Australian Politics Forum - Avoiding Climate Extremism

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #270 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 2:25pm

Thank you for the apology longy, I appreciate you admitting your error, and offering an apology so promptly.
There is, FD, myself, Locutius, and Muso, who try and keep things reasonably civil around here, so as you now know it was not FD, or myself, if you are still concerned about it, because frankly I am unaware of when you were banned, or why, then that means you could ask Muso, or Locutius, as they are both very straightforward, approachable people who you can send a PM to and ask which of them may have imposed the 24 hr ban, and for what reason.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #271 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:02pm

Quote:

There have been some pretty general complaints about the standard of moderation of late by quite a number of posters - generally the non-existance of moderation. So since you are a moderator kindly inform us of what the rules are. I agree thjat misquoting someone is bad, but so is spamming by maqqa and imcrookofit and vitrtually everything deathridesahorse writes. but form the mods the response has been as resounding SILENCE. I got banned for even asking the mods to do something by some moderator unknown and apparently unseen and unheardof.

this is a good place and could be a great place but it is under threat of late and needs some actual real moderation. I cant recall seeing much in the way of moderation that isnt anythign more than protecting the moderator. Feel free to prove me wrong. in fact PLEASE prove me wrong.

-Longy

I have had occasion to privately PM some members, and ask them to behave a bit more reasonably, and for the most part they appreciate the fact that I raise the issue personally with them, but while that course sometimes sees a temporary improvement, often people's natural "style" tends to reassert itself, and they return to their previous form.

The thing is that while their behaviour can be very annoying, to actually stop them would require that they be banned, and unless they are grossly offensive, or blatantly breaking the rules, we try to not ban people for just being annoying baskets, wherever possible.

Now the rules are pretty easy to follow here, and they are enforced with a pretty common sense approach, where minor infractions are not made a big deal out of, but more extreme cases are dealt with.
The most obvious example of this is in regard to personal criticism, because with the types of exchanges we have here, if we got too precious about it, we would have to ban about 90% of the posters, and I would probably have to ban myself first of all of them, lol, but using a little common sense, it is not too hard to differentiate between a bit of cheeky tit for tat banter, and violently aggressive and offensive flaming, which we strongly try and discourage.

We do not ever allow any member to abuse the rights of privacy of other members, and this is one rule where no laxness can be shown, because people have the right to expect their privacy to be respected, and any who do not respect that fact would be dealt with immediately.

We also do not allow people to post, or link to pornographic material, and likewise we also strongly discourage foul language, and there is a swear word filter built into the site, to stop the use of bad language.
Obviously we see some attempts to circumvent that filter, but unless the infraction is severe, or frequently repeated, a warning would be the most likely outcome for using mild bad language, but extreme behaviour could see a ban imposed.
There is also a desire to discourage the use of offensive, racist language, and the use of such language intending to be insulting and derogatory is not allowed, and people are encouraged to use respectful, rather than distasteful terminology when discussing racial issues.

That is pretty much it, with the understood addition of basic internet etiquette, like No Spamming, or linking to commercial sites for profit, also referencing material copied from other sites is encouraged as a courtesy thing, basic common sense stuff really.

At the end of the day I think we all can appreciate that political issues can get quite strong views stirred up, and we must try and maintain as much civility and proper debate and behaviour as we reasonably can.
I hope that helps you longy, but here is the link to the actual forum rules, as the above is my "interpretation", of those rules.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #272 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:06pm

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

Quote:

There have been some pretty general complaints about the standard of moderation of late by quite a number of posters - generally the non-existance of moderation. So since you are a moderator kindly inform us of what the rules are. I agree thjat misquoting someone is bad, but so is spamming by maqqa and imcrookofit and vitrtually everything deathridesahorse writes. but form the mods the response has been as resounding SILENCE. I got banned for even asking the mods to do something by some moderator unknown and apparently unseen and unheardof.

this is a good place and could be a great place but it is under threat of late and needs some actual real moderation. I cant recall seeing much in the way of moderation that isnt anythign more than protecting the moderator. Feel free to prove me wrong. in fact PLEASE prove me wrong.

