."Oh boy, how many more months before this person settles down, shutzup, or goes away.".
How did Migace, Sabredriver,HGUSU, Wixlova, Flyingheritage..How did this one guy..ONE banned guy manage to
be enabled to stay LONG after he was discovered. He never can resist showing off his re-enactor stuff.
Another period of those complying with the rules having to endure all of that crap from a guy whose "mission statement" was to disrupt in protest of Jack Cook's photo-posting???
I don't think we really need any "new" more severe enforcement. I do think we should, at least once, try operating
as the rules were written in 2006 and see how that goes?
I'm not so sure about the Anonomod feature, but it would make it easier for all the Mods to be the good AND bad cop.
Anyhoo, I voted yes to moderation.
Glad to see you back James.
EDIT
Whoa I type slow..started this post at 5:20..look at all the posts
since.
Last edited by airnutz on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:37 pm
retroaviation wrote:Well, heeeeere we go. Forecasting this thread to be locked in no time at all now.
No No... how about we just don't go there.
As IndyJen said... This is a good board... the rules are clear... and there is the door... And yet this continues to fail as a policy...
And this failure may cause Scott to pull the plug in the future...
What are some options to prevent this? People can behave... but that will not happen...
Why is it unreasonable that a Troll room can't be created and let the Trolls play there?
Otherwise they will just get another login name and come back...
Is that a bad idea? Other options?? Anyone??? Anyone??? Bueller? Bueller?
Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:47 pm
Bluedharma wrote:retroaviation wrote:Well, heeeeere we go. Forecasting this thread to be locked in no time at all now.
Why is it unreasonable that a Troll room can't be created and let the Trolls play there?
Otherwise they will just get another login name and come back...
Is that a bad idea? Other options?? Anyone??? Anyone??? Bueller? Bueller?
Because trolls thrive on pissing off the majority and would soon get bored when the majority don't frequent the 'troll room'
Troll battling troll isn't what they are looking for IMHO.....
well just one last post....
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:17 pm
moderators NEED to read EVERY WORD POSTED....not just --- words...want ...read.....
Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:29 am
Here is what I deem important:
1) We need anonymous Mods to prevent arguments and personal attacks against them, and to "empower the Mods to enforce the rules". When the Mods' real names or identities are used, it becomes a little too personal for them to start making those hard judgments and calls against their friends, and acquaintances on this forum. Having anonymity allows Mods to do their job without fear of retribution or reprisal.
2) All of the rules need to be enforced here. They are not. There has been a long history of selective compliance based on a number of factors. The rules should be applied equally, fairly and without bias, to all members regardless of anything else. If that's not the case or the intent of Scott, then he needs to rewrite the rules.
3) There needs to be swift justice applied to the violators of the rules. When someone throws a hand-grenade in a post and a Mod doesn't do anything, it will only embolden some members to continue the poor pattern of behavior to "press the limits". I thought JDK did a fantastic job of stopping a lot of threads before they spiralled out of control. We need more of that kind of constant monitoring. Unfortunately, that's just par for the course and there is no way around that since this is a public forum. Like it or not, we will have some dumb-asses post here from time to time.
4) Violators need to know exactly what they did wrong and be warned about it. There is nothing more irritating than doing something, perhaps innocently, or not being that knowledgeable about the interpretation of the rules and not knowing what your offending action was. Simply deleting somebody's response or thread, is not going to cut it. Mods need to communicate with the offender, whether it be publicly or via PM. I propose they do it publicly, in red ink, like JDK did, so we will know the words are coming from a Mod. Also, when a public warning is issued, the whole forum learns about others' mistakes and helps prevent them from doing the same thing in the future. Knowing the ramifications of "cause/effect" or "violation/discipline" will greatly help forum members understand where the Mods stand on interpretation of rules. The sooner that everyone understands the rules and it's intent, the better off everyone will be!
