RRC Archives

Well, let's have a vote shall we?

I voted no, even though I think it will be obvious to everyone when someone should be banned. Opening this kind of thing up for a vote leaves too much room for personality conflicts and/or predjudices to come into play.

Set up the guidelines of the board. Anyone in violation is out (after a fair chance to shape up). Perhaps you could solicit input from users on the guidelines? For instance, in my opinion, a user who requires constant/heavy moderation and who disregards requests to keep "it" to the Suck Forum should be warned that they are in violation and then if they persist, ban them. Therefore moderation should be clearly defined - either by you (Ray) or the people you have chosen to moderate - with input from users considered as well. I suspect this definition will need some time to evolve, though, and we should all speak up if we think the moderation is either too extreme or too lax. I wouldn't worry too much about how to decide who should be banned yet.

I guess that reminds me of UBG's sig:

"Democarcy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner".

Wes

yeah, maybe if everyone could agree on the rules, then banishment would be pretty fair. and maybe leave some room to change the rules if need be. like the constitution. we should start our own virtual country and declare independence.

Yea, but from what Horatio said the rules are pretty gay so they need to be changed. How should the rules be altered?

well, first what are the rules and regulations for moderation? i'm not so sure myself. i mean when i say dumb c*** or bitch tit's or f***** idiot, that's something i'd say in a real conversation to someone.

I agree. I already decided not to let language be an issue on here.

****

Right on Ray, some of us were born with potty mouths. And who ever stated in the past that is a reflection of one's education, is a load of horsepoop! I just had lunch with my boss who has MD,PHD behind her name & she cusses like a trucker!!