-Longy

I have had occasion to privately PM some members, and ask them to behave a bit more reasonably, and for the most part they appreciate the fact that I raise the issue personally with them, but while that course sometimes sees a temporary improvement, often people's natural "style" tends to reassert itself, and they return to their previous form.

The thing is that while their behaviour can be very annoying, to actually stop them would require that they be banned, and unless they are grossly offensive, or blatantly breaking the rules, we try to not ban people for just being annoying baskets, wherever possible.

Now the rules are pretty easy to follow here, and they are enforced with a pretty common sense approach, where minor infractions are not made a big deal out of, but more extreme cases are dealt with.
The most obvious example of this is in regard to personal criticism, because with the types of exchanges we have here, if we got too precious about it, we would have to ban about 90% of the posters, and I would probably have to ban myself first of all of them, lol, but using a little common sense, it is not too hard to differentiate between a bit of cheeky tit for tat banter, and violently aggressive and offensive flaming, which we strongly try and discourage.

We do not ever allow any member to abuse the rights of privacy of other members, and this is one rule where no laxness can be shown, because people have the right to expect their privacy to be respected, and any who do not respect that fact would be dealt with immediately.

We also do not allow people to post, or link to pornographic material, and likewise we also strongly discourage foul language, and there is a swear word filter built into the site, to stop the use of bad language.
Obviously we see some attempts to circumvent that filter, but unless the infraction is severe, or frequently repeated, a warning would be the most likely outcome for using mild bad language, but extreme behaviour could see a ban imposed.
There is also a desire to discourage the use of offensive, racist language, and the use of such language intending to be insulting and derogatory is not allowed, and people are encouraged to use respectful, rather than distasteful terminology when discussing racial issues.

That is pretty much it, with the understood addition of basic internet etiquette, like No Spamming, or linking to commercial sites for profit, also referencing material copied from other sites is encouraged as a courtesy thing, basic common sense stuff really.

At the end of the day I think we all can appreciate that political issues can get quite strong views stirred up, and we must try and maintain as much civility and proper debate and behaviour as we reasonably can.
I hope that helps you longy, but here is the link to the actual forum rules, as the above is my "interpretation", of those rules.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

Thanks for that. I would hope that being banned would also result in an email or message explaining the reason. Alas, that is not forthcoming.

How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity.

Comments?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #273 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:09pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

Quote:

There have been some pretty general complaints about the standard of moderation of late by quite a number of posters - generally the non-existance of moderation. So since you are a moderator kindly inform us of what the rules are. I agree thjat misquoting someone is bad, but so is spamming by maqqa and imcrookofit and vitrtually everything deathridesahorse writes. but form the mods the response has been as resounding SILENCE. I got banned for even asking the mods to do something by some moderator unknown and apparently unseen and unheardof.

this is a good place and could be a great place but it is under threat of late and needs some actual real moderation. I cant recall seeing much in the way of moderation that isnt anythign more than protecting the moderator. Feel free to prove me wrong. in fact PLEASE prove me wrong.

-Longy

I have had occasion to privately PM some members, and ask them to behave a bit more reasonably, and for the most part they appreciate the fact that I raise the issue personally with them, but while that course sometimes sees a temporary improvement, often people's natural "style" tends to reassert itself, and they return to their previous form.

The thing is that while their behaviour can be very annoying, to actually stop them would require that they be banned, and unless they are grossly offensive, or blatantly breaking the rules, we try to not ban people for just being annoying baskets, wherever possible.

Now the rules are pretty easy to follow here, and they are enforced with a pretty common sense approach, where minor infractions are not made a big deal out of, but more extreme cases are dealt with.
The most obvious example of this is in regard to personal criticism, because with the types of exchanges we have here, if we got too precious about it, we would have to ban about 90% of the posters, and I would probably have to ban myself first of all of them, lol, but using a little common sense, it is not too hard to differentiate between a bit of cheeky tit for tat banter, and violently aggressive and offensive flaming, which we strongly try and discourage.