5) We need to have some kind of public "metric" or "counter", so people will know how many strikes they have and exactly what the punishment will be as a result of those strikes. The rules are clearly stated, but are the punishments/discipline well known to the members? That needs to be laid out very clearly so everybody knows exactly what will happen to them, should they get out of line. Perhaps we could start a "3 strikes, you are out" counter? Or maybe 4. Perhaps we could put a B-17 or Lancaster symbol underneath everyone's avatar. One violation, you would be one engine out, two violations, two engines out, etc. When you get to 4, you have lost all of your engines and you are going to be banned from the website as a enemy held POW. Thus, you can't post any more. Sound silly? Well, it's no more silly than the rank system we use, based on number of posts. It's just a thought.
6) There needs to be some way to prevent previously banned members from coming back so we don't have another MigAce/Wixlova/HGUSCU/Flyingheritage multiple personality come back. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution for this. You can ban individual usernames and I.P.'s, but there are easy work-arounds to this as I alluded to in my other post. So, you can't prevent someone from coming back here permanently. I don't know what to do for this, other than perhaps have individual forum members notify the Mods when they suspect a "double identity" or "account spoofing". Because written English is so personalized and stylized it is fairly easy to spot someone's "personality" through postings. If someone posts a lot, their new identity will eventually be figured out. It they post infrequently, it is much more difficult to tell, especially if they don't join in the discussions. If that's the case, then it has had the same effect as the banning - to minimize their disruption in the forum.
7) There needs to be a lot better "housekeeping" on putting threads in appropriate forums - NO EXCEPTIONS! Putting something about modern aircraft in the WIX Hangar doesn't cut it. Putting information about a sale on memory cards in the WIX Hangar doesn't cut it. I could go on and on about many people, including Mods, starting threads in the wrong forum. This needs to be HEAVILY enforced. Mods need to be moving threads each and every day, all of the time. I don't know why there is such a stigma attached to moving threads to the appropriate forums. We have, what, some 17 different sub-forums? Why not use them? Mods and individual posters need to get over their sensitive feelings getting hurt by moving them. Get over it already! On one internet forum I frequent, there are an average of 10 to 15 threads a day that are moved by Mods into the correct forums. This needs to happen here by our new Mods. If they aren't going to do this, then we need to get rid of the other 16 forums and have one gigantic "free-for-all" forum where everything is discussed. Would all of you prefer that instead? Think how much more time we will waste, wading through all of the point-less and non-warbird related crap. This HAS to change.
My two cents.
1) We need anonymous Mods to prevent arguments and personal attacks against them, and to "empower the Mods to enforce the rules". When the Mods' real names or identities are used, it becomes a little too personal for them to start making those hard judgments and calls against their friends, and acquaintances on this forum. Having anonymity allows Mods to do their job without fear of retribution or reprisal.
2) All of the rules need to be enforced here. They are not. There has been a long history of selective compliance based on a number of factors. The rules should be applied equally, fairly and without bias, to all members regardless of anything else. If that's not the case or the intent of Scott, then he needs to rewrite the rules.
3) There needs to be swift justice applied to the violators of the rules. When someone throws a hand-grenade in a post and a Mod doesn't do anything, it will only embolden some members to continue the poor pattern of behavior to "press the limits". I thought JDK did a fantastic job of stopping a lot of threads before they spiralled out of control. We need more of that kind of constant monitoring. Unfortunately, that's just par for the course and there is no way around that since this is a public forum. Like it or not, we will have some dumb-asses post here from time to time.
4) Violators need to know exactly what they did wrong and be warned about it. There is nothing more irritating than doing something, perhaps innocently, or not being that knowledgeable about the interpretation of the rules and not knowing what your offending action was. Simply deleting somebody's response or thread, is not going to cut it. Mods need to communicate with the offender, whether it be publicly or via PM. I propose they do it publicly, in red ink, like JDK did, so we will know the words are coming from a Mod. Also, when a public warning is issued, the whole forum learns about others' mistakes and helps prevent them from doing the same thing in the future. Knowing the ramifications of "cause/effect" or "violation/discipline" will greatly help forum members understand where the Mods stand on interpretation of rules. The sooner that everyone understands the rules and it's intent, the better off everyone will be!
