Grievances

If we set up your happy solution we'd have each group defending it's own. The only difference is that you and your ilk could happily flame away at anyone who questioned you. It would just give the victory to whoever could post the most roast. That might work in your homogeneous forum but not here.

So take your social engineering elsewhere, we have all the stupid ideas we can afford.

 

"But they are suffering from a lack of member quality because of it. And I'm hardly the first person to point that out. "

No we aren't. The SCers aren't exactly paragons. There are far better people here, just posting and respecting others, than there are at the SC. It's a not a constructive place.

 

So take your social engineering elsewhere, we have all the stupid ideas we can afford.

Amen to that.

 

My comparison doesn't have to be completely analogous. I'm just illustrating a point.

At the SC (at least when Gundark was pretty much the only one in charge), there were a very very few rules. If you posted porn or something gross in a normal forum, he would edit it out, or move it to the porn forum. That's it. No banning.

But something else would happen too. Lots of the other members would yell at you because they were pissed that you did it. Most people there post from work, and they'll get in trouble if you're a tool that posts porn in a normal forum. They aren't making moral judgements about you, they just want you to stop.

And you know what? It works wonderfully. If enough people tell you you're an ass, you'll get the picture pretty quickly. That's why we don't seem to have any disgruntled members and we have far less "discipline" problems than the JC. Because when somebody is out of line, we call them on it immediately and we tell them we hate them.

That last part is a joke. Sort of.

 

I really think the net effect of loosening the rules here would be detrimental to the JC's family forum image. That's not a bad image to have.

 

And I think farraday has his "social engineering" thing backwards. This is the place that's attempting that, with the "JCC Reform" thread I mentioned earlier.

My idea is social deconstruction. Let the group decide. If they decide they don't like you, they'll gang up on you. That will solve each and every problem here.

Threads like "DO YUO LIKE TO EAT? I EAT A LOT! OMG!" are not a problem at the SC. They are a problem here. But having a mod lock them isn't the right way to take care of it. Just let your 80,000 people reply with "Die plz!" and that person won't make another thread like that.

If they make a poop thread and 80,000 people post in it and like it, then what's the problem?

 

My idea is social deconstruction. Let the group decide. If they decide they don't like you, they'll gang up on you. That will solve each and every problem here.

Mob rule is never the answer to any population problem. I think ignoring stupid people is more effective than brutal psychological warfare.

 

Your thinking is barbaric and overly cruel. You show a basic lack of respect for people. I can only see more posters like you here if we adopt SC rules. That will not happen while I am here.

 

Fine, then ignore them. We do that at the SC too. But there let the group decide that by not replying to their stupid topics. There's no need for Billy Bob to singlehandedly decide that for everyone.

 

Barbaric? I believe that in America we have a fine tradition of social sanctioning. That's why you have the right to be judged by a group of your peers, and not by a single mysterious all-powerful overlord. We elect our government, and when we don't like the people we don't vote for them again.

The group decides. Call it barbaric if you want to but it's how this country works, and it's how the natural world works, so I think I have a couple of Big Guys on my side of the argument.

 

The jury never stands up and verbally abuses the defendant.

 

No, they just send them to the electric chair.

 

So we're eliminating problem users here now?

We're letting the group decide who stay and goes, right?

I've seen more posted against you than for you in the last 2 pages, Bono, so if we institute your policy, I dare say you're first against the wall.

 

That's because my e-peeps aren't around right now. I doubt you could convince half of the supposed 80,000 users to obliterate me.

 

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the way the US Government works, BUT mob rule was countered specifically by the US Constitution. You may have the right to be judged by your peers but they don't persecute you.

BTW...this is an international forum. US Laws don't apply here. Josh and Scott's rules apply here.

 

Only if the selected group., that the defendant and their lawyer(s) have agreed to, can determine based on rigid laws and precedent, that the defendant deserves it and lives in a state that allows it. The juries are always very restricted in what actions they can take and what evidence they can consider to reach that decision. Defendants also have the rights to appeals and a fair trial. Who is supposed to ensure that the 'jury' here would act fairly?


You are proposing we have no laws/rules. Hardly comparable.

 

I'm saying we already have a jury. It's this group of 80,000+ users everybody keeps on going on about.

If 40,001 people tell you to stop posting threads about how your dog is colored brown, then you'll probably decide to stop.

If Jimmy from Tucson, AZ hits his "lock" button and tells you to stop, you'll just make another "MY DOG = BROWN!!!" thread.

My way works everytime.

 

Edit: Nevermind. People are speaking much better than I tonight.

 

No it doesn't. You are discounting stubborn people who never learn. They will keep posting that thread, regardless of the system.

Being able to lock, edit and ban is as much a teacher as your mob rule.

 

I say keep banning them until they get the point.

 

Haven't any of you people ever watched a nature documentary? Think of the stereotypical bad-user as a sick lion or wolf. He tries to be a part of the lion pride or wolf-pack, but he brings his disease with him. He's rabid and tries to eat some of the prides cubs. You know what the other animals do? They run him off, if he's lucky, and kill him if he's not. They do what is necessary to solve the problem, and they do it for the good of the group.

No Super-Duper Lion comes flying in with a colored mane to destroy the rabid one.

Nature has made this type of behavior inherent in all kinds of social groups. It'll work here. You might have 20 people on your side, but I've got 4 billion years of evolution on my side.

 

"If 40,001 people tell you to stop posting threads about how your dog is colored brown..."

But you aren't suggesting the people just tell the one person to stop. You are suggesting they harass him until he leaves.

If that one person doesn't get the attention they are obviously craving by creating ridiculous thread, then they will most likely leave. Some don't. Bid deal. So the dumb threads they create will drop off the first page and be gone forever.

Now the mods, in the YJCC reform policies, have announced that if a person obviously is posting ridiculous threads with only the intention of having a thread on the first page, that person will be punished. If they don't get the clue, they are punished again until they are permanantly banned. It achieves the same end without having to publically harass, insult, and humiliate the person in the process.

 

We are nature evolved into a new system that does not follow Darwin's ideas on natural selection and survival of the fittest.

We give the weak a chance before dropping the ax, in short.

 

Haven't you ever heard of the Social Contract? Society exists as protection from human nature. We have laws and rules that were designed to protect us from the ambition and brutality of men in nature. I think you're reaching now.

 

I think publically harassing the person would drive the point home much more effectively than just silently banning them. That's why court cases in America are public record.

If you commit a crime, the media plasters your face all over every TV and newspaper.

Anybody ever hear the phrase "The Court of Public Opinion?"