We do not ever allow any member to abuse the rights of privacy of other members, and this is one rule where no laxness can be shown, because people have the right to expect their privacy to be respected, and any who do not respect that fact would be dealt with immediately.

We also do not allow people to post, or link to pornographic material, and likewise we also strongly discourage foul language, and there is a swear word filter built into the site, to stop the use of bad language.
Obviously we see some attempts to circumvent that filter, but unless the infraction is severe, or frequently repeated, a warning would be the most likely outcome for using mild bad language, but extreme behaviour could see a ban imposed.
There is also a desire to discourage the use of offensive, racist language, and the use of such language intending to be insulting and derogatory is not allowed, and people are encouraged to use respectful, rather than distasteful terminology when discussing racial issues.

That is pretty much it, with the understood addition of basic internet etiquette, like No Spamming, or linking to commercial sites for profit, also referencing material copied from other sites is encouraged as a courtesy thing, basic common sense stuff really.

At the end of the day I think we all can appreciate that political issues can get quite strong views stirred up, and we must try and maintain as much civility and proper debate and behaviour as we reasonably can.
I hope that helps you longy, but here is the link to the actual forum rules, as the above is my "interpretation", of those rules.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

Thanks for that. I would hope that being banned would also result in an email or message explaining the reason. Alas, that is not forthcoming.

How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity.

Comments?

You may call DRAH posts idiotic, many here would call your posts idiotic, would you like the same rules applied to you???

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism Reply #274 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:10pm oh and mozza.... in the spirit of detente would you care to comment on my OP without the usual 'leaping to the barricades'? you might find the differences in position of most posters isnt that far if we actually allowed people to hold positions not at either end of the spectrum.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #275 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:15pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

Quote:

There have been some pretty general complaints about the standard of moderation of late by quite a number of posters - generally the non-existance of moderation. So since you are a moderator kindly inform us of what the rules are. I agree thjat misquoting someone is bad, but so is spamming by maqqa and imcrookofit and vitrtually everything deathridesahorse writes. but form the mods the response has been as resounding SILENCE. I got banned for even asking the mods to do something by some moderator unknown and apparently unseen and unheardof.

this is a good place and could be a great place but it is under threat of late and needs some actual real moderation. I cant recall seeing much in the way of moderation that isnt anythign more than protecting the moderator. Feel free to prove me wrong. in fact PLEASE prove me wrong.

-Longy

I have had occasion to privately PM some members, and ask them to behave a bit more reasonably, and for the most part they appreciate the fact that I raise the issue personally with them, but while that course sometimes sees a temporary improvement, often people's natural "style" tends to reassert itself, and they return to their previous form.

The thing is that while their behaviour can be very annoying, to actually stop them would require that they be banned, and unless they are grossly offensive, or blatantly breaking the rules, we try to not ban people for just being annoying baskets, wherever possible.

Now the rules are pretty easy to follow here, and they are enforced with a pretty common sense approach, where minor infractions are not made a big deal out of, but more extreme cases are dealt with.
The most obvious example of this is in regard to personal criticism, because with the types of exchanges we have here, if we got too precious about it, we would have to ban about 90% of the posters, and I would probably have to ban myself first of all of them, lol, but using a little common sense, it is not too hard to differentiate between a bit of cheeky tit for tat banter, and violently aggressive and offensive flaming, which we strongly try and discourage.

We do not ever allow any member to abuse the rights of privacy of other members, and this is one rule where no laxness can be shown, because people have the right to expect their privacy to be respected, and any who do not respect that fact would be dealt with immediately.

We also do not allow people to post, or link to pornographic material, and likewise we also strongly discourage foul language, and there is a swear word filter built into the site, to stop the use of bad language.
Obviously we see some attempts to circumvent that filter, but unless the infraction is severe, or frequently repeated, a warning would be the most likely outcome for using mild bad language, but extreme behaviour could see a ban imposed.
There is also a desire to discourage the use of offensive, racist language, and the use of such language intending to be insulting and derogatory is not allowed, and people are encouraged to use respectful, rather than distasteful terminology when discussing racial issues.