5) We need to have some kind of public "metric" or "counter", so people will know how many strikes they have and exactly what the punishment will be as a result of those strikes. The rules are clearly stated, but are the punishments/discipline well known to the members? That needs to be laid out very clearly so everybody knows exactly what will happen to them, should they get out of line. Perhaps we could start a "3 strikes, you are out" counter? Or maybe 4. Perhaps we could put a B-17 or Lancaster symbol underneath everyone's avatar. One violation, you would be one engine out, two violations, two engines out, etc. When you get to 4, you have lost all of your engines and you are going to be banned from the website as a enemy held POW. Thus, you can't post any more. Sound silly? Well, it's no more silly than the rank system we use, based on number of posts. It's just a thought.
6) There needs to be some way to prevent previously banned members from coming back so we don't have another MigAce/Wixlova/HGUSCU/Flyingheritage multiple personality come back. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution for this. You can ban individual usernames and I.P.'s, but there are easy work-arounds to this as I alluded to in my other post. So, you can't prevent someone from coming back here permanently. I don't know what to do for this, other than perhaps have individual forum members notify the Mods when they suspect a "double identity" or "account spoofing". Because written English is so personalized and stylized it is fairly easy to spot someone's "personality" through postings. If someone posts a lot, their new identity will eventually be figured out. It they post infrequently, it is much more difficult to tell, especially if they don't join in the discussions. If that's the case, then it has had the same effect as the banning - to minimize their disruption in the forum.
7) There needs to be a lot better "housekeeping" on putting threads in appropriate forums - NO EXCEPTIONS! Putting something about modern aircraft in the WIX Hangar doesn't cut it. Putting information about a sale on memory cards in the WIX Hangar doesn't cut it. I could go on and on about many people, including Mods, starting threads in the wrong forum. This needs to be HEAVILY enforced. Mods need to be moving threads each and every day, all of the time. I don't know why there is such a stigma attached to moving threads to the appropriate forums. We have, what, some 17 different sub-forums? Why not use them? Mods and individual posters need to get over their sensitive feelings getting hurt by moving them. Get over it already! On one internet forum I frequent, there are an average of 10 to 15 threads a day that are moved by Mods into the correct forums. This needs to happen here by our new Mods. If they aren't going to do this, then we need to get rid of the other 16 forums and have one gigantic "free-for-all" forum where everything is discussed. Would all of you prefer that instead? Think how much more time we will waste, wading through all of the point-less and non-warbird related crap. This HAS to change.
My two cents.
Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:00 am
Some good comments. Thanks.
Mudge, quite right. But as I said at the beginning, this is just a testing the water off my own bat. Scott's of course entitled to make whatever decisions he likes or none - however part of the problem with the forum (and the web in general) is that some people with worthwhile input to make just get tired of shouting over those with nothing much to say - who say it endlessly. We have lost good contributors due to a few noisy asinine ones. A poll isn't the be-all, but it's a different cut and doesn't tip the balance to the squeaky-wheels.
Of the 106 for moderation at this point, we've heard a few comments. The five who voted 'against' not only don't seem to want moderating on the forum, they don't seem to want to say why not.
C'mon, don't be shy...
Mudge, quite right. But as I said at the beginning, this is just a testing the water off my own bat. Scott's of course entitled to make whatever decisions he likes or none - however part of the problem with the forum (and the web in general) is that some people with worthwhile input to make just get tired of shouting over those with nothing much to say - who say it endlessly. We have lost good contributors due to a few noisy asinine ones. A poll isn't the be-all, but it's a different cut and doesn't tip the balance to the squeaky-wheels.
Of the 106 for moderation at this point, we've heard a few comments. The five who voted 'against' not only don't seem to want moderating on the forum, they don't seem to want to say why not.
C'mon, don't be shy...
Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:24 am
Of course you need moderators, but it is a pretty thankless task.
One of the problems is the blurring between the wearing of two hats.
Incisive and extremely knowledgeable and well articulated postings are entertaining and educational but sometimes do not sit well with the moderation mode.
Posting in red font goes some way to differentiate, but I wonder if all moderation posts should best be posted collectively under a single Moderator title and avatar.
Just a thought.
PeterA
One of the problems is the blurring between the wearing of two hats.
Incisive and extremely knowledgeable and well articulated postings are entertaining and educational but sometimes do not sit well with the moderation mode.
Posting in red font goes some way to differentiate, but I wonder if all moderation posts should best be posted collectively under a single Moderator title and avatar.
Just a thought.
PeterA
Last edited by PeterA on Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:27 am
For those that aren't aware, PeterA was a (IMHO very good) moderator on the Key Historic forum for some time.
Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:13 am
.
Its good to see the majority of us support Moderation, what we need to do more is support the Moderators, and the enforcement of rules, not sit back while they are attacked, and certainly not to constantly support those who have broken the rules or been banned outright.
(That doesnt mean people need to walk away from friendships, but they do need to respect the decisions of Scott and the Mods, and respect the rules).
I dont support peer judgements and votes to keep someone or not, that will simply be a popularity poll and will lead to charges that double standards exist, the rules are already simple, The Moderators warn people they are repeat offenders, and Scott Bans people for gross or constant breaking of the rules.
I support an anonomous Mod ID so members dont try and hold individual Mods responsible for their punishment, and run hate campaigns to run them out of town.
I dont support trials and debates over the Mods rulings, I dont think anyone has "ever" been banned or castigated for obeying the rules, usually there is at least "smoke" if not outright "fire" that rules are being broken or offensive behaviour undertaken by the time the Mods act, or Scott resorts to a Ban..
This is not a democracy, its not a territory or State of the Union, freedom of speech, the constitution and bill of rights have no role in being argued or demanded in here, (by the way its physically a webspace on the internet, interconnecting people internationally across all borders and we all need to be tolerant of others no matter where they are posting from) - the only person with any rights here is the person who pays the bills - Scott.
It is simply Scotts virtual and online "House", and we are his guests, we need to be polite to him and other guests in his "house", to abide by HIS rules, or close the door quietly as we leave.
Scott appoints Mods as "HIS" representatives, we need to show them the same respect Scott himself is entitled to, and leave defending our actions in PM's and directly to Scott if we feel we have been hard done by.
But frankly I consider its simpler to take a dressing down by a Mod on the chin and consider that your behaviour or actions could be improved.
For those who do end up banned, there are other forums, go and enjoy those instead.
Or try to apologise to Scott directly via email, and negotiate with him to be let back inside his "House".
But certainly stop throwing stones at the windows to disrupt those still inside, seeking a coup or member revolt via friends and proxy's to lobby and support your return.
We dont need rating cards of how many strikes someone has, its not that complicated - obey the rules your in, break the rules your at risk of being told to leave.
Yes we have a few posts on modern warbirds, U-tube links, jokes, etc that might not be warbird topics and could be better placed in other sections, but as long as these are not regular and repeat attempts by someone to disrupt the thread flow (and that person should be warned to stop) the rest are just threads that you skip over as being of interest or not, the problems at Wix are not related to the odd mis-placed topic, lets not burden the Mods with such administrative obligations unless it really gets out of hand, and in that case, deal the problem at the source, - the member responsible.
I still support requiring members to post under their own name. I think people need to be "man enough" to post under their own names, and "own their behaviour" and the posts they make here, even despite the risk that might choke off a few "hot scoops".