That is pretty much it, with the understood addition of basic internet etiquette, like No Spamming, or linking to commercial sites for profit, also referencing material copied from other sites is encouraged as a courtesy thing, basic common sense stuff really.

At the end of the day I think we all can appreciate that political issues can get quite strong views stirred up, and we must try and maintain as much civility and proper debate and behaviour as we reasonably can.
I hope that helps you longy, but here is the link to the actual forum rules, as the above is my "interpretation", of those rules.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

Thanks for that. I would hope that being banned would also result in an email or message explaining the reason. Alas, that is not forthcoming.

How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity.

Comments?

You may call DRAH posts idiotic, many here would call your posts idiotic, would you like the same rules applied to you???

whilst it would be clearly very difficult to explain the difference to someone as intellectually challenged as you I woudl suggest you look at the last 50 posts from drah and see how many of them even relate peripherally to the topic. Im not calling for the dopes like toenail, imfullofit, green-goober or even your own brain-dead self to be banned. Just the people whose presence is purely to impede the discussion of others. drah fits that bill perfectly. imfullofit and maqqa certinaly need reining in.

I'm completely sure none of that made any sense to you.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #276 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:18pm

"How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity."

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

I also note your inclusion of maqqa as a spammer.

Back to top

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #277 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:19pm

Quote:

whilst it would be clearly very difficult to explain the difference to someone as intellectually challenged as you I woudl suggest you look at the last 50 posts from drah and see how many of them even relate peripherally to the topic. Im not calling for the dopes like toenail, imfullofit, green-goober or even your own brain-dead self to be banned. Just the people whose presence is purely to impede the discussion of others. drah fits that bill perfectly. imfullofit and maqqa certinaly need reining in.

I'm completely sure none of that made any sense to you.

If I were you I'd shut up while you can, if Mozz played by the rules to a T the likes of you who abuse posters in every post you make would have been banned months ago.
When you grow up from your childish rants you just might realise that your opinion is just that, your opinion, I'd ban you any day before DRAH.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #278 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:21pm

I did attempt to enforce something like that a while ago longy, where I moved silly "political spam-like" threads, from members to the extremism board, but the fact was that I just did not have the time to review all the threads, and also making the judgement of what was reasonable, and what wasn't, would have been too subjective, and claims of unfair bias would have been raised, because while deathrides, and imcrook do start some odd threads, maqqa/ mellie, et al, outnumbered them dramatically, and as I have strongly differing views to these people, they may have felt that relegating their nonsense to the extremism board was just a case of me trying to manipulate views to reflect my personal political biases.

I do regret that I do not have enough time to rationalise the "repeat" threads from these prolific thread starters, but I will try to do so when or if I get the time, so we do not have a new, I hate the NBN thread every day, but rather have new threads appended onto threads already existing, on the same topic.

Also, as Alevine so kindly pointed out, The Australian will be charging for use of it's online material now, so that alone should see maqqa stop just pasting biased commentary from that rag, as multiple new threads every day.

The idead of limiting how many new threads a poster could start each week, or even day, could be an issue worth discussing in the Feedback Board, because I agree with you that this idea appears to have some merit.

Hopefully we can continue this discussion in that board.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #279 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:24pm

Please delete wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

"How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity."

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

I also note your inclusion of maqqa as a spammer.

even if the software cant do it I think it shoudl be part of the forum rules and subject to 24hour ban for exceeding it. it would not take long for everyone to get used to it. imagine boards without dozens of maqqa or imcrookonit threads?

what u think?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #280 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:25pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

whilst it would be clearly very difficult to explain the difference to someone as intellectually challenged as you I woudl suggest you look at the last 50 posts from drah and see how many of them even relate peripherally to the topic. Im not calling for the dopes like toenail, imfullofit, green-goober or even your own brain-dead self to be banned. Just the people whose presence is purely to impede the discussion of others. drah fits that bill perfectly. imfullofit and maqqa certinaly need reining in.

I'm completely sure none of that made any sense to you.