The recent suggestion it might lead to google searches finding comments out of context and that a comment made in a real name might lead to litigation would only be likely if someone posted something libelous or offensive, and that shouldnt happen if the rules are obeyed, and they paid more attention to what they type before hitting the "submit" button.
Regardless of all that, We all need to lift the bar on behaviour, comply with and support the rules, and support the Mods in not accepting bad behaviour.
Welcome back to the game James
regards
Mark Pilkington
Its good to see the majority of us support Moderation, what we need to do more is support the Moderators, and the enforcement of rules, not sit back while they are attacked, and certainly not to constantly support those who have broken the rules or been banned outright.
(That doesnt mean people need to walk away from friendships, but they do need to respect the decisions of Scott and the Mods, and respect the rules).
I dont support peer judgements and votes to keep someone or not, that will simply be a popularity poll and will lead to charges that double standards exist, the rules are already simple, The Moderators warn people they are repeat offenders, and Scott Bans people for gross or constant breaking of the rules.
I support an anonomous Mod ID so members dont try and hold individual Mods responsible for their punishment, and run hate campaigns to run them out of town.
I dont support trials and debates over the Mods rulings, I dont think anyone has "ever" been banned or castigated for obeying the rules, usually there is at least "smoke" if not outright "fire" that rules are being broken or offensive behaviour undertaken by the time the Mods act, or Scott resorts to a Ban..
This is not a democracy, its not a territory or State of the Union, freedom of speech, the constitution and bill of rights have no role in being argued or demanded in here, (by the way its physically a webspace on the internet, interconnecting people internationally across all borders and we all need to be tolerant of others no matter where they are posting from) - the only person with any rights here is the person who pays the bills - Scott.
It is simply Scotts virtual and online "House", and we are his guests, we need to be polite to him and other guests in his "house", to abide by HIS rules, or close the door quietly as we leave.
Scott appoints Mods as "HIS" representatives, we need to show them the same respect Scott himself is entitled to, and leave defending our actions in PM's and directly to Scott if we feel we have been hard done by.
But frankly I consider its simpler to take a dressing down by a Mod on the chin and consider that your behaviour or actions could be improved.
For those who do end up banned, there are other forums, go and enjoy those instead.
Or try to apologise to Scott directly via email, and negotiate with him to be let back inside his "House".
But certainly stop throwing stones at the windows to disrupt those still inside, seeking a coup or member revolt via friends and proxy's to lobby and support your return.
We dont need rating cards of how many strikes someone has, its not that complicated - obey the rules your in, break the rules your at risk of being told to leave.
Yes we have a few posts on modern warbirds, U-tube links, jokes, etc that might not be warbird topics and could be better placed in other sections, but as long as these are not regular and repeat attempts by someone to disrupt the thread flow (and that person should be warned to stop) the rest are just threads that you skip over as being of interest or not, the problems at Wix are not related to the odd mis-placed topic, lets not burden the Mods with such administrative obligations unless it really gets out of hand, and in that case, deal the problem at the source, - the member responsible.
I still support requiring members to post under their own name. I think people need to be "man enough" to post under their own names, and "own their behaviour" and the posts they make here, even despite the risk that might choke off a few "hot scoops".
The recent suggestion it might lead to google searches finding comments out of context and that a comment made in a real name might lead to litigation would only be likely if someone posted something libelous or offensive, and that shouldnt happen if the rules are obeyed, and they paid more attention to what they type before hitting the "submit" button.
Regardless of all that, We all need to lift the bar on behaviour, comply with and support the rules, and support the Mods in not accepting bad behaviour.
Welcome back to the game James
regards
Mark Pilkington
Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:28 am
I have seen too many boards and groups that have degenerated into meaingless ad hominem attacks so moderation is good; in moderation.
One thing I really cannot stand is that you cannot even post a title like To Hell and Back or darn the Defiant without editing. I can understand if you don't want people spouting invective but to censor published titles or quotes is going too far.
One thing I really cannot stand is that you cannot even post a title like To Hell and Back or darn the Defiant without editing. I can understand if you don't want people spouting invective but to censor published titles or quotes is going too far.
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:34 am
Mark_Pilkington wrote:We don’t need rating cards of how many strikes someone has, it’s not that complicated - obey the rules your in, break the rules your at risk of being told to leave.
First, I am glad to see people offering options to help solve some of the issues that are happening on WIX.
Clearly, it is complicated , heated debates appear to occur quite often.
warbird1 wrote:5) We need to have some kind of public "metric" or "counter", so people will know how many strikes they have and exactly what the punishment will be as a result of those strikes. The rules are clearly stated, but are the punishments/discipline well known to the members? That needs to be laid out very clearly so everybody knows exactly what will happen to them, should they get out of line. Perhaps we could start a "3 strikes, you are out" counter? Or maybe 4. Perhaps we could put a B-17 or Lancaster symbol underneath everyone's avatar. One violation, you would be one engine out, two violations, two engines out, etc. When you get to 4, you have lost all of your engines and you are going to be banned from the website as a enemy held POW. Thus, you can't post any more. Sound silly? Well, it's no more silly than the rank system we use, based on number of posts. It's just a thought.
I think this has merit. It is a good idea. And at the least attempts to address the problems that we have.
Most of this discussion the WIX members are having is really futile, unless Scott takes steps to implement them.
Still, it is good to see both Mark and Warbird1 offer options to resolve issues that have happened.
I look forward to seeing what action, if any happens as a result of this poll/thread.
Regards,
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:06 am
,
Actually I dont think its that complicated at all.
Here are the Wix rules
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5
Here are the rules from KeyPublishing or FlyPast forums
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27963
Despite a vastly different approach to presenting the rules, they are effectively the same in terms of unacceptable behaviour and the consequences.
(In fact Scott's rules are the more specific as to what isnt permitted, and therefore easier to measure against)
I visit and participate in both forums to a similar level, as do a number of others that visit here.
From my own observations the rule violations at KP or issues of bad behaviour are perhaps a 1/20th or less of those that occur at Wix, and correspondingly so are the Mod interventions and Bans, KP doesnt need a 3 strikes your out counter, peer trials, or justification of Mod or Webmaster decisions, and I really dont see the need for them here either.
The obvious difference between the two sites is not the intent of the rules, or the Mods, or the firm banning of members when required, but simply is some peoples behaviour here on Wix, and the resultant need to Moderate or Ban in response.
It "really is" very simple, obey and support Scott's rules above, and the Mod's enforcement of them, and Wix will roll on as well as KP and other sites do, for all our use and enjoyment - whats so hard about that?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Actually I dont think its that complicated at all.
Here are the Wix rules
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5
Here are the rules from KeyPublishing or FlyPast forums
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27963
Despite a vastly different approach to presenting the rules, they are effectively the same in terms of unacceptable behaviour and the consequences.
(In fact Scott's rules are the more specific as to what isnt permitted, and therefore easier to measure against)
I visit and participate in both forums to a similar level, as do a number of others that visit here.
From my own observations the rule violations at KP or issues of bad behaviour are perhaps a 1/20th or less of those that occur at Wix, and correspondingly so are the Mod interventions and Bans, KP doesnt need a 3 strikes your out counter, peer trials, or justification of Mod or Webmaster decisions, and I really dont see the need for them here either.
The obvious difference between the two sites is not the intent of the rules, or the Mods, or the firm banning of members when required, but simply is some peoples behaviour here on Wix, and the resultant need to Moderate or Ban in response.
It "really is" very simple, obey and support Scott's rules above, and the Mod's enforcement of them, and Wix will roll on as well as KP and other sites do, for all our use and enjoyment - whats so hard about that?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.