If I were you I'd shut up while you can, if Mozz played by the rules to a T the likes of you who abuse posters in every post you make would have been banned months ago.
When you grow up from your childish rants you just might realise that your opinion is just that, your opinion, I'd ban you any day before DRAH.

we could always look for a posts where you didnt abuse someone. that could be difficult...

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #281 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:27pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

whilst it would be clearly very difficult to explain the difference to someone as intellectually challenged as you I woudl suggest you look at the last 50 posts from drah and see how many of them even relate peripherally to the topic. Im not calling for the dopes like toenail, imfullofit, green-goober or even your own brain-dead self to be banned. Just the people whose presence is purely to impede the discussion of others. drah fits that bill perfectly. imfullofit and maqqa certinaly need reining in.

I'm completely sure none of that made any sense to you.

If I were you I'd shut up while you can, if Mozz played by the rules to a T the likes of you who abuse posters in every post you make would have been banned months ago.
When you grow up from your childish rants you just might realise that your opinion is just that, your opinion, I'd ban you any day before DRAH.

we could always look for a posts where you didnt abuse someone. that could be difficult...

That would be easy, you've just c@p it. Pity I cant say the same thing about you.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #282 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:24pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

"How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity."

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

I also note your inclusion of maqqa as a spammer.

even if the software cant do it I think it shoudl be part of the forum rules and subject to 24hour ban for exceeding it. it would not take long for everyone to get used to it. imagine boards without dozens of maqqa or imcrookonit threads?

what u think?

I have suggested it several times before.

For mine, I would ration replies as well ... that would make people think more carefully before crapping on.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #283 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:28pm

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

I did attempt to enforce something like that a while ago longy, where I moved silly "political spam-like" threads, from members to the extremism board, but the fact was that I just did not have the time to review all the threads, and also making the judgement of what was reasonable, and what wasn't, would have been too subjective, and claims of unfair bias would have been raised, because while deathrides, and imcrook do start some odd threads, maqqa/ mellie, et al, outnumbered them dramatically, and as I have strongly differing views to these people, they may have felt that relegating their nonsense to the extremism board was just a case of me trying to manipulate views to reflect my personal political biases.

I do regret that I do not have enough time to rationalise the "repeat" threads from these prolific thread starters, but I will try to do so when or if I get the time, so we do not have a new, I hate the NBN thread every day, but rather have new threads appended onto threads already existing, on the same topic.

Also, as Alevine so kindly pointed out, The Australian will be charging for use of it's online material now, so that alone should see maqqa stop just pasting biased commentary from that rag, as multiple new threads every day.

The idead of limiting how many new threads a poster could start each week, or even day, could be an issue worth discussing in the Feedback Board, because I agree with you that this idea appears to have some merit.

Hopefully we can continue this discussion in that board.

but you could enforce a 5 thread per week rule quite easily. after all there are only a few people in that group so informing them an enforcing it woudlnt be hard.

i cant wait to see how the Australian plans to charge people for cut and paste of their onlne material. how exactly do u enforce that and I very much doubt that they have legal right to do so.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Avoiding Climate Extremism
Reply #284 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:30pm

Please delete wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:24pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

"How about some limits on the number of new threads any member can create in a day or week? It is frustrating to find good discussions relegated to page 2 or 3 the very next day. That alone would eliminate much of the frustration of many members. and perhaps bans for sheer idiotic posts suchs as deathridesahorse's total inanity."

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

I also note your inclusion of maqqa as a spammer.

even if the software cant do it I think it shoudl be part of the forum rules and subject to 24hour ban for exceeding it. it would not take long for everyone to get used to it. imagine boards without dozens of maqqa or imcrookonit threads?

what u think?

I have suggested it several times before.

For mine, I would ration replies as well ... that would make people think more carefully before crapping on.

replies is a little more complex but there is some merit in it. if limiting someone to 40 replies per day worked it might stop some of the nonsense ofr deathrides but it still leaves him considerable scope for spamming nonsense.

But a worthwhile suggestion none-the-less